Sunday, May 29, 2005

Good Little Article

Linked thanks to the ol' VC: article on philanthropy and ideas.

One thing worth chewing over in these posts: what we have read that has influenced our thinking. I think the article rightly points out that left-leaning citizens cannot discuss why they feel the way they do.

So, in the interest of furthering discussion, a stew of things I read that made me who I am:

* John Steinbeck, Grapes of Wrath, Cannery Row, etc.
* George Orwell, 1984, Animal Farm, Essays, etc.
* Richard Feynman's assorted writings
* J.R.R. Tolkein... perhaps not formative of political ideas per se, but it lurks back there.

and then a bunch of stuff that was either: for fun, reading, but unrelated to constructing a worldview, or related to math and science, good, but also only indirectly linked to ideas about society.

I remember acting revolted to my brief exposure to Ayn Rand's writing, but I can think of nothing comparable that made me respond positively. So, I suppose my big question is: what would you give to a young critical thinker whose education you wanted to influence? What should we be reading? Where, oh where, are our ideas?

Party of Five Things

GG, whom I think I saw at one of the free breakfast sessions during finals, passes this on:

Now, on to the Caesar’s Bath meme. “List five things that people in your circle of friends or peer group are wild about, but you can’t really understand the fuss over.”

The tricky thing is that it says circle of friends or peer group, not society at large. Let's see what we can do regardless.

1. WordPerfect. This is like the linux of word processing programs. About 0.05 % of the population worships it and burns microsoft products in its honor twice a year, but the rest of the world finds it a completely counter-intuitive product. You basically have to know Sanskrit to drop a footnote. God forbid you try to paste somethign from the web. It copies everything including like HTML image codes. I once inserted pics of 18-year old nudes in a motion for summary judgment memo. Westlaw was having some issues that day.

2. Highlighters. Using multiple colors on paper was cool when I was 5. Even then it was only cool to break the crayons and not much more. Does Crayola still try to invent new colors btw? If so they should get into highlighting. A new "Fuschia" highlighter would sell like hotcakes at law school bookstores nation-wide. Actually, it'd sell like a highlighter, or maybe like Gilbert's Property by Dukeminier. Whatever the case, it would sell a lot better than the Boalt license plate frames and mugs.

3. Abercrombie. Mandatory inclusion since I'm back in LA again.

4. Blogs. Only losers have one.

5. Paid summer jobs. Look just because you're making what I spend on transportation and lunch per day in about 30 seconds at ye olde firm doesn't mean you're happier. No, the glass of champagne that is worth more than my poorly tailored suit doesn't really mean anything when it counts. And if you're at a non-profit, enjoy the slave labor you've vowed to perform to receive the chum change that Boalt may or may not throw at you. Me personally, I'm happy to ride public transportation in LA and call my parents to tell them when I'll be home for dinner. Sometimes they let me go outside and play. Today I got 10 minutes on the jungle gym.

I now pass this on to For God and For Cheese and Material Fact.

Thursday, May 26, 2005

Watching-Thon, D.C.

So I've had a few days to wander (well, half days) around D.C. and get my bearings before work starts next week. So I've done A LOT of people watching. It's been fun. Yes, I'm a little bored.

A few general observations (and when I say "general observations", I mean, overgeneralizations based on a few days; if you're from D.C., disagree and take offense, I am sorry. This blog post if for entertainment purposes only. Anyway, I am sure you're the exception that proves the rule.):

1) People in D.C. dress fairly "fancy" (by this I mean, traditional conservative business attire), but still somehow not well. Often, it's the shoes. I mean, why wear a nice suit if you're going to be sporting a beaten up pair of rubber-soled Rockports down below? If it's not the shoes, it's the pleats. If it's not the pleats, it's the cuffs (we all own the odd pair of cuffed pants, but they take it to another level here). As for hair, well, it's like 50% of men get their cut at one place (some place where they cut like a military barber), and the other 50% get their cut at another place (some place where they cut like my grandpa's barber). Things improve somewhat with regards to the ladies, I hasten to add, though "clones" is a word that seem to float in my head a lot (and not in a "potential medical breakthrough" kind of way)...

2) A lot of young people seem rather prematurely old. Or rather, in contrast to the Bay Area, where the endless youth spirit can get a little grating (think of those mom's who shop with their daughters--dressed alike--in the boutiques on Union, for example), people seem in a big hurry to look and act old (not simply mature, in the case of college-age people, but actually much older than they are). Here again, I have to go mostly on aesthetics and demeanor, since I haven't talked to many people. But I see people out at lunch who I swear, by their dress and their self-seriousness, must be thirty. And those are just the undergrad summer interns! Once they've graduated from university intern into full-fledged Capitol Hill aide, they put on a nice soft belly and generally walk around like they are the Congressman (or woman), not the person who gets him/her coffee.

3) Which brings us to the actual middle-aged folks, most of whom look as weary, weathered and beaten up as their Rockports. It must be a fascinating progression to watch: from striving over-eager twenty-something to jaded-but-still energetic thirty-something to tired, badly dressed and professionally maxed out/frustrated forty-something. Maybe I just saw democrats. They would be the ones riding the metro at 3 in the afternoon.

Snark aside, there are many things I am looking forward to this summer. You do get a vibe in D.C. that, as the seat of government of one of the most significant nations on earth, many important things are going on. And there ARE a lot of young people, many of whom seem really interesting. I'm interested in meeting those people. Plus, in June I can go the Volokh Conspiracy happy hour and hang with Nuts and Boalts reader (and GW lawprof) Orin Kerr!

Tuesday, May 24, 2005

A Rosen By Any Other Name

So I can't blog about the nuts and bolts of my externship, but I can say my judge is handling this case. I skipped on most of the defense direct but did make it into court to see the cross, which is set to continue tomorrow.

Labels: ,

Sunday, May 22, 2005

Let My People Go

Instead of finishing CLR or maybe packing (neither of which have been completed), I fixed my sights on an LA times story on an impending parting of the Red Sea with the exodus of junior officers (O-3 and below). I'm no expert so I can't opine on the logistics of all this, but it's clear that the all the branches of the military rest their Officers' Corps on the backs of captains, who are most likely to leave following the end of their initial commitments.

More striking is the reason for the not fight but flight decisions. The last line of the article, quoting Capt. Tuohey, a Harvard grad and a Cambridge MA, eerily sums it up:

"What's the end point?" he asked. "When do you declare victory?"

Let the implications of that sink in for a second. These aren't some Berkeley vegans shooting the shit at Peet's (no offense to my vegan brothers and sisters, I'm just trying to draw a distinction). These are the most important leaders of our military who see no end in sight, or at least philosophically find the prospects of a continued war on terror unfulfilling. Obviously this is bad news given that we are in the middle of a war in Afghanistan and Iraq (and let's not let the theatrics of self-governance in either fool us into a lull that we're in anything but war). At the same time, might we reach a point in the near future where the Administration (at whatever level) will be forced to tip its hands and admit that we can't possibly fight a war against terror as a concept to its fruition? (If for no other reason than to ensure that we have enough battle-hardened junior officers in place to at least reach some sort of a face-saving conclusion in these initial battles of the war.)

Labels: ,

Oh, the guilty pleasure of skewering deconstructionism...

Hitchens, as always, rollin'...

My favorite line, redolent with oaky notes of Scalia: "Words continue to lose their anchorage in meaning as one turns the pages."

(Ok, fine, go ahead and laugh. Armen makes retarded jokes, I harp poetic about debates over interpretation. But face it - we could both kick your ass.)

A Shortage of Snoopys

Actually there's no shortage of beagles, but there is a shortage of buglers for military funerals. The semi-amusing part is of course:

Taps is usually delivered digitally, using either a compact disc player placed near the grave or, increasingly since 2003, a Pentagon-approved, push-button "ceremonial bugle" that anyone can mimic playing by raising it to their lips.

The armed forces have about 500 musicians who perform taps, but many of them have been dispatched to Iraq and Afghanistan. About 3,800 civilian volunteers in the four-year-old Bugles Across America group also fill in wherever they can.

I hate to be cynical about all this (anymore so), but I mean, what's next? The self-folding flag? How about "The 21 Gun Salute" as performed by Grammy Award (tm) winning artist Beyonce?

Saturday, May 21, 2005

Unreasonably Stupid

Clearly you have to be a special type of moron to (1) think this e-mail scam might work and (2) fall for said scam. Hmmm someone has tried to log-in to MY account...that is MY UNIQUE account...that is my unique account that 3 other Boalt Students have? If you're going to mass e-mail a scam at least hide the recipients when the SCAM IS COMPLETELY DEPENDENT ON THE VICTIM BELIEVING THAT HIS ACCOUNT HAS BEEN COMPROMISED. Sheesh.

Damn that for trying to log-in to all of our accounts. I sure hope they catch him.

You Might Be a Law Student If...

[Note: Cross posted at De Novo sans those added below]

You start using insults like the following...(only the first was actually used in a casual conversation).

You're so retarded they can't even execute you.

You're so childish they can't even execute you.

Your mother's so fat she holds a joint tenancy by herself.

Your mother's so fat her manufacturer was strictly liable for not making her beep when backing up.

Your so old Rehnquist took you to his junior prom...and you were a senior.

Your mother's so old, Scalia cites to her.

Your mother's so old, she can't be the measuring life.

Your mother's so old, insurance companies value her life estate at 5 cents.

Your mother's so fat she's always in diversity jurisdiction.

Your mother's so fat Prosser and Keaton have a section on her...Massachussetts has a doctrine about her.

Your mother's so fat Congress reorganized her under the Department of Homeland Security Act.

Your mother's so fat, the neighbor's need an easement to go around her.

Fed. R. Civ. P. 19(e): Mandatory Joinders. Your mom.

You're so fat, Posner has 10 volumes describing you as an economic waste.

You're so stupid you have your own reasonable person standard.

You're so ugly, you're ALWAYS dismissed with prejudice.

You're so ugly, it's unconscionable.

You're so ugly, Judge Friendly has defined you.

You're so ugly, even Wigmore won't consider you.

When others look at you, it violates the 8th Amendment. When you look at yourself, it violates the 5th.

You're so ugly, it's against the Geneva Conventions to post your picture.

Not guilty by reason of YOU.

You're so abnormal I could patent you. Actually, Michael Jackson is infringing.

The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man in truthfully shouting your name in a theatre and causing a panic.

You're so ugly, you could use a hairy hand.

You're so ugly, even Podar won't kill you.

Hey is that an easement in your pants or are you glad to see me?

Labels: ,

Friday, May 20, 2005

It's the Polis Not San Fran

While humming and miserably attempting to sing along with They Might Be Giants's rendition of "Istanbul (Not Constantinople)" I stopped and thought about the etymology of the former, i.e. from the Greek "stan pouli" or "to the City." And "the City" of course being Constantinople, the capital of the Eastern Roman Empire for over 1000 years, the city straddling Europe and Asia, the city that's preserved the vast majority of modern links to classical times. That city.

I casually mentioned this over lunch (when I was attempting to sing) to which the other replied, "Oh so it's like San Francisco." Of course, no it's not like San Francisco. It's not like San Francisco for the reasons I harped on this when I first arrived in the Bay Area. Frankly the only reason why logically or otherwise it makes sense to call Frisco "the City" is because that's the only place you can go to in the Bay Area for typical nightlife activities. I don't know about the rest of you, but I haven't heard anyone rant or rave about Concord. Maybe it's still cool to hang out at the Fry's in South Bay, I don't know, but I'm pretty sure there's cooler things to do in San Fran.

All in all that lends for a pretty pathetic reason to call yourself "the City." I mean it doesn't even have a six-minaret Mosque or a church reconstructed by the founder of the Civil Code system (Justinian on the left presenting the Hagia Sophia to Jesus, and Constantine on the right presenting THE CITY).

How To Use Your Pets Efficiently

On Armen's request I'll explain an editorial cartoon that was in the Sydney Morning Herald (yes, I'm an aussie, no i don't know Steve Irwin) Believe it or not, we do understand that our prime minister is a joke but with him as our spokesperson to the outside world, it's hard to get our message across: "we don't like him either." However, this cartoon was of Blair and Bush walking arm in arm with Bush walking a dog on a leash. With the dog's head being Johnny Howard's. It made me smile even if it is basically stating something else I heard on the radio a few months back. That was a fake news report..."Trouble at the White House this morning, a strange foreign object was discovered in George Bush's pants. It was later identified as John Howard.


Double Impact

If Disco Stu(d) gracing the Nuts and Boalts dancefloor isn't enough, Mary, an Aussie friend of mine will be guest-blogging here for the summer (winter in Oz) while she (and we) are on break from school.


Thursday, May 19, 2005


After reading Warren's post below I started thinking about the topic of cheating and, more specifically, I came to the realization that people that cheat here at Boalt don't bother me in the least.

At the start let me say that I have cheated, the last time being in 8th grade Algebra class and I got a C on the final—shows you how good I am at it. In high school, however, I would get really upset when I knew people were cheating. Usually I'd still get a better grade than them, but it still pissed me off. To some extent I always thought they were cheating themselves, after all at some point you'd have to learn the material.

In college I was a physics major, which meant that I was in class with the 4 other physics majors and exams were usually open books, notes, people, and anything else you could think of (it still didn't help me get better than a 31% on my Quantum final). When I was told about cheating in other classes I just thought to myself "those people are going to fail in the real world."

But you know what, that's not true! Nothing has made me realize the true nature of cheating and cheaters better than law school. Cheating isn't wrong because you're getting a better grade for less work (I can point to a lot of people in law school who get better grades on less work than I because they're smarter than me). Cheating is unethical plain and simple. But what one person's unethical is another person's edge—drugs, including caffeine, are a perfect example. There probably isn't a profession on the planet (except for maybe politician—and they're all former lawyers anyway) that lends itself to unethical behavior more than being a lawyer. What I mean to say is that if you want to cheat/act unethically to get ahead in the law you can, and chances are everyone (around you) is doing it also. Which is why it doesn't bother me that law school students would cheat. If you're going to be unethical you might as well practice before you get out and have to earn a living.

That's not to say that I excuse the behavior—I don't. It would be such a better world if people all had the same concept of what constituted ethical behavior (and of course by the same concept, I mean mine). But, I have simply realized that I'm not going to be the type of lawyer who would be unethical in practice, yet I know they're out there and I might as well get used to them while I'm in law school.


Searching For Boaltie Blogger

When I created this site only hosted any blogs to speak of that were written or related to the school. Now as I've rearranged the blogroll, you can see there are plenty of coboalts who author blogs on various topics. If there any others (including incoming 1Ls who have blogs) please let me know.

On a sidenote, while I violently agree with everything Earl says about the filibuster below, I think he's slightly ahead of me on the CLR competition. I just finished reading the syllabus. There's not much more is there?


Sunday, May 15, 2005

Silver Lining To Losing Ohio...

...Harold Hongju Koh will never sit on the Supreme Court. I would like to comment, but write-on rules govern and I cannot imagine a better paper trail than a weblog. So, you'll all just have to imagine why I found his law review article... unfortunate (but for a hint, examine his questionable use of quotations).

Friday, May 13, 2005

Fight Clubrary Redux

Well remember the weird e-mail from the librarian about Boalt's very own Fight Clubrary? Turns craigslist has the formal answers to the rules of Fight Clubrary. In an ironic twist, the post also answers several of Earl Warren's questions regarding Adderall. (Hat tip: Wings and Vodka)

From the sound of things, this took place in the main reading room...meaning IT IS OK TO EAT IN THERE. So the druggy attempting to surround herself with stress-out pheromones needs to go back and learn the library rules before trying to master course material. So in honor of Fight Clubrary, I will be eating apples, celery, carrots, and potato chips in the main reading room whenever possible.

Also, to quote co-blogger Tom Fletcher, "I guess you only get one bit at the litigatory apple."


Friday the 13th

What a day! Let me tell you, I don't know what's worse, the puking in the afternoon or the CLR write on packet. More accurately, puking in the afternoon after seeing some weirdo walking in the street and turning to **** and saying, "Hey now I can taste that breakfast we had." Karma's a bitch. CLR write-on looks like a bitch and a half.


Wednesday, May 11, 2005

To Bloviate or Not to Bloviate?

If you'd like to join yours truly in suffering the slings and arrows of outrageous fortunes of being a blogger on DeNovo, please follow the detailed , 500-page instructions here.

Saturday, May 07, 2005

Irony Coast

"Once again, when powerful governments negotiated, the freedom of small nations was somehow expendable," the president said, opening a four-nation trip to mark the 60th anniversary of Nazi Germany's defeat. "Yet this attempt to sacrifice freedom for the sake of stability left a continent divided and unstable."

To paraphrase Apu, "I don't know which part of that sentence to start with."

Thursday, May 05, 2005

My Little Runaway

I agree with Dan Abrams and Pro Se, if the runaway bride wasn't some upper-middle class suburbanite Southerner she would be charged with making a false statement to the police. On the other hand, Geoff Feiger also has a point that this happens routinely but since there is no media attention the thing doesn't get blown up. Personally, in linght of the discussion of 60s Rock 'n Roll discussion below, I think Del Shannon should opine:
As I walk alone I wonder what went wrong
With our love a love that was so strong
And as I still walk on I think of
The things we've done together
While our hearts were young

I'm a walking in the rain
Tears are falling and I feel the pain
Wishing you were here by me
To end this misery and I wonder
I won-won-won-won wonder
Why why why why why why she ran away
And I wonder where she will stay
My little runaway run-run-run-run runaway (2x)

Oh Baby We Gotta Go

Louie Louie, however, will not be going to the Floral parade as per the *cough* Draconian order sent down from Benton Harbor (Mich) School District Superintendent Chalmers Paula Dawning. Rather than pointing to the lyrics of the Richard Berry song (or the lyrics as deciphered by the FBI from 1963-1965), the students are arguing that it is now too late for them to learn another, incredibly easy to play, song.

The troubling part is that in my searching around for lyrics I found out about a royalties dispute regarding this song. Those taking the Intro to IP final in about an hour will thoroughly enjoy some of the issues raised in doubt.

Even more troubling is how a "cultural" battle that most look back as ridiculous is now being waged again by (for now) an ignorant superintended who apparently has no clue about (a) previous American pop culture (b) the pervasiveness of crappy, if not disturbing, music within said culture and (c) the pervasiveness of crappy and ACTUALLY offensive music in today's pop culture. I wouldn't be surprised if the likes of Bill O'Reilley stand up for her. Kids need to be protected from the filth that American and Western in general (to get the criminal and terrorist kabal known as the Rolling Stones included into the discussion) pop cultures produce.

For those of you who like to shake your hips during recess, Elvis, I'm looking in your direction, the superintendent is expect to come out with sentencing guidelines for you all. To which I strongly urge the students to reply with:

We don't need no education
We dont need no thought control
No dark sarcasm in the classroom
Teachers leave them kids alone
Hey! Teachers! Leave them kids alone!
All in all it's just another brick in the wall.
All in all you're just another brick in the wall

Wednesday, May 04, 2005

You Thought Conservatives Go Nuts When You Cite International Law...

... wait until they see Judge Evans' citation of the Right Honorable... Ludacris. USA v. Murphy (as noted by Howard Bashman of course).

Man, if I were Ludacris, I'd be stoked. Between this and my serious Hollywood premiere Friday in Crash, I'm really starting to get recognized by high society!


Tuesday, May 03, 2005

Solomon's Army

Bashman reported yesterday that the Court has granted cert to the Third Circuit on the Solomon Amendment case. (Quick recap: Solomon Amendment ties Federal funding to schools with access granted to military recruiters). Carter offers his thoughts here. It is times like this that I wish Con Law was a required course for first years here at Boalt, but oh well. Moving on...

I think I agree with everything Carter says. Putting aside the legal questions for a second, recruiting from the colleges and universities that are now most opposed to the SA would be one of the easiest ways to effect change in the military. Furthermore, to the extent that the military should reflect our society as a whole, it is one of the best ways to get people to join who aren't necessarily looking to move "onward" as "Christian soldiers." I can go on ad nauseam about the disservice such an image does to our foreign policy.

But then there's the legal question. I'm almost certain the SCOTUS will uphold the SA, even under strict scrutiny. There's a constitutional provision for Congress to raise the armies and the navies, and the executive has the power of commander-in-chief (the argument may sound a tad too John Yoo-esque, but then taken to the other extreme the draft can be unconstitutional as a burden on the freedom of association if it were not for the Congressional and Executive war powers). Second there is a statute under which the Executive (DoD) operates, viz. the Solomon Amendment. Thus the Executive authority on this point is at its maximum (to paraphrase Justice Jackson's concurring opinion in Youngstown, and I think that opinion should be perused by anyone interested in the interaction of Congressional and Presidential war powers).

This leaves a vexing problem that I'm not so sure the SCOTUS will get to (questions presented has not yet been presented I wait). But the trouble I see down the road is like any other slippery slope issue. ALREADY, the Federal lunch money leverage is being used at high schools to gain PERSONAL INFORMATION regarding students. This isn't having meetings with recruiters or taking the ASVAB, it's outright extortion to get phone numbers and addresses of students who "fit" a certain profile. There is a useful purpose to having military recruiters interview on campus to get future JAG lawers or other officers, but to essentially have schools be pawns of the DoD's recruiting efforts is a tad too much.


Monday, May 02, 2005

Grace la la land

As a comment below points out, Prof. Kerr at VC points out that Grace has had her ass handed to her on a platter by the 11th Circuit. This does not come as a bit of a surprise. I took note of a 5th Circuit opinion last year that admonished the DOJ for impropriety and compared that to Grace's philosophy of justice. This is a good chance to go on a post-exam harp on how much I STILL hate Nancy Grace (not the previous sentence will probably attract a bajillion hits based on google those fellow Grace-hater [Graters?] I say rock on!)

First I'm not so sure if it's Grace who pisses me off more or the callers with the southern twang singing her praises (while not having a substantive question to follow up). Umm I think it's Grace. I think Grace was one of those people in law school who has a specific goal in mind and all they do here is just confirm their previously held biases and beliefs and march on into the real world. The following concepts are completely alien to Nancy Grace as best as I can tell:

1) Innocent till proven guilty. I mean really, the prosecutor says they have the right they REALLY need to do anything more to get a guilty verdict? (Remeber, confirming biases).

2) Adequate representation of counsel. Typically the arguments run like this:

Some Defense Attorney on Larry King: "Umm Jackson's defense shouldn't allow testimony about battered women's syndrom."

Grace: "How can you say that Bob? This is what the case is about all along. Jackson's lawyers would practically be molesting the victim themselves if they fought this evidence. They're evil."

3) Criminal acts--harm against society, civil action--harm against people. The distinction blurs for Grace. Somehow the concept of what the victim would want, feel, ask for, enters her mind frame. Now don't get me wrong, this is an IMPORTANT part of criminal justice, i.e. making sure victims are not harmed even more through investigation process, or that they have no fear about cooperating and testifying, or using their or their family's testimony during the sentencing. BUT, I don't think the entire criminal justice system is a sort of quasi-private retribution deal. The harms that are criminalized are against SOCIETY AS A WHOLE. That's who Grace and other prosecutors are supposed to represent. I really don't know how many times I can stress this to those who are gung-ho about becoming prosecutors, it is THE PEOPLE v. criminal name. Not Grace v. Jackson, or Grace v. Peterson. Somehow the concept of just sending everyone arrested to jail for the maximum amount of time becomes the underlying assumption of the profession and takes off from there.

As Kerr has said before, she's just uberannoying.


742 Evergreen Terrace

Continuing with my unhealthy infatuation, I will today attempt to insert a reference or analogy to The Simpsons in every question for the Property final this morning. I'll update the gentle readers on the results once I wake up from my delicious, rewarding, post-exam, nap this afternoon.


I only managed to get a reference in regarding Homer's Tomacco crop. There was a broad question on property and marriage (literally the question asked for the implications of property and marriage) and under the time constraings I couldn't think of anything from The Simpsons on this. Eight hours later I remember the Van Houten divorce, the episode title of course being, "A Milhouse Divided."
Luanne: Come on, Milhouse, we're going.
Milhouse: Aw, can't I come home later?
Luanne: There's not going to BE a home later.
I'd also like to give credit to Skipper J for turning around after the exam and saying, "Darrrr, I nailed the one about house-boats. Did you?"

The funnier law/property comment from that episode comes from our favorite attorney, Lionel Hutz:
Marge: Mr. Hutz! I didn't know you sold real estate!
Lionel: You didn't? We should talk more often, Marge. You see, the law business
is a little slow, and since most of my clients wind up losing their houses, this was a
natural move for me.
Lastly, I'd like anonymously quote a classmate on using buzz words on an exam that have come up REGULARLY during the semester: "Yeah but it just feels like giving the professor a blowjob."

Sunday, May 01, 2005

The best-laid plans...

Guess whose printers aren't working? And by printers, I mean every printer in the library? Hmm, I suppose it's not much of a secret anymore.

Thank you Boalt. A very Judas-move I might add, standing by my side this entire semester, and then favoring me with a kiss at the last moment before finals.

So it goes. Good thing my pen has ink in it.


Hidden Text

Volokh is frothing at the mouth that the LA Times cut out "KEY data" from a story it reproduced from Reuters. Damn that liberal media for trying to pull a fast one, damn them to hell. Thank god self-righteous bloggers are on the job setting things straight. FINALLY, and I mean finally, after nearly a century of omissions and edits to wire news reports the papers will know, "Not anymore Bucko." Frankly, since the papers are constraing by such things as word limits, space, ads, etc. I think they should just leave the enterprise and let amateur gumshoe bloggers report the news.

Putting the sardonic bloviating aside for a second, Volokh's beef (much like his beef with Bushisms) seems to be a non-issue. The omission is a "KEY" fact if you're mindset is to give the best account favorable to the U.S. military possible. The LA Times included the Italian claim that they were driving slwo when fired upon, and the American claim that they were speeding. It omits a reference to a CBS report that a satelite recorded the speed of the car at 60 mph.

1. A report by another news agency....HMMMMMMMMMM!!! Not like bloggers conveniently omit things.

2. There's doubt about the claim in other reports. Which leads to three...

3. Volokh wants the times to run the claim anyway, but if possible run a caveat about it, this of course leads to four...

4. If the omission, AND NO ONE HAS SUGGESTED ANYTHING TO DOUBT THIS, was due to space considerations, how the hell can you logically argue that it should have been run anyway with ADDITIONAL reporting about its possible falsity. In five...

5. We learn that talk is cheap. And so I propose the following exercise. In 300 words or less (the story is at 304, but you all are not the LA Times, so I'm sure you can do better), please rewrite the story to include whatever you think are the key facts that you want others to know.

6. Happy outlining.

Labels: ,