Monday, March 08, 2010

LAT on Liu

A short story in the LAT about the significance of the Liu nomination.  Nothing critical, but DE's quote that he laments the loss of a good teacher stood out.  Loss?  Why?  It's not like a Boalt professor going to the Ninth Circuit is unprecedented.  The most recent example, W.F., continues to teach a popular class that is actually enriched by his experience on the bench. 

Labels:

11 Comments:

Anonymous Anonymous said...

Well, he won't be dean anymore.

3/09/2010 3:19 PM  
Anonymous Buy Term Papers said...

Hi,
I completely agree with the above comment, what he has done in the short story he won't be dean anymore.

Buy Term Papers

3/10/2010 3:38 AM  
Blogger Carbolic said...

I completely agree. What was said in the immediately preceding comment has merit in light of what was said in the original post.

GL's deanship was mostly administrative, which didn't have much of an impact to students.

That said, we shouldn't assume he would continue teaching at Berkeley. The 9th Circuit has a crushingly busy caseload, and it's more than a full-time job just to keep treading water. Just because WF manages to teach one class per year doesn't mean that GL is necessarily going to do so.

(Buy socks.)

3/10/2010 7:31 AM  
Blogger Carbolic said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

3/10/2010 7:31 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

i agree with the prior comment and would suggest these:

http://www.rei.com/product/728371

3/10/2010 8:47 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Maybe we shouldn't be in "solidarity" with labor unions:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704187204575101461287544470.html?mod=WSJ_hpp_sections_opinion

3/10/2010 9:31 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Above commenter, the WSJ is clearly an anti-labor publication. And from reading the article, it sounds like the legislature, who made the actual decisions about the pension, are more to blame than the unions. The unions stand up for their members to get the best contracts possible. Pure and simple. If the legislature acted on the belief that the DOW would rise at 8.5% in perpetuity I would hardly say that the unions are to blame. Further, the legislature, and not the unions, are the only ones who can pass new funding measures to help Cal higher education.

With that said, public sector unions can be problematic for just this reason: Legislatures end up making decisions for a small number of well organized bodies rather than the public at large. That's an entirely different discussion though which can't be waived off with a simple "maybe we shouldn't be in solidarity with unions." I think there's a point underlying your post, but the language is a bit facile.

(Get your teeth 10 shades whiter for FREE!)

3/10/2010 10:50 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

10:50: WSJ is anti-labor? Duh.

The point is that the unions, smelly anarchists and protesters like Nancy K*to are barking up the wrong tree by blaming the UC administration for rising tuition. The state's fiscal problems are the love child of the Democrat-controlled legislature and the public sector unions, who got drunk on irrational exuberance in the 1990s and hooked up. UC is just reacting to a situation it did not create and lacks the power to fix. Rising tuition is a symptom of this destructive symbiosis.

3/10/2010 12:18 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I agree with the first comment. Not so much with the second and I kind of agree with the fourth comment except for the part which seems to disagree with the first.

3/10/2010 3:38 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I agree with the author who removed the post.

3/10/2010 5:53 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

ll someone write a post on the Newdow decision?

3/11/2010 2:47 PM  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home