Remove All Doubt
Friday, May 30
 
The Harvard Law School Federalist Society has a blog.
 
This statement by Secretary of Homeland Security Tom Ridge does make me feel a bit more relaxed.
The Department of Homeland Security, in consultation with the Homeland Security Council, has lowered the national threat level from Code Orange or high risk of terrorist attack to Code Yellow or an elevated risk of terrorist attack.

 
'Comical Ali' becomes a talking doll

Yes. Really.
 
Should we get rid of theory?

As I mentioned below, Richard Posner's argument in Law, Pragmatism, and Democracy provides a nice jumping off point for one of my favorite questions: can someone explain to me what the world looks like without theory? Posner apparently argues in his book (so says the review - I have not yet read the book) that "everyday pragmatism" should be the preferred decision-making "mood." "Everyday pragmatism," as contrasted with the philosophical pragmatism of Dewey, James, and Rorty, is "disdainful of abstract theory and intellectual pretension." Well, everyone is against "intellectual pretension," even those who accidentally end up being intellectually pretentious, so I take him to mean, "lets get rid of abstract theory and focus on the results we want." That sort of "anti-theory" theory seems fairly common to me. The thing is, I don't really get it.

As the author of the review points out the advice to "just do what makes sense" leaves out a lot of questions: "if pragmatism is merely the effort to do what makes sense, how can we know what makes sense without some overarching set of values or principles by which to judge the consequences of our actions?" That's exactly right, and, especially in a democracy, that difficulty must be answered by fans of "everyday pragmatism." When we decide what "makes sense" and what doesn't, we use some value set to make that decision. Often, however, people will disagree with our view of what those values should be. To resolve that dispute, we have to enter a debate about why we think this value or that one is important and why another is not. Those debates get more abstract, because "values" are abstract things, and, before you know it, you're doing theory talk.

I think there is a deeper reason for this. I think "theory" arguments do not differ in kind from "practical" arguments. I mean, I understand that some arguments rest more on abstract concepts - concepts, that is, that are more general, more divorced from the physical world - than others. I understand, for example, that an argument about (to use the Paula Jones case as an example) whether allowing a lawsuit against a sitting president will create more trouble for the nation than in solves is more "practical" than asking what "executive power" means and doesn't mean. But that difference doesn't effect how well the argument convinces the listener. Arguments, both "theory" arguments and "practical" arguments, are merely attempts to describe the world in a way that changes our listener's perspective, and thereby convinces her to do something we want her to do. So, to me, both types of arguments ought to be judged on whether or not they are convincing - not whether they are abstract, as the ability to convince is what we're really after.

Now, as a practical matter :), it likely is true that there are many more unconvincing theory arguments out there, than there are unconvincing practical arguments. Too many professor types out there, perhaps. Or perhaps, because theory tries to explain a lot of different things and that's just harder to do. But, I don't think the generalization is nearly tight enough to justify ignoring theory arguments. That's throwing the baby out with the bathwater, I think.

So there.
 
Despite my ingenious - if not culturally sensitive - plan to help out the struggling North Carolina hog farmers by awarding the food service contract at the Guantanamo Bay, Cuba detention facility to Durham-based Bullock's Barbecue, the Taliban and al Queda detainees are eating quite well, apparently.

The most interesting piece of advice I learned from the article, though, came from a nutritionist who counsels federal prisons in Florida. She says:

When you are incarcerated, food becomes one of the few sources of social pleasure available to you. Meals are an opportunity to communicate with other people. Not insignificantly, it also becomes an outlet, like sex.

What did I take from this quote? Next time I find myself in a prison cafeteria with a 300 lbs., heavily-tatooed guy asking me if I want to finish my mashed potatoes, I think I'll just say, "Naw, buddy, they're all yours." As much as I like mashed potatoes, its probably better than the alternative.
 
An interesting article about Scholars Who Blog from the Chronicle. Its especially interesting as I see this blog as sort of a junior competitor/partner of the scholar-blogs.
 
A review of Posner's new book, Law, Pragmatism, and Democracy is out. Once I get a moment more I'll address what I think is wrong with the "Just-Ignore-Theory" Theory that Posner seems to be pushing.
 
The Washington Times, in one of the more balanced articles on the confirmation battles that I've read, actually gives us some numbers to chew on. The most interesting are these: In the first 29 months of their respective presidency, Clinton had 22 Circuit Court Judges confirmed, while Bush has had 24 confirmed - a pretty fair correspondence; but, because of the number of nominations Bush has made, he's had a 53 percent confirmation rate so far, while Clinton's confirmation rate was 88 percent.

The one problem I have with the article is that it calls the unprecedented filibusters of Circuit Court Judges "unprecedented" filibusters. Why do they need the scare quotes? The filibusters are, in fact, unprecedented. I realize that whether an act is unprecedented depends on the relevant comparison, but the best comparison for these circuit court nominees pretty clearly seems to be previous circuit court nominees.
Thursday, May 29
 
A wise friend of mine pointed out how little coverage there has been on the question of whether Saddam is alive. After some digging I found that the AP is reporting this:
U.S. troops have found no sign of bodies or even a bunker at the site where intelligence had said Saddam Hussein was sleeping on the war's opening night.
The same article says the U.S. is sticking to its "we have no idea" position. Others have been more forceful in claiming that Saddam is alive, including the Russian Defense Minister, and a former Iraqi general returned from exile, but they seem to be just speculating. A Palestinian newspaper supports the claim that Saddam is claim, but adds a report that Uday is considering turning himself in. Apparently he wants to know what charges he will be facing first. To which I respond, dude, if you don't know . . .
 
The Korean Central News Agency goes postmodern in this article, encouraging Koreans to
wage a nation-wide struggle for peace against the U.S. and war by concerted efforts
Go ahead and read the whole article. You won't be any less confused.
Wednesday, May 28
 
The comparison between the U.S., a nation with a written constitution and a vigorous judiciary, and Great Britain, a nation with a relatively weak judiciary and without a written constitution, is an interesting one. I mostly use the comparison to undermine the assumption that judicial review is necessary to safeguard civil liberties: If the Constitution and judicial review are necessary to protect civil liberties, how has Great Britain managed to get along so well? And if it doesn't protect civil liberties, then what's it good for? Despite these arguments, it looks like Britain is moving more towards our version of judical review. It recently accepted the European Convention of Human Rights, which gives British judges powers very much like judicial review. And some, like the Economist, apparently think its a good idea.
But for those, like this newspaper, who think that the British constitution (or lack of it) endows the executive with too much power, this new judicial activism is a welcome development. Britain's judiciary is a pale shadow of that in countries with written constitutions, such as America, where the Supreme Court constantly scrutinises the actions of the executive and the legislature in the light of the constitution.


 
With regard to Logan's post below, I particularly like the diagnosis of the former CIA psychological profiller --- "malignant narcisism." Hmmm... Better get that missile defense shield up sooner rather than later.


 
There should be no doubt, Kim Jong Ill is a complete crackpot.
Tuesday, May 27
 
The court just ruled on Nevada Department of Human Resources v. Hibbs. A story covering it can be found at the Washington Post website. I have not yet read the opinion but am rather surprised by the outcome. Synopsis is that the federal government is requiring states to provide the same family leave that is mandated in the private sector. Nevada refused hoping to avoid this based on the recent federalism line of cases protecting state sovereignty. The article says the court found that Congress has ample evidence that women state employees suffered in the workplace when work and family commitments clashed.

Here is what I find most surprising. Renquist wrote the 6-3 decision, with Thomas, Scalia and Kennedy dissenting. I would bet money it played out with O'Conner switching to the liberal side and Renquist was going to be damned if he was going to let Stevens get his hands on this decision. Renquist bit the bullet, voted what he didn't think and maitained the ability to write the majority opinion in a way that would not destroy one of the main legacies of the Renquist court. This is why I think he is one of the most successful chief justices in history.


 
A District Court Judge from DC suggests this cure for the political bickering over court of appeals nominees: get rid of Court of Appeals Judges.
It is time for Congress to consider amending the Judiciary Act to provide once more for just a single category of judges below the Supreme Court. Call all these jurists simply "Article III judges" or U.S. judges. Most of the time they would sit as trial judges, but for, say, three months a year they would be assigned to appellate panels.
He reckons this will remove politics from the appointment process, or at least disperse the political fire enough to make the process work.
I'm skeptical. This plan would simply move the political bickering to District Court nominees. In large part, this has already happened, despite the Judge's claim that Estrada and Owen would have sailed through as District Court nominees. True, the Democrats haven't filibustered a District Court nominee yet, but there are a fair number who have been blue slipped. North Carolina's two District Court nominees only just got past John Edwards, who held them up more than a year. Giving these judges more "law making" power would only increase the political fights over their nominations.
I find it suprising that the Judge doesn't mention this problem. That oversight makes me think that he may have revealed too much when he explained another reason his plan is a good one: Trial judges . . . chafe at instructions given by appellate judges who have no trial experience. Could it be that is what's really driving him here?
Wednesday, May 21
 
Intrigued to learn that the Supreme Court decided to hear Davey v. Locke, 299 F.3d 748 (9th Cir. 2002) (holding that, under the Free Exercise Clause, Washington state could not revoke scholarship it granted to college student solely because scholarship recipient chose to pursue a degree in theology from a Christian-affiliated university), I decided to read the Ninth Circuit's opinion for myself. What I found surprised and challenged me: In a politically master-crafted dissent, Judge McKeown sets up a real challenge for the knee-jerk conservative Justices to tackle next fall.

Before getting into that, though, I will spell out my relevant prejudices from the onset since I have no illusion that I read the opinion with any semblance of objectivity. I would characterize myself as someone who pretty much tows the conservative line. Moreover, while I tend to be bothered by what I consider to be encroachment on religious freedom, I view many Establishment Clause claims with skepticism. In short, I was prepared to support the plight of the theology student wholeheartedly and have my blood boil while reading Judge McKeown's dissent. In terms of the outcome, I definitely fall in line with the majority. The idea that a state could revoke a privilege it granted to me simply because I wanted to become a Christian minister offends me deeply. To me, it reeks of the same viewpoint discrimination raised in Rosenberger v. Rector and Visitors of Univ. of Va., 515 U.S. 819 (1995). (However, as Judge McKeown's dissent notes, Davey v. Locke is not a public forum/free speech case.)

Don't get me wrong, my blood pressure did skyrocket while reading Judge McKeown's dissent and the expletives began to flow so freely that I had to shut my office door. However, Judge McKeown did something that I think will put many "knee-jerk" conservatives in a real quandry. Judge McKeown's dissent starts by characterizing the case as a funding case and notes "the indistinguishable similarity between this case and those that address abortion funding cases." Obviously, this argument has some holes - believe me, I spent the better part of my morning trying to come up with them. Fundamentally, though, it also has some appeal. Paraphrased, the argument is: If a state can fund medical procedures generally but except out abortion, then it ought to be able to fund scholarships generally but except out scholarships for theological study.

Judge McKeown's use of the abortion funding cases as a comparision, however, is not the challenge that interests me most. At the very end of the dissent, Judge McKeown throws down this gauntlet on federalism:

In the Court's most recent pronouncement in the religion arena, Zelman v. Simmons-Harris, --- U.S. ----, 122 S.Ct. 2460, 153 L.Ed.2d 604 (2002), Justice Thomas specially concurred to express his opinion that "state action should be evaluated on different terms [in the context of the Establishment Clause] than similar action by the Federal Government," concluding that federal courts should "strike a proper balance between the demands of the Fourteenth Amendment on the one hand and the federalism prerogatives of States on the other." Id., 122 S.Ct. at 2481 (Thomas, J., concurring). Concededly, Justice Thomas was suggesting that states should be allowed more constitutional freedom to experiment with involvement in religion, id., but I cannot conclude that such federalism concerns should represent a one-way street when it comes time for a state to decide whether to enter into the ill-defined terrain of the Establishment Clause's jurisprudence.

It will be interesting to see how the Supremes respond.
Tuesday, May 20
 
One of my very best friends just sent me his copy of this article from the March 9, 2003 edition of the New York Times Magazine which - like most things worth reading - fell beneath my radar. The article by Deborah Sontag labels the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit the "Intellectual Heart of Conservative America" but then goes on to paint a ridiculously child-like portrayal of the court. (For example, it recounts Judge Luttig jumping out of his chair to remind counsel who dared to disagree with him during oral argument - "You can't! . . . You can't disagree!" Boy, if that humdinger of an argument came from the intellectual heart of conservative America, no wonder those of us conservatives with less-than-enviable God-given intellectual wherewithal are labelled narrow-minded, simpleton bigots.)

What I think I found most offensive from the article, though, was the conclusion. Sontag writes:

Legal scholars talk about the pendulum swinging from liberal to conservative, from a preoccupation with individuals' rights to a preoccupation with states' rights, and suggest that, in time, it will swing back once more. It would certainly help many Americans sustain their faith in the system if the courts could find their equilibrium, if they could become less ideological, less predictable and less political. That doesn't appear to be on the horizon, though, not in the foreseeable future. In the historic site in Richmond where the Confederacy once thrived, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit is ushering in the 21st century.

To suggest that the pendulum has swung away from a preoccupation with individual rights and toward a preoccupation with states' rights is insane! First of all, couching the dichotomy in those terms seals the conservatives' fate from the onset. I don't think the conservatives are any less "preoccupied" with the "individual" - its just a matter of the federalist concern with locus of governmental control. Plus, if anything, both extremes focus on individual rights - the only difference is they focus on the rights of different individuals. My wholehearted opposition to abortion, for example, has everything to do the rights of individuals - problem is, the "liberals" don't see it that way. Moreover, I am an individual who wants a right to regulate certain criminal behaviors so that my (individual) children won't have to grow up in a world where we endorse what I consider to be social ills - despite an overwhelming national majority apparently bent on glorifying the increasingly obscene through "mainstream media" outlets like sit-coms and "reality TV" shows that offer graphic violence, promiscuity, homosexuality, and pre-marital sex as the norm. (Although the temptation is strong here, I won't digress into a discussion of the problems with this indictment of 11th Circuit nominee Bill Pryor on the basis that filing a brief in defense of Texas' right to criminalize homosexuality makes him "anti-gay." If anything, I think it makes him pro-Texas.) Secondly, if Sontag thinks that the pendulum has swung in that direction, I think her focus on the Fourth Circuit has caused her to suffer from severe myopia. Sadly, I think "new federalism" is still the waning minority. Apparently, one other NYT reader agreees with me.

As far as I am concerned, the prospect of the Fourth Circuit "ushering in the 21st century" is - with the exception of its death penalty jurisprudence (or, more accurately, its lack thereof) - a welcome relief. Sontag's references to the Confederacy may demonstrate her own resignation that, at least with respect to its stance on states' rights, "The South Shall Rise Again!"



Friday, May 16
 
A blogger's Homage to Krispy Kreme. I'm also happy when companies are rewarded for producing a great product. Especially when its a North Carolina company.
 
Also from the same article, a (to say the least) suprising Constitutional discovery:
The Constitution made the Senate a coequal branch of government
A 4th branch of government. Who knew?
 
Not resposible journalism. The Nation, in an article called The Judiciary Wars makes the following claim.
Daschle has pointed out that the Democrats have failed to confirm only two of Bush's 126 judicial nominees so far (several others are still under consideration). Republicans blocked sixty-five of Bill Clinton's nominees--including fifty who were never even given the courtesy of a hearing.

I'm sure there was some typo at the printers and these clauses got dropped:
Daschle has pointed out that the Democrats have filibustered only two of Bush's 126 judicial nominees so far (several others are still under consideration). Using tactics short of a filibuster Republicans blocked sixty-five of Bill Clinton's nominees--including fifty who were never even given the courtesy of a hearing, just as Democrats are doing to dozens of other Bush nominees.

Must have been a typo. Must have been.


 
Bigger than Viagra for Pfizer? SARS' Achilles' heel revealed
 
Hmmm . . . Maybe this Strauss fellow was onto something.
Strauss held that politics was a central human activity, but he also believed that ''all practical or political life is inferior to contemplative life.''

Thursday, May 15
 
Why do court documents require you to do things like start every sentence describing an accusation of fraud with, "It was further part of said scheme and artifice to defraud that Defendant (insert name here) . . . "? Is someone afraid that the Judge or jury will get hopelessly confused if you write, "To advance his scheme, the Defendant also did X"? Or, heaven forbid, if you merely write, "He/She also did X"? For the love of God, can we at least leave out "artifice"?

I think we may have the start of a new feature here at removealldoubt - stupid lawyer stuff. I'm sure we can get LOTS of other nominations.
Wednesday, May 14
 
We know John Edwards has been refusing to give his Blue Slip for Terry Boyle, a former Helms staffer nominated by the President to the 4th Circuit. Whether that's because Boyle is too conservative, or whether Edwards is just trying to get back at Jesse for blocking all of Clinton's nominees, his credibility with me took a major hit when I learned this from the Charlotte Observer that
Edwards has still not returned blue slips on two other judicial nominees: Raleigh's James Dever and Greenville's Louise Flanagan, both for U.S. District Court.

I mean, really. Four judges nominated by Bush, and you Blue Slip three of them, including two District Court nominees? We're not talking about Miguel Estrada here, and Jesse is gone. Stick it to Jesse's nominee if you must (though I wish you wouldn't - he has a good reputation in NC), but let the District Court Judges go through at least.
 
In this article from the New Republic, Dan Drezner gets at the cause of all the recent conspiracy theories out there today, and does it in a way that fits with my belief that conspiracy theories tell you more about the conspiracy theorists than about the world.
 
Here's my uneducated guess as to how Splitting new ACC into two divisions will work out.
Let assume we get the favorites to join: Miami, Syracuse, and BC. Lets also assume we have 6 teams in each division. In football you play everyone in your division, and 1/2 of the other division for 8 conference games - the same number as you have now. In basketball, you play everyone in your division twice, and everyone in the other division once for 16 conference games, the same you have now.
A geographic split would give you Miami, Florida State, Georgia Tech, Clemson, and two North Carolina schools in the South, with the other two NC schools in the North with Virginia, Maryland, Syracuse and BC. Now, assuming that you've got to keep Duke and UNC together for financial reasons, rivaly reasons, and geographic reasons, what do you do?
If you put them in the North, you've got the "basketball division" with UNC, Duke, Syracuse, and Maryland all in the North. That's just too much. Assuming the big basketball schools are playing at their historic levels, how hard would it be to make the NCAA tournament from the North - as, for example, Virginia? You start the season with 8 likely losses while Wake, for example, who is in the South, has got 1/2 as many. And its even worse when you consider where the historic weaklings are. Wake, in this senario, has 6 games against traditional whipping boys Clemson, Florida State, and Miami, while Virginia has only got 3. As for whipping boys in the North, Virginia would only have BC. With this divisional format, the same team that would go 9-7 or even 10-6 in the South, would go 6-10 in the North.
So I guess you gotta put State and Wake in the North, and Duke and UNC in the South. That means Duke and MD, who have a great rivalry now, play only once a year. It also means UNC and Duke have a big advantage - they've got the three whipping boys in the South, while MD and 'Cuse get only BC, but maybe they'll just have to get over it.
On the other hand, this format has another big problem: after the regular season battle royale in the South between Miami and Florida State for the right to go to the conference's football championship game, one of those teams gets to roll right over the North's representative. Who's is the best football team up there? Syracuse? Maryland? Virginia? Not pretty. One or the other of Miami and Florida State has been in the top 5 since 1990, at least. Have ANY of the North teams been in the top 5 since Virginia in the late 80s?
But, maybe you can fix the football imbalance and the basketball imbalance at the same time. You put Miami in the North. They've been playing in the Big East anyway, so they are used to the travel. You then put N.C. State in the South. That not only makes the football championship interesting, it also evens up the cannon fodder in basketball: Florida State and Clemson in the South, BC and Miami in the North. You also get 3 of the 4 NC schools in the same division, keeping UNC and State's football rivalry (such that it is) an every year event.
So, here is my bold prediction, not that I like it one bit: the North is Miami, Wake, Maryland, Virginia, BC, and Syracuse; the South is UNC, Duke, N.C. State, Florida State, Clemson, and Georgia Tech. So there.
 
An off topic post for this blog: ACC Pursues Expansion Let me say here first, I absolutely, positively hate this idea. Letting everyone else in on a little secret, the ACC belongs to the four North Carolina schools. All the others are just there to fill in the brackets. Splitting those four schools up into different divisions (ostensibly keeping Duke and UNC together for the revenue their basketball matchups produce) is blasphemous. I never thought this day would come, and I am shaken by it. And don't even get me started about adding these yankee schools, Syracuse and Boston College. We're going to place a conference game in BOSTON, for goodness sake? Outrageous.
 
Although its cold comfort to those victimized by the terror attacks in Saudi Arabia, this information from the Economist makes me feel like our intelligence community is doing what it can.
American officials had given warning that a terrorist strike was being planning in Saudi Arabia. On May 1st, the American state department warned its citizens against non-essential travel to Saudi Arabia, citing intelligence that terrorist groups were in the “final phases” of planning attacks against the American community there.

 
I don't know where I stand on the Texas redistricting plan that has democrats in the Texas state legislature hiding out in Oklahoma. However, I think what the democrats have done is nuts. I was particularly struck by one statement issued by U.S. Representative Tom DeLay about the issue. In support of the republicans' redistricting plan, he says:

Texans deserve representation that reflects their values and beliefs. Fifty-six percent of Texas voters cast their vote for a Republican congressional candidate last fall, yet Texas sends more Democrats than Republicans to Congress. We're trying to change that.

First of all (and assuming DeLay's statistics are accurate), I find it amazing that the districting plan in place frustrates the popular vote that significantly. (Strategically, however, you will notice that I do not press this point after November 2000). It seems to me that what Texans really need, at least in their state legislature, is representation - period. If it relfected their values and beliefs, I guess that would be a plus. By running and hiding in Oklahoma - outside of the jurisdiction of Texas authorities - the democrats have shirked a responsibility they accepted when they took office.

State Representative Barry Tilford tried to compare it to filibustering - or some other technique of frustrating the majority - when he said:

We're fighting for our constituents with the only tool we have left, which was to use the rules of the House to break a quorum.

How on earth is not showing up at work to get your way and, in fact, leaving the jurisdiction you've sworn to represent a "rule of the House"? This "tool" did not come from the toolbox. Can you imagine what would happen to a group of U.S. Senators or Representatives who hid out in Canada to prevent a quorum from voting on a piece of legislation they didn't like? Thank goodness these people are subject to the political process. I don't think this will sit well in Texas. In fact, the republicans may not need the redistricting plan after this stunt.
Tuesday, May 13
 
Lawrence Solum has an interesting theory about what's causing the Estrada confirmation battle - he basically argues that one important factor is that Republicans believe Estrada is more likely to follow the law and ignore his political ideology than the Democrats do.

My initial response is that, while this dynamic affects the debate, its not determinative in Estrada's case. It seems to me that Republicans likely believe ALL their nominees are more likely to follow the law than Democrats do. For example, Republicans generally believe Scalia doesn't make political decisions, while Democrats seem to believe that's about all he does. If I'm right about that, then its not confusion about Estrada's formalism (willingness to decide using only legal materials) that's the problem. Its confusion about how far right he is. But, so far as I know, there is no real reason to think Estrada is more conservative than other nominees. So either I haven't heard the facts showing Estrada is likely more conservative than other nominees (entirely possible), or Solum's post doesn't really explain the prime mover in the Estrada fight.

Having said that, I think his theory is very interesting and insightful. The only problem with it is that it explains too much to tell us what's happening with Estrada. What it's better at, I think, is explaining one reason why Democrats and Republicans are fighting more about judicial appointments now than they have before - Democrats have increasingly begun to see conservative judges as political in the same way Republicans have for years seen "activist liberal" judges as political, while Republicans have not followed suit. If that's right, the filibuster is here to stay.

UPDATE: Having re-read Solum's post more carefully, I find that I've discovered nothing. He'd likely agree with most of what I just said. Well - it was good for me to work through the implications anyway.
 
James F. Brooks, a one time high school dropout, wrote the first history book to win the three big prizes of academic history, the Frederick Jackson Turner Award, the Bancrof Prize, and the Francis Parkman Prize, then immediately turned down tenure. The book, Captives and Cousins: Slavery, Kinship, and Community in the Southwest Borderlands, looks as interesting as he is, says this review from the Chronicle of Higher Education.
Accounts of slavery in America tend to begin in 1619, with the first shipload of Africans sold in Virginia. "People think of it as something that mostly existed in the Black Belt," says Mr. Brooks, referring to the region of the Deep South where African slaves worked the land. "And people assume that it ended in 1865." But a different form of bondage emerged in the 1500s, when Spanish invaders encountered the indigenous people of North America. A "distinct slave system," as Mr. Brooks calls it -- similar to chattel slavery in some ways, but distinct in others -- grew out of ethnic conflicts and commercial exchanges in the region that came under Spanish influence. And it existed until well after the Civil War.
Aside from addressing an historical period I have absolutely no knowledge about, the relationships Mr. Brooks explores may complicate some traditional attitudes about violence and power in relationships among cultures.
"What's innovative about his work," says Clifford Geertz, a professor emeritus of social science at the Institute for Advanced Study, "is that he focuses on a field of relationships -- the intermixture of people, involved in each other's lives in various ways, so that the usual concepts applying to the various groups don't work very well. I think that's really quite extraordinary."
The book sounds very worth reading.
Monday, May 12
 
Any doubt that newspapers just report the news and don't comment on it should be dispelled with a comparison of this Washington Post story about Powell's meeting with Sharon and Abbas, and this story on the same event from the Washington Times.
 
CNBC TV Reports
Sources close to Estrada tell CNBC that he suggested two months ago that the White House pull his nomination. But the White House asked him to keep up the fight, at least for another month or two.

Good on the White House.
Friday, May 9
 
It seemed like everyone was poking fun at us North Carolinians back when NASCAR legend Richard Petty ran for Secretary of State. People weren't too thrilled when King Richard took his rubbin' is racin' attitude to the highway during his campaign. From that debaucle we learned that popular sports stars don't always make the best politicians. Apparently, North Carolinians are now learning that the popular politicians don't always make the best sports stars, either. According to an article in the Triangle Business Journal:

Gov. Mike Easley escaped an accident uninjured Friday morning after the race car he was driving at Lowe's Motor Speedway in Charlotte "brushed a retaining wall" in turn two, his office announced.

The most interesting parts of the story in my opinion: (1) It was Jimmie Johnson's ride (owned by Jeff Gordon) that Governor Easley crashed, and (2) after the crash, Terry Labonte and Rick Hendrick let the Governor jump in the Number 5 car and take it for a spin. You've got to question the wisdom of that decision.

Kids, don't try this at home.
 
I am happy to report that this blog's popularity continues to skyrocket. We are now more popular than the Hinchinbrook library in Queensland, Australia. 3 cheers.
 
From Must . . . sleep a blog from a 1st year Northwestern law student:
As promised, a few reflections on the first year, to be added to as the mood strikes:
1) Take econ before you come. Not a lot of it, just like an intro class. I hadn't had economics since high school, and only vaguely remembered supply and demand curves. But in torts, contracts, property AND con law, we talked about the economic effects of this or that black-letter rule. So yeah, take econ. It's not that you'll be screwed if you don't, it'll just be one less thing that makes you want to cry at night.
2) I cannot overemphasize this: I hope you have a good system for reading and digesting information. Some people use multiple colors of highlighters, etc. I use stars and brackets and underlining, and even that could use some refining.
3) Buying your own, huge, unabridged version of Black's Law Dictionary is probably a waste. I bought the paperback, abridged version and I'm fine. I barely ever look at it, so I'm glad I didn't go all out and buy the big one.
4) Along that vein, buy a Bluebook guide to legal citation. Here at Northwestern, the legal writing program teaches us the ALWD system of citing, but that's not what anyone really uses (as I understand it). So you know, learn ALWD if they make you, but buy a Bluebook too. I'm going to.
5) Free beer is terrific.
6) Also, I enjoy free shirts, free candy and the like from various firms and Westlaw/Lexis Nexis. Particularly free coffe. Thank you, Westlaw!
7) And...sleep. I promise you it only gets more confusing if you don't sleep enough.
8) Don't drink when doing reading for class. The one exception to this: I found that a beer greatly enhanced my understanding of contracts. But that may just be me. And note that I said "A" beer, not "12" beers.

My response? Screw this lawyer stuff - I'm going back to school.
 
"Muslim anger at the hypocrisy of the United States may be wide, but it is not deep. It is a mistake to think that ordinary Muslims, or even Islamists, are inevitably or unalterably opposed to the US.... Indeed, the very fact that so many Muslims say they are prepared to embrace democracy, a system they associate with the United States and its successes, provides striking evidence that anti-Americanism may be overcome if the U.S. loosens its embrace of rulers who do not respond to the needs or concerns of their people."
So says Noah Feldman, a New York University Law School professor who is the head of the constitution team in Iraq, in the Christian Science Monitor. Interesting stuff. I hope he's right.
 
Although I realize that the William Bennett "news" is old, I need to make up for lost time on the blog. This article by Radley Balko from theagitator.com discusses conservatives' treatment of Bennett from an interesting perspective. He characterizes it as a lost opportunity to blame the eroding morality of the social elite ala Daniel Henninger's WSJ "No Guardrails" editorial. Balko writes:

William Bennett is unquestionably an "elite." He's a former Drug Czar, a former secretary of education, a best-selling author, an A-list pundit, and a top-dollar draw on the lecture circuit. And he spent the kind of time and money at the casinos that would (and does) reap unquestionably devastating results were it imitated by people from society's not-so-elite. Here, it would seem, is the ultimate test for cultural conservatives to prove that "No Guardrails" isn't a partisan excuse to snipe at Hollywood and academic liberals, but rather is a serious commentary on the importance of elitist example-setting. They failed.


I'm not sure I even subscribe to the concept of "elitist example-setting" or even "elitism."
 
The President's speech today highlighted the delay in confirming his Circuit Court nominations.
Overall, I have sent to the Senate 42 superb nominees for federal courts of appeal. Eighteen of them are still waiting for a vote in the Senate; and eight of those 18 have been waiting more than a year. More appeals court nominees have had to wait over a year for a hearing in my presidency than in the last 50 years combined. This is not just business as usual; this is an abnication of constitutional responsibility, and it is hurting our country.
My only problem with his speech is that he didn't recognize North Carolina Supreme Court Justice Bob Orr, who was present in the Rose Garden.
 
The Korean News Agency bragging about its brilliant leader. With insights like this, we have nothing to fear from North Korea.
General Secretary Kim Jong Il . . . met an official and told him that he had got injections with the syringes and some of them had pained him. And he said that the pain might be caused by needles, so efforts should be directed to improving the quality of needles for people and servicemen.

 
Travis, dude. Sorry. N.H.'s 'Old Man of Mountain' falls, saddening locals
New Hampshire awoke Saturday to find its stern granite symbol of independence and stubbornness, the Old Man of the Mountain, had collapsed into indistinguishable rubble.

Thursday, May 8
 
Eugene Volokh, over at the Volokh Conspiracy has a excellent post about current American political and constitutional discourse, using this quote as a jumping off point.
But for some reason this culture has a real problem saying people are wrong, but thinks it's easy to call people hypocrites. Worse, our culture thinks it's worse to be a hypocrite than to be wrong. Its good. You should read it.
 
Programs to raise self-esteem fall woefully short
Of course, self-esteem and school or job performance are correlated. But long overdue scientific scrutiny points out the foolishness of supposing that people's opinion of themselves can be the cause of achievement. Rather, high-esteem is the result of good performance.
I wish the response to this was not, "wow!" but was instead, "duh."
 
Rick Hasen's Election Law Blog has a better summary of the lower court McCain-Feingold ruling than I could create, so I direct your attention there if you are interested in a summary. I'll also point out his possible nightmare senario: one Supreme Court Justice retires, the Court hears this case and splits 4-4, leaving the crazy patchwork decision of the lower court in place. Ugh.
 
I don't know a lot about this area but this suggestion seems like a pretty clear violation of separation of powers.
Republicans are contemplating going to the Supreme Court to test the constitutionality of using a supermajority threshold of 60 votes to block judicial nominees from a final vote that would carry with a simple majority.
What's more, I'm not sure I want the Supreme Court telling the Senate whether its internal operating procedures are acceptable.
 
I've just learned about and been greatly saddened by the death of Nina Simone. She was an incredibly moving singer.
 
Here, The Nation accuses the Bush administration of advancing an agenda of Inverted Totalitarianism. They are off the reservation. But, what is interesting is that their own article seems to complain that our nation is too democratic.
The Republicans have emerged as a unique phenomenon in American history of a fervently doctrinal party, zealous, ruthless, antidemocratic and boasting a near majority. As Republicans have become more ideologically intolerant, the Democrats have shrugged off the liberal label and their critical reform-minded constituencies to embrace centrism and footnote the end of ideology.
If the Republicans have a near majority, and the Democrats (who, apparently, are also complicit in "inverted totalitarianism") are centrists, we are left with only the Democrats' former "critical reform-minded constituencies" as the folks who should be in charge. But isn't it anti-democratic to push out the near majority party and the centrist party to put others in power? Or is it that totalitarianism and inverted totalitarianism are odious, but double secret non-inverted totalitarianism is ok?
 
An interesting review of what looks like an interesting book, by Fareed Zakaria
The recipe for liberal democracy, then, would appear to be simple. Create constitutional liberalism, allow it to harden into tradition, then add democracy.

7:34 AM 0 comments
 
How to Straighten Out Ex-Cons Apparently, we're not doing such a great job.
convicts let out from the prisons of 15 states in 1994 had been charged by 1997 with 2,900 homicides, 2,400 kidnappings, 2,400 rapes, 3,200 other sexual assaults, 21,200 robberies, 54,600 assaults, and 13,900 other violent crimes, not to mention over 200,000 car thefts, burglaries, and drugs and weapons offenses. Add in the crimes they didn’t get caught for, and the total is undoubtedly far higher.
This author has some interesting, and unusual, suggestions, including making work a non-negotiable condition of parole and pinning the jobs of prison and parole officials to the recidivism of their charges. It seems worth thinking about.
 
Here's a little quote manipulation for you, from the Washington Post.
Critics view Rove as the person who has made the White House one of the most political in history, a White House in which politics and policy fit hand in glove, all designed to reelect Bush to a second term. "I think there's a general sense he's the driving strategic force for everything they do over there," said Steve Elmendorf, a top adviser to Gephardt's campaign. "Now whether that's true, I don't know, but that's the aura that's been built up."
Some of his White House colleagues say Rove's power is overstated, but only slightly, and if there have been other powerful presidential advisers in recent history, few have achieved the kind of status accorded a man who described himself to students today as "a complete nerd" in high school -- witness the attention he received today.
Setting aside the foolishness of asking a top Gephardt spokesman for a quote about whether Rove is too powerful in the White House, how much are you willing to bet that Rove's colleagues said something like, "Well, to say he is the driving strategic force for everything we do is only a slight overstatement"? However much it is, I'll take all of that action. Yet, that's clearly the implication of the article.
Tuesday, May 6
 
I recent poll mentioned in George Will's column today finds that only 9% of the Democrats could name ANY of the 9 candidates for the party's nomincation. 9% think that Al Gore is running.
 
This is the President's message to North Korea, says theThe New Republic:
"You're hungry, and you can't eat plutonium.'"
No idea if this is accurate or if its the right policy, but its a pithy description.
 
The McCarthy tapes were released today. They are the tapes of all the ordinary Americans McCarthy questioned and as such they offer an opportunity to focus on what I view as the real tragedy of the McCarthy Era. Undoubtedly getting dragged before Sen. McCarthy was uncomfortable, but, as this story from the Washington Post points out, the Congress and even the government as a whole didn't really cause the majority of the damage:
no McCarthy target ever went to jail. The few that ever went to trial were either acquitted or had their cases thrown out on appeal.
The most severe hardships of the McCarthy era were caused by private people, who fired suspected employees and make suspected friends pariahs. McCarthy, I think, gets such vitriolic treatment because we'd rather blame him than ourselves.
Monday, May 5
 
A couple of interesting thing from Howard Kurtz's Media Notes. The first is that Blogging is bigtime - Instapundit writer Glen Reynolds and Andrew Sullivan (see our blogroll) were mentioned right along with David Brooks and Michael Leeden. Wonder when he'll mention us for the first time?

The other is that Joe Lieberman's message seems to be the big winner from the Democratic debates: that he's the one Democrat who can match George Bush in the areas where many think he's strong -- defense and moral values -- and beat him where many think he's weak -- on the economy and other domestic items. Me, I think that unless the economy gets worse, it won't much matter who runs. Or, maybe that's just what I hope. Hard to tell right now.


Saturday, May 3
 
The NYT has picked up the Bennett "story" with the following headline: "Relentless Moral Crusader Is Relentless Gambler".

Cute.

 
The link below is to a Newsweek story about William Bennett's gambling practices.

http://www.msnbc.com/news/908430.asp?cp1=1

This appears to be nothing but an overt slam piece. What on earth is newsworthy about this to make a "news" magazine like Newsweek. Perhaps a blurb in the "Personality Parade" section of the Post. Or even better a feature story in the National Inquirer. But Newsweek is simply out to do damage to a highly respected conservative commentator.

Here is the key quote from Bennett himself: “I play fairly high stakes. I adhere to the law. I don’t play the ‘milk money.’ I don’t put my family at risk, and I don’t owe anyone anything,” Bennett says. The documents do not contradict those points.

Notice the snide comment from the Newsweek author using the double negative instead of the confirming that the documents "support" Bennett's statement.



Friday, May 2
 
The district court opinion in the McCain-Feingold bill is out and it strikes down large parts of the bill. I'll look it over more carefully, but it definately struck down the issue ad provisions (thank goodness) and may have struck down other portions as well. The case was decided by a 3 judge panel and will now be appealed straight to the Supreme Court.


 
Not only in America. Brits apparently can make this foolish argument too.
Labour Member of Parliament Tam Dalyell, the longest serving member of the House of Commons, [was quoted] as saying he thought Blair was unduly influenced by a cabal of Jewish advisors. [The author of the piece] said Dalyell named Peter Mandelson, a former Blair cabinet member, Lord Levy, Blair's chief fund-raiser and Foreign Secretary Jack Straw, an Anglican who has a Jewish grandparent.
Straw's part of the Jewish conspiracy because his grandparent is Jewish? I mean, come on guys. Are you for real?
 
My favorite comment from the scrappleface blog that Logan linked to below.

Standard issue for all EU Army personnel:

Item: Flag, 8' x 10', White. Qty: 2 (never send a soldier into battle without a backup plan!)

Item: Phrasebook, multi-lingual. One entry: "I Surrender" in over 150 languages.

Posted by: Bisselite on April 30, 2003 02:02 PM
 
Cynics and the USS Abraham Lincoln
Somehow the sacrifice of [the] men and women [of the Abraham Lincoln] never registers. It's not worth commenting on. The only thing that matters is that this was a campaign event and it's to be judged as just another rally on the way to the convention. The ship, the soldiers, the ocean--all of it is treated as mere bunting, as a Deaveresque device to provide pretty pictures. This is what passes for wisdom.


Indeed.

UPDATE: Unsuprisingly, the New York Times is one culprit.
 
Hilarious. ScrappleFace: Chirac's EU Army to Follow Doctrine of Post-Emption
 
California girl recites pledge despite dad's lawsuit
The California schoolgirl whose father sparked a major court battle against the Pledge of Allegiance has actually been saying it even though she could opt out of the daily ritual, a school official said Thursday.

 
The Dems have begun a filibuster against Priscilla Owen. I'm curious how they'd respond to a comparison of Owen and Estrada to Scalia and Thomas. To say that Owen and Estrada are too conservative to be judges, you've got to say that they are more conservative than Scalia and Thomas or that Scalia and Thomas are too conservative to be judges as well. I suspect they'd say the second, but that claim doesn't really make sense to me. I mean, how can you say that a judicial philosophy that has (at least) two adherents on the current Supreme Court, and is widely shared by many respected lower court judges (like Easterbrook, Kozinski, Alito, Wilkinson, and Luttig, to name a few) is inappropriate for judges? I just don't think you can say it with a straight face. Nevertheless, that seems to be the argument that is being made by, at least, some interest groups like N.O.W.) The Dems may suprise me and say that Owen and Estrada are more conservative than Scalia and Thomas, but then I'd be curious to hear how they know that.

In any case, when Rehnquist retires, I'd like to see Sam Alito on the short list.
 
The tide seems to be turning some on school vouchers, with Mayor Anthony Williams endorsing vouchers in D.C. Vouchers in general are an idea I tenatively support, and experimenting with vouchers is an idea I strongly support. What I don't understand about the debate is where all the opposition comes from. Even if we assume that vouchers are clearly a poor policy, the policy wonks alone don't seem strong enough to fight off all the parents from rich suburbs and poor inner cities who strongly support choice for their child. Those folks are pretty passonate about their position, I would guess. I understand the teachers unions are against vouchers, but do they really have that much weight? Its curious. Any insight would be appreciated.
Thursday, May 1
 
I was unaware the CIA was equiped to hijack airliners. From my new favorite news agency, the (North) Korean News
Subversive activities and assassination are also part of the trite terrorist methods employed by the U.S. it conducted at least 900 assassination operations between 1961 and 1976 alone. Besides, there were the blowing-up of a Cuban airliner in 1976 and the hijacking of an Egyptian airliner in 1985.

 
Nice work Logan. Three cheers. By the way, here is a quote from today's Best of the Web on opinionjournal -- "Just for the heck of it, let's make fun of the Germans."

You have to love James Taranto.
 
VICTORY II:
We now have a web counter, allowing us to confirm what we all suspect: that we are the only people who view this site!


Powered by Blogger