Ah, the post I've long needed the Mormon Democrats to read. As I've said before, I have nothing against Mormon Democrats, per se, but a lot of the ones I know constantly trot out the "I'm a Democrat because I'm more moral than you/live my religion better than you" canard. It's annoying, to put it very mildly.
Thursday, March 22, 2007
And how the twain should meet more often than they do. Here were my thoughts:
But neither should law schools be conducted, as so often seems to be the case, on the premise that their mission is to produce more law professors.
I consider my whole third year of law school wasted. I already had learned to "think like a lawyer" (my belief is that if you can't learn how in two years, maybe you should do something else with your life). I needed actual practical experience. Granted, a lot of it is my own fault for not being more active in seeking out opportunities to gain real experience, but I was still required to take classes on the theoretical. Every time I asked a question along the lines of "yeah, but how often does that actually happen in court?" I'd get a puzzled look and an "well, I'll have to check on that" or "well, when I was practicing [from 1977-1978], we...."
The only available classes for practical experience were "Lawyering Process" and "Practice Court". Each of which were heavy on the lecture, with what I would describe as a "token" practice experience. For example, one week we did "Cross-examining" (Beldar may remember that I wrote him an email and he was gracious enough to reply, at length, which reply was more helpful than anything I'd gotten from the professor). Tuesday, a long lecture, with war stories mixed in. Thursday, everyone got 5-10 minutes to cross-examine some other student on a pre-arranged fact pattern. Then, we never spoke of it again. How helpful was this to me? Hah.
I'm new enough now to the practice of law that I still get nervous for depositions and contested hearings where I'm going to have to educate the judge on what the statute actually says and why my opponent's argument of "yeah, so?" should not stand. But I feel like I'd be a heck of lot less nervous, and better at my job (which people who are in real trouble are kind enough to pay me to do), if the school I went to in preparation for the job, had, you know, actually taught me something useful about it.
Saturday, March 17, 2007
Wanted to blog about this later.
Edit: Ok, I'm here and I just don't understand the view that is anti-"people can go to school where they want and take their education tax dollars with them". Is there a non-collectivist, socialistically-based argument?
Thursday, March 15, 2007
Why exactly does Ghandi continue to get, not only a free pass, but lots of respect in popular culture ? Oh, because popular culture is remarkably uninformed? Yeah, that's the easy answer. I find it remarkable that even a cursory bit of research turns up things like this and this and this. The second one, an analysis by neo-neocon, is interesting because it shows that some of Gandhi's beliefs were, frankly, nuts. I personally believe that it is evil to not defend your family, whereas Gandhi believed that any violence was evil. We probably both take those propositions on religious faith, but for those who still ask "what would Gandhi do?", don't they have to accept all of his presuppositions as well?
Wednesday, March 14, 2007
David Frum is obviously working off a different playbook than I am. At what point did he think Gonzales would be confirmable? He thinks AG is on the "short list" of confirmable candidates? That's dang confusing to me. I think he's shown himself over and over to be in over his head and well, kind of clueless.
Look, the Democrats are going to attempt to filibuster anyone who GWB nominates (assuming he gets another nomination) but the Republicans just need to man up and hold them responsible.
Tuesday, March 13, 2007
I understand that Don't Ask, Don't Tell necessarily carries the connotation that homosexuality is bad and/or inferior to heterosexuality. After all, there's nothing wrong with saying "hey, Captain Jones, how's your wife?" but there would be with a "hey, Captain Jones, how's your boyfriend?" So, to that extent, and the extent that the second question could get Captain Jones (who may be a very fine soldier indeed) thrown out of the service, I think I disagree with DADT as a policy. However, I also believe that at work, conversations should rarely if ever go deeper than "hey, Bill, how's your wife/boyfriend?" if even that deep. I think Don't Ask, Don't Tell is a wise personal policy to follow, but not one that should be implemented by the State.
It's true, I just don't have the time to put into this that it seems lots of other folks do. I guess that's why I need a group blog, so you can post a little bit here and there like Jim Lindgren of the Volokh Conspiracy. Then again, Beldar went a long time in between blogging, and usually just does one story a day. There's no reason why you have to be Instapundit or even QandO (another group blog).
Maybe that's what I'll do, I'll write just one post a day, for a while and see what it gets me.
Saturday, March 10, 2007
It appears that the WaPo and the New York Times are already engaging in the misinformation campaign with regard to the DC Circuit's opinion yesterday declaring that the Second Amendment secures an individual, not a collective, right.
One thing I've noticed about the comments is that they seem pretty clearly to have NOT read the opinion itself. The characterizations of it are so off-base, unless I conclude the commenters are flat lying, I can only guess they've not read it. Second, many of them seem to be focusing on "this will lead to X, which is bad" and ignoring completely the question of "what does the Constitution actually mean?" I don't think those who are talking about this in the coming days should let the end-result people off the hook so easily.
Oh, and go ahead and read the opinion yourself. It's not that tough to plow through.