ambivalent imbroglio: June 20, 2004 - June 26, 2004 Archives

« June 13, 2004 - June 19, 2004 | Main | June 27, 2004 - July 03, 2004 »

June 26, 2004

F#@& Yourself

So you heard that Dick Cheney told Vermont Senator Patrick Leahy to F#@& himself the other day, right? Yeah, that's right:

A brief argument between Vice President Cheney and a senior Democratic senator led Cheney to utter a big-time obscenity on the Senate floor this week.
On Tuesday, Cheney, serving in his role as president of the Senate, appeared in the chamber for a photo session. A chance meeting with Sen. Patrick J. Leahy (Vt.), the ranking Democrat on the Judiciary Committee, became an argument about Cheney's ties to Halliburton Co., an international energy services corporation, and President Bush's judicial nominees. The exchange ended when Cheney offered some crass advice.

"Fuck yourself," said the man who is a heartbeat from the presidency.

Hm. Interesting. Even better, Cheney said yesterday he has no regrets:

Cheney said he "probably" used an obscenity in an argument Tuesday on the Senate floor with Patrick J. Leahy (D-Vt.) and added that he had no regrets. "I expressed myself rather forcefully, felt better after I had done it," Cheney told Neil Cavuto of Fox News. The vice president said those who heard the putdown agreed with him. "I think that a lot of my colleagues felt that what I had said badly needed to be said, that it was long overdue."

So just so I can get this straight: Janet Jackson's boob on tv is cause for huge concern, but the Vice President of the United States stands on the Senate Floor and tells a United States Senator to f#@& himself, and it's "not an issue"? Nice. (Note: I just saw Musclehead pointed this out first. I'm always late to the party.)

Apparently, Leahy had touched one of the Veep's nerves—he doesn't like people pointing out his cozy connections to the administration's number one defense contractor pal:

Cheney said yesterday he was in no mood to exchange pleasantries with Leahy because Leahy had "challenged my integrity" by making charges of cronyism between Cheney and his former firm, Halliburton Co. Leahy on Monday had a conference call to kick off the Democratic National Committee's "Halliburton Week" focusing on Cheney, the company, "and the millions of dollars they've cost taxpayers," the party said.
"I didn't like the fact that after he had done so, then he wanted to act like, you know, everything's peaches and cream," Cheney said. "And I informed him of my view of his conduct in no uncertain terms. And as I say, I felt better afterwards."

The Washington Post calls this "conduct unbecoming" to a Vice President, but really, I appreciate Cheney's candor. Perhaps this is part of a new strategy of honesty. For example, the Bush/Cheney campaign is also using images of Adolf Hitler in its official campaign videos. Perhaps we're finally getting to see Bush/Cheney in all their crass, hateful, and antisocial glory. It's really very refreshing. After all, we've all known that "f#@& yourself" has been the basic attitude of the Bush administration since day one. A few of the most obvious examples of this:

Bush/Cheney to America's public schoolkids, their parents, and local school boards: F#@& yourself. Of course, Bush/Cheney didn't say that exactly; instead, they said something about "No Child Left Behind."

Bush/Cheney to the environment, environmental activists, the Kyoto Protocol, and experts in global warming: F#@& yourself. But again, Bush/Cheney didn't say that exactly; instead, they said something about "Clean Skies and Healthy Forests" and voluntary pollution-reduction programs, etc.

Bush/Cheney to dozens of world governments and the people (if not always the leaders) of Great Britain, Germany, France, Spain and others: F#@& yourself. Of course, Bush/Cheney said something about "weapons of mass destruction" and "terrorism" and "liberating Iraq."

I could go on, but I think you get the idea. See, isn't candor great? I can just see the t-shirts and bumper stickers now:

"Vote Bush/Cheney '04. And F#@& Yourself."

Posted 08:13 PM | Comments (7) | election 2004

We Sure Do Need Some Water*

We saw "Fahrenheit 9/11" last night and it was ... a great film! (I know you're all shocked that I liked it. You can pick your jaws up off the floor now.) In many ways, typical Moore. In at least one way, not quite so typical—he wasn't in it that much (except as narrator and commentator throughout, of course). After seeing it, one thing seems certain: The barrage of pundits speaking out against the film (and Moore personally) in the last 1-2 weeks were designed to do one thing: Make people decide in advance they don't want to see the film. I say that because I think almost anyone who sees this movie—all but the most Republican partisans—will have to think very very seriously about voting for Bush this November. You may find much to quibble with in the film, but its most damning underlying argument is pretty unassailable. Therefore, the Republicans' best hope to reduce the damage the film might do to Bush's chances is just to go all out to try to keep people from seeing it at all. And I'm not talking censorship. The strategy is to make those who haven't seen the film think Moore is a crazed lunatic and perhaps a traitor, and to make the film seem like one big fat lie.

There's just one problem with that, Moore's not crazy, and, while the film's analysis of recent history might be hyperbolic or facile at times, in its biggest theme, it does not lie. Despite that, the "don't see it!" strategy may be working. One of my co-workers yesterday declared she has no desire to see the film because Moore's a crazy liar, and at least one other person I know (who is a dedicated Fox "news" watcher) has decided he won't be seeing it either, for the same reason.

<snark> It's a good thing people make up their own minds in this country, don't you think? </snark>

I don't want to spoil the film for those who haven't seen it yet, although I'm not sure I could even if I wanted to; if you've been following any coverage of it, you know what it's about already. It seemed to have a prologue and two parts. The prologue how Bush was appointed president by the Supreme Court after thousands of voters were disenfranchised in Florida. Part one is about September 11, 2001 and the immediate response to it—the fact that leading up to it the Bush administration seemed not very interested in Bin Laden or Al Quaeda or terrorism, the fact that Bush just sat in a schoolroom in in Florida for seven minutes after he was told that America was "under attack" (Moore's critics seem to really dislike what he does with this), the fact that the Bush administration helped 142 Saudi Arabian nationals—including many members of the Bin Laden family—leave the country on charter flights w/out being asked any questions, etc. (Moore's also been challenged on this, since the 9/11 Commission said that, in hindsight, it looks like none of the Saudis who were allowed to leave were likely terrorists or anything. This misses the point, which is simply: Why were these people, of all people, given special treatment? No one is saying they were terrorists, only that it was improper to give them any advantages over anyone else at that time.)

There's a lot packed into the first half of the movie, including interesting little details about the deep connections between the Bush family and Saudi Arabian oil bigshots and royalty. I'm sure Moore's critics are busily explaining away all those little details in their arguments that they all add up to nothing. The big point here was not incredibly clear to me. It's definitely not that Saudi Arabians are secretly running U.S. foreign and domestic policy or anything like that. Part one simply points out that there's deep ties between the Bush family (and others in the Bush administration), and Saudi interests, and that there's big money involved, and that that Saudi interests have received very good treatment from the U.S. for some time.

Part two was, for me, more effective. Part two is more about the buildup to Bush's invasion and occupation of Iraq, all the lies that went into getting Americans and the world to buy that debacle, who is getting rich off the war (e.g., the Carlyle Group and Halliburton) and who is paying the price for Bush's lies. I'm sure many people are trying, but just can't imagine how anyone could argue that Moore is wrong here. The companies and people profiting from the war can't deny that they're doing so. They can argue that "somebody's gotta do it," but that's no excuse; no one would have had to do it if Bush hadn't invaded in the first place. Also, how can Bush and Co. defend the fact that ten times more taxpayer dollars go to a private Halliburton-employed truck driver than to a member of the U.S. armed forces who's basically doing the same job? I don't see the defense, the logic, the argument. The war was unnecessary, and now it's created countless opportunities for corporations to steal from American taxpayers with the blessing and active assistance of the U.S. government. Hooray.

And that's Moore's biggest and strongest argument, as I see it: The big losers in the America created by the Bush administration are those with the least to begin with—the poor and marginalized Americans who are losing social services because so much of the federal budget has to go to Iraq, and who are losing their lives because they are the people who make up the vast majority of the U.S. armed forces. It's not a fun message. In fact, it's very very sad. But it's true.

And in this respect, I 'd argue that "Fahrenheit 9/11" is a great film. I disagree with Moore's critics, those who try to dismiss him as a lunatic who "rewrites history" or reduces it to simple a black/white binaries. In "Fahrenheit 9/11" and "Bowling for Columbine," Moore attempts to connect current American problems of poverty, racism, and other social inequalities with American history in an attempt to understand -- and to help viewers understand -- how we might have come to where we find ourselves today. No, he can't resist the facile jab here and there that tends to reduce his larger analysis to a simple theory of cause and effect. For example, in "BFC" he says that the NRA was founded the same day the KKK was officially disbanded. This implies that the NRA is just a front for the KKK -- he never says that in "BFC," but he juxtaposes those two facts in a way that makes suggests the connection and encourages viewers to make it for themselves. Is something like this mere coincidence? Perhaps. And if so, if there's nothing to it, then Moore comes off looking like he's reducing a complex history to a bunch of simple comparisons, connecting things that just aren't connected. But his larger points don't depend on such coincidences; instead, they're based on a reading of the factual record that is not usually flattering to the wealthy and powerful in the U.S., but which is, nevertheless, true.

That's my take, anyway. As always, I look forward to hearing what others think.

Five Things

Following up on the [non]Billable Hour's Five by Five, second edition, Scheherazade asks: What are the five things you would change about the practice of law?

1. Close down Lexis and Westlaw and bring an immediate and permanent end to for-profit legal research. The law belongs to the people, not Westlaw. The services now provided by these companies should be done by public employees paid by tax dollars, then the cost of legal research and representation would drop for everyone. See also Carolyn Elefant's suggestion #1. Same idea, mine just goes further; instead of having one free Lexis/Westlaw account per library or school, every computer w/internet access should have free, unlimited access to the publicly-funded, non-profit replacement of Lexis and Westlaw. This new database should also be searchable by Google and any other search engine.

2. Dissolve the ABA's cartel-like stranglehold on law schools and legal education. This would involve eliminating current requirements in most states that you have three years of law school before you can even take the Bar. Perhaps we should eliminate the Bar exam, as well. See Scheherazade's suggestion #1 . But even if some sort of qualifying credential is required to practice law, it should not require any sort of formal training. If there's a Bar exam or something like it, and you can pass it without a day of formal education, you should be able to practice law.

3. Reduce firm salaries and billable hours requirements by half, across the board, while at the same time doubling salaries for public defenders, legal aid attorneys, non-profit attorneys and all other "public interest" practitioners. That wouldn't even the playing field, but it would go a long way. See also Scheherazade's suggestion #4.

4. Make lawyers accountable for the work they do. I really don't know how to do this, but perhaps a google-able database of lawyers and the cases they've worked on would go some way to making attorneys accountable for the work they've done to protect big tobacco, to help Enron rip off its shareholders and the American public, and convince the Bush administration that it doesn't have to follow the Geneva Convention.

5. Require law schools do more than pay lip service to public interest law. Again, I'm not sure how to do this, but law schools need not be factories for producing BigLaw drones. For a start, professors who make jokes to their classes about how rich attorneys can get by screwing their clients should be fired. Becoming a lawyer should not be about making money.

Combined, my suggestions should go a long way to taking the money incentive out of the practice of law. Making the best available legal research free to all will reduce the overall demand for attorneys—more people will be able to do their own research and represent themselves. Freeing law schools from the dictates of the ABA will allow new schools to spring up, and eliminating the law school requirement altogether will allow the number of lawyers to skyrocket. All that great competition (lawyers love competition, right?) will mean no one will get much money. And, since legal research will be free, lawyers will be able to charge much less there, as well. Reduced firm salaries will become a necessity; therefore, law students will be much less motivated to go to BigLaw anyway. Plus, since they won't be paying such high tuition (because there are more law schools and because some people won't go to school at all to become lawyers), students will graduate with much less (or no) debt, removing another reason many people now go to BigLaw. Finally, if lawyers are forced to make a public accounting of the work they do, we'll have fewer people writing terror memos and defending companies that destroy the environment and public health and all those other bad things. The world will be a better place, and all because of these five things.

What was it Aerosmith said? Was it, "dream on"?

Aside: The Five by Five idea is brilliant. A very valuable and innovative use of the blog form, IMHO. Thanks to the [non] Billable Hour for bringing it to us. One way I think the feature could be even better is if its main archive page featured a table of contents in outline form that listed the edition number and question, followed by a bulleted list of links directly to the responses of each of the five contributors to that edition. Just an idea.

Posted 05:37 AM | Comments (7) | law general

Attack Mode: Engaged

It looks like Christopher Hitchens is trying to lead the charge against "Fahrenheit 9/11", another movie with its own (unofficial) blog. Hitchens brazenly displays one of the fundamental disagreements between the left and the right in America today. The left says the world is complicated, and there's no simple "good v. evil" or any other binary, but complex spectra of interleaved causes and effects. The right says no, it's good or evil, black or white, either or:

Either the Saudis run U.S. policy (through family ties or overwhelming economic interest), or they do not. As allies and patrons of the Taliban regime, they either opposed Bush's removal of it, or they did not. (They opposed the removal, all right: They wouldn't even let Tony Blair land his own plane on their soil at the time of the operation.) Either we sent too many troops, or were wrong to send any at all—the latter was Moore's view as late as 2002—or we sent too few.

Oops! Excuse me, Mr. Hitchens, but I'm afraid that last binary got a little mangled—you've suggested there are more than two options and that just cannot be!

To be fair, it's possible to argue that Moore's worldview is no more complex or nuanced than the one Hitchens describes (also: I think Hitchens is just playing the role of sensational provocateur here, a role with which he's apparently familiar). According to the Washington Post:

In this latest movie Moore has been praised for having matured as a filmmaker, but his worldview hasn't changed much since "Roger and Me" -- history can be explained by tracing connections between rich people and their friends.

That may not be wholly inaccurate as far as what Moore thinks. It also wouldn't be wholly untrue. But whatever.

Apparently the movie had its U.S. premier last night at the Uptown, here in D.C. L. and I have tickets to a Friday showing, so I'll have a better idea of what to make of it after that.

Rule Of Law?

This is just wrong:

[Former Assistant Attorney General Jay Bybee] who advocated that the United States ignore international law--and some might say, commit war crimes--now holds a lifetime appointment on the federal bench.

UPDATE: I haven't really been following the whole terror memo debacle, but this just seems to illustrate why it's so important we have regime change in the U.S. this November. It's not just Bush, it's not just Cheney or Rummy or Ashcroft, it's all of them, and all the people they've hired and listen to. This administration as a whole has demonstrated such a disdain for law and justice at every level that even staunch Republicans need to step back and really think about whether these are the kind of people—reactionary loose cannons with no respect for the law or anything other than their agenda—they want running the country.

Posted 08:20 PM | general politics

Remembering Hope

One year ago today, Howard Dean announced he was running for President of the United States. He called his announcement speech "The Great American Restoration" ; it was a great speech. After outlining the many problems he saw with politics as usual in the U.S., Dean declared the mission of his campaign:

Martin Luther King, Jr. said, Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about things that matter.
The history of our nation is clear: At every turn when there has been an imbalance of power, the truth questioned, or our beliefs and values distorted, the change required to restore our nation has always come from the bottom up from our people.

And so, while the President raises $4 million more tonight to maintain his agenda, we will not be silent.

He calls his biggest fundraisers Rangers and Pioneers.

But today, we stand together with thousands in Burlington, Vermont and tens of thousands more, standing with us right now in every state in this nation. And we call ourselves, simply, Americans.

And we stand today in common purpose to take our country back.

I stood in a brewpub in Shirlington with around 100 others watching the speech on video, and after hearing that speech, I made my first-ever contribution to a political candidate. Dean wasn't my dream candidate, and in many places I disagreed with his agenda; to me, Dean was too centrist. But that didn't matter, because finally here was a politician who was describing the world I lived in, rather than some fantasy world I'd never seen or visited. Finally, here was a politician who gave me hope that maybe my vote would matter, maybe my voice and my actions could matter, and maybe we, as Americans, could turn this country around.

One year ago today, I started hoping again. For the next six months, Howard Dean offered honest, frank, specific, pointed, fact-based critiques of the current administration, Congress, corporate America, and politics as usual in the U.S. He had everyone running for cover, and by January 2004 he had everyone believing that he would at least get the Democratic nomination, if not the presidency. It was a beautiful thing to watch, and a beautiful thing to be a part of. I gave money, I set up and staffed information tables at street fairs, I attended rallies, I held a house party, I collected names to add to the email list. I had hope, and it felt great to back that hope with action (even when I could and should have done much more).

And then something happened. What was it? I still can't say, but I do know it had a lot to do with a politics of fear, the fires of which were stoked by all of Dean's many opponents, both Republicans and Democrats alike. Dean offered hope, his opponents offered fear, and fear won. Too simplistic? Sure. But that's what it looks like from here, one year later. I look forward to seeing how history describes the rise and fall of the Dean campaign. Perhaps history will prove me wrong.

Today, a year after "The Great American Resotoration," I still hope that Bush will not be reelected, but that's about it. And if that happens, the presidential administration will change, and yes, many things will get incrementally better under Kerry, but politics will continue as usual. It's sad, thinking of what might have been. And yes, we can still hope that a Kerry presidency will be better than anything so far would give us reason to think it will be, and we can hope that beyond Kerry, beyond the presidency, there are still ways to change America for the better. After all, hope dies last, right?

Posted 05:59 AM | election 2004

June 22, 2004

Control Room

L and I saw "Control Room" the other night at E Street Cinema. If you haven't heard of it, the Washington Post review should cover the basics.

I can't decide what was best about the film, but among my favorite segments were:

Bush demanding that any American POWs must be treated with the same respect and dignity with which the U.S. is treating the Iraqi prisoners. Um, yeah.
Rumsfeld talking about how truth has a way of getting out, regardless of the lies leaders might tell. Say it again, Rummy!
When CentCom told the room of reporters that American troops had been giving decks of cards showing the pictures and names of the 55 "most wanted" Iraqis. The press didn't have anything to say except, "Do you have any decks for us?" They cried like babies because the U.S. military wasn't giving them decks of Iraqi "most wanted" cards, and mostly it was just because they all knew their stories would sell so much better if they had those images. Were the reporters clamoring for a better story so that they could better serve the propaganda interests of the U.S., or were they simply trying to get better ratings with more sensational images? Hard to tell.

The film's most serious suggestion is that, 1) the U.S. intentionally bombed Al Jazeera's office in Baghdad, killing one of its reporters; and 2) that bombing was orchestrated to prevent/discourage Al Jazeera from being on the scene for the big spectacle of the statue of Saddam being pulled down. Al Jazeera's offices were bombed a day before the statute was pulled down, which meant that Al Jazeera didn't have any crews on the ground to cover it; therefore, it was easier for the U.S. to manipulate the images of that spectacle to ensure that it came across the "right" way on tv. There's little doubt in my mind about #1 (the U.S. intentionally bombed Al Jazeera), and #2 seems very probable.

Other upcoming documentaries to look forward to:
Fahrenheit 9/11 (6/25)
The Hunting of the President (6/25)
The Corporation (not sure when it's coming, but soon; interesting review here)

An Ambivalent First

Inexplicably, Macsurfer currently features a link to this post here at ai. I don't understand why my little jibe at Safari attracted anyone's attention (perhaps for no better reason than that I linked to Apple's Safari page?), but I won't complain. Macsurfer was one of the sites I read daily for years—before I realized I'd better cut my consumption of mac-related obsessiveness if I was going to get other things done in my life. It remains a pre-eminent source for news of all things Macintosh, and I'm flattered for the mention.

Posted 05:00 AM | mac geek meta-blogging

June 21, 2004

The Rule of Law: Breyer's ACS Keynote

The highlight of this year's ACS Convention was Justice Breyer's keynote, which he framed as a message to today's law students. What follows is a summary of his speech which attempts to faithfully convey what he said. My own editorial comments are clearly marked as such.

Breyer asked future lawyers to remember that what's important in life is family, work, and community, and that "women are a force for good." He joked that he's "the oldest youngest" Justice, and despite having been on the Court for a decade, he still sometimes has to hold the door open if someone knocks during a judicial meeting. He told a short anecdote about recently bringing Scalia his coffee. "I've been doing this for 10 years," Breyer told Scalia. "I think I've gotten pretty good."

"No, you haven't," Scalia replied.

Breyer then magically summarized the Constitution in one minute, but I unfortunately couldn't write that fast. He praised "the rule of law" in the U.S., and said he strives to remember that "there's no view so crazy that someone in the U.S. doesn't hold it," adn that all those people show up in the Supreme Court to iron out their views.

He cited three cases that demonstrate what he means by "the rule of law" in the U.S. The first was Worcester vs. Georgia, the 1832 case in which the Cherokee tribe sued the state of Georgia after Georgia tried to steal the gold the Cherokee had found on Cherokee land. The Court found for the Cherokee, but President Andrew Jackson said something along the lines of: Marshall has made his decision, now let him enforce it. Then Jackson sent federal troops to Georgia, not to enforce the Court's decision, but to evict the Cherokee, hence the Trail of Tears.

The second case Breyer cited to illustrate "the rule of law" was the "second" Cooper v. Aaron, a desegregation case in which the Court told the Governor of Arkansas he had to desegregate the schools. (I'm not familiar with this case and I couldn't find it anywhere, so I must not have heard the name correctly. Anyone know which case this is?) The Governor refused, so President Eisenhower sent federal troops in to enforce the requirements of Brown v. Board of Education. "I like that case," Breyer said.

Finally, the last case Breyer suggested that illustrates "the rule of law" is any case you can think of. "Take your pick," Breyer said, and proceeded to list controversial cases such as "Bush v. Gore, school prayer, the abortion cases," and others. Take the most controversial case you want, Breyer suggested. "People feel strongly about these cases," he said. But, using Bush v. Gore as his example, Breyer said "what's remarkable is that, regardless of the decision, people follow it as a matter of course." In fact, that Americans will follow the decisions of the Supreme Court is "so obviously true, we don't even think it's interesting," Breyer said.

Mini editorial: It ma just be me, but it sounds like Breyer was saying that the great thing about the rule of law is that "we," meaning the Supreme Court, can do whatever the hell we want, and people will obey like sheep. Yeah, I guess there's some beauty about that. It's great to be king, isn't it? /Mini editorial.

Breyer went on to say that the most important part of the Constitution is what that document is basically about: democracy. He said the Constitution is great because it's a document that doesn't make decisions, but one that creates a structure that lets people make decisions for themselves.

To the common complaint that the democratic process isn't working, Breyer recommended we pull our noses out of the daily news (which he admitted is rather discouraging) and look at the big picture. For example, he asked: How will we reconcile the rights of privacy and free speech in a world where cameras and recording devices are everywhere capturing everything we do and say? He doesn't have an answer, but he's encouraged that "we're trying to find the answer with conversation" in law review articles, discussions, and through ABA committees. ("I love the ABA, with its 4,000 members and 8,000 committees," Breyer said. Everyone laughed.)

Breyer thinks that when tough issues like this arise, the Supreme Court generally waits until others have made up their minds about them, then the Court merely checks to see if those decisions are ok. He described this as "a process where law bubbles up from the bottom, it's not imposed from the top."

Editorial: What a quaint and happy little fantasy! /Editorial.

Breyer recommended we think about this process and we won't be as discouraged as he gets when he just reads the newspaper everyday.

Breyer also discussed what he considers the most important case he's sat on since he's been on the Court: Grutter v. Bollinger, the affirmative action case from the summer of 2003. He said that case involves an interpretation of the equal protection clause. According to Breyer, there are two ways to interpret that clause. One, you can interpret it strictly, or purposively, as a clause designed to prevent invidious discrimination only. Or two, you can take the "color-blind" approach that says that race is out, it shouldn't be considered either positively or negatively, and that any other view is too dangerous. Breyer suggested there are three bases for choosing between these two views of equal protection: There's a lot of discrimination to make up for, and we should do that. This affirmative action program (at the University of Michigan in the Gruder case) involves universities, and they have a 1st amendment right to choose who to admit to their school. The court's approach: Let us have affirmative action. Breyer said the Court was told by people everywhere—in business, the military, education, etc.—that America needs affirmative action, and that it needs to be managed carefully, "but if you tell us to be color blind, we will not be able to function." Breyer said the Court heard from people everywhere that "the race-blind approach is divisive, and the other approach is inclusive."

Is that a legal or a moral or a practical argument, Breyer asked. Breyer argued that it's a legal argument, because it's an argument that further's the Constitution's purpose, whihc is to create a workable democracy. Democracy won't work if large groups of people think democracy is theirs, while others think they're excluded. Breyer suggested that if we could ask the people who wrote the Constitution if they'd like a Constitution that works, or one that doesn't, their answer would be unequivocal: "Work! Work!" Breyer said the Gruder decision ensures that people can work together.

In conclusion, Breyer said, "Out of 10 years, the one clear conviction I have is that the Constitution is a document that must work, and it can't work unless people participate." The Constitution allows us to make our own decisions, but it still won't work unless we (as attorneys, presumably) get out of our law firms from time-to-time and participate. ("And thank you law firm people for being here," Breyer joked.)

Breyer's last statement was a call to action: He called on attorneys to participate in their local school board, or even a bowling league—there are millions of ways to participate; just do something. "That's what this document tells me."

Posted 09:14 PM | Comments (1) | law general

ACS Conventionism

The weekend's encounter with the ACS Convention was pleasant and enlightening. Highlights included the keynote speech by Justice Breyer, 2nd Circuit Judge Guido Calabresi's comments comparing George W. Bush to Hitler and Mussolini, and the free meals and drinks just about made the convention worth the price of admission. I admit to being a bad convention attendee. I don't like dressing up and making small talk with people I don't know, and that seems to be a big part of a convention like this. Anyway, that's why you might take what I say with a grain of salt.

The first session I attended Friday was entitled "Globalization: The Next Frontier for Labor Rights and Democracy." I had hoped it would talk about organizing workers around the world to demand that human rights (and environmental protections) take their proper place at the forefront of so-called "trade negotiations." Instead, the speakers talked about how non-democratic the WTO and similar bodies are, how trade policy protects business interests, etc. It was all high level; workers were hardly mentioned. Sure, "the people" were the focus, but the panelists are all focused on the top, rather than the bottom. Perhaps they'll accomplish something great from that end, but I'm skeptical. The panel standout was Jonathan Hiatt, General Counsel for the AFLCIO, who focused on trade provisions similar to those in NAFTA Chapter 11 that almost guarantee that My impression of this panel is somewhat limited, however, because I had to curl myself into the smallest possible package just to sit in the room.

Note to convention organizers: Do not pack chairs into rooms so tightly that people cannot even sit in them! The room for this session had us packed in like sardines!

My second session was entitled, "Reframing Democracy: Texas, Georgia, Pennsylvania and the Redistricting Battles." This was much better and more lively, with Paul Smith arguing on the left that the gerrymandering of congressional voting districts is anti-democratic, and Michael Carvin arguing on the right that the Democrats are just being whiny babies. Carvin was really a sight to see, admitting that he'd go anywhere and argue anything the Republican party asked him to argue, before taking up the unbelievable and indefensible proposition that computer generated and manipulated voting districts are virtually problem-free in terms of democracy and constitutionality. He might be right on the strict constitutional argument, but that's the refuge of cowards in this fight, if you ask me (which you didn't, I know).

Not surprisingly, the best part of the convention was Justice Breyer's keynote. Detailed notes on that will follow in the next post.

Another highlight was Saturday morning's double-session on the 14th Amendment, followed by a lively lunch discussion on what's at stake in this fall's presidential election. Among the notable points were C. Boyden Gray arguments that turning public schools over to private enterprise will cure all of society's ills. Sure is working for health care, don't you think? (Don't even get me started on how cynical and plain anti-democratic Gray's arguments are—it won't be pretty.) Also, it was during this lunch session that Judge Calabresi noted that Bush "came to power" in the same way as Hitler and Mussolini. Calabresi stated that he wanted to make clear that he wasn't trying to equate Bush with Hitler, he was just trying to make the point that it's unusual for leaders to come to power in the way that Bush and these other figures did, and in light of that, Calabresi thinks Bush should check his use of presidential power, rather than attempting to expand it beyond all reasonable proportions. (See, for example, the torture memos.)

So in all, the sparks were flying, the food was ok, and a good time was had by all.

Briefly, I thought the conference needed a blog, and it needed to have wireless access in the conference rooms. I won't go into why, but I do think the ACS would be more successful in reaching a wider audience if it would get bloggy. Apparently there is an ACS Blog, but it appears unofficial and therefore not exactly what I had in mind.

Meanwhile, Professor Bainbridge says the ACS is "the least necessary organization in legal education," and leaves it to Professor Gordon Smith to explain why. Three Years of Hell and his readers offer some commentary.

UPDATE: See also:
Discussion and comments with links to news and blog coverage of Judge Calabresi's remarks about Bush from Matt and Scott at L-Cubed (here and here), from Professor Yin, and from Professor Althouse.

Now also, see Calabresi's apology.

Posted 08:57 PM | law general

June 20, 2004

A-Pull

If you were ever a reader of Cooped Up, a blog by IU-Indianapolis Law Professor Jeff Cooper, you'll be glad to know his hiatus from blogging has been broken with a couple of posts describing a breakthrough in his son's development. For those who aren't familiar with the story, Professor Cooper was a prolific blogger who suddenly stopped posting last October when he learned that his son, Noah, had a developmental delays and possible hearing disabilities. Seven months later, it sounds like Noah is beginning to do much better. Hooray!

On a light note, Professor Cooper's story should settle the Apple v. Dell debate once and for all — in favor of the magical Macintosh, of course. ;-)

Posted 02:14 PM | life generally

Unexpectedly What?

As part of my research for this article I had a couple dozen windows/tabs open in Safari when it decided to "unexpectedly quit." Nice. Stuff like that almost never happens w/Apple software, but I've found if it's going to happen, Safari is going to be the culprit. Oh well.

On the positive, thanks again to everyone who responded to my questions about law school and blogs, and to those who commented here. The deadline for the article is basically here, so if anyone wants to get in any last minute thoughts, now's your chance. Best/worst experiences, anecdotes (i.e. the first time you saw a stranger reading your blog, the first time you learned a prof was reading your blog, etc.), what you've gained from blogging — it's all fair game and most welcome.

Finally, I have lots of notes from the ACS Convention, and other topics that I'll share just as soon as this article is put to bed. For now I'll only tease you a little by saying that Judge Guido Calabresi did not say G. W. Bush was either Hitler or Mussonlini, he merely said that Bush "came to power" in the same way as those two historical figures. Nor did Justice Breyer say that the best thing about the "rule of law" is that the Supreme Court can do anything it wants and everyone will swallow it like good subjects should. At least not in so many words. I'll explain soon. Meanwhile, if anyone finds reports about the convention in the news or on blogs somewhere, I'd love to know about them so I can see what others thought.

Back to work...

Posted 09:20 AM | mac geek meta-blogging