* Gotta love Ray Allen. Two straight games hitting the game winner at the buzzer (or close to it). With all the roster changes for the Sonics this year, it's nice to know that Ray is there and that he will be there for a few more years. He plays at such a consistently high level, and he's never a jackass.
* UW hoops is going to be good again next year. Their recruiting class is huge, especially with Seattle Prep's Spencer Hawes coming in. He's a monster. Stanford should be interesting to watch, too, with the Lopez twins coming in. All are playing in tonight's McDonald's All-America Game.
* Michigan owns the NIT. Another win last night put them in the championship game against South Carolina. Too bad they can't win the key Big-10 games down the stretch.
* I'm amused by the whining that's coming out of Minnesota about the Burleson contract... how the Seahawks are acting childishly and how the contract is unfair. (See here and here.) True enough, but... glass houses, Vikings, glass houses. Predictably, the NFL is not happy about any of it, with Tags saying that the poison pills are not "within the spirit" of the CBA. Yep, exactly. But this was news to me: Minnesota's GM says a Seahawks' official told him that they wouldn't have matched Hutch's contract anyway, even without the poison pill. Hearsay! I don't believe it.
* I am not excited about the Mariners season. The lineup looks intriguing, if Beltre can manage a decent year, but the pitching depresses me. They have been killed this spring. I'm not psyched for the Jarrod Washburn era.
* UPDATE: Minnesota owner Zygi Wilf tries to explain the Hutch signing as within the rules: "I think Rob Brzezinski did a wonderful job," Wilf said in a telephone interview. "I think what we had proposed was fair. (Hutchinson) was a transition player. I'm sure if the Seahawks wanted to they could have done something different, maybe made him a franchise player, but that's not how it turned out. I think their reaction to us coming back is a much more convoluted way of putting a poison pill together, but that was their reaction. . . This probably could have been all avoided if they just put the franchise tag on (Hutchinson), from what I understand." So let me understand this. . . the reason it's fair is because a) the Seahawks could have avoided this situation by applying the franchise tag, and b) the Vikings' poison pill wasn't as "convoluted" as the Seahawks'. Ezza. As for (a), this seems to me like an abusive husband saying, "I wouldn't have had to hit her if she hadn't burnt my steak." In other words, just because the Seahawks could have avoided it doesn't justify the subsequent action by the Vikings. As for (b), who cares which clause is more convoluted, when the bottom line is that any poison pill clause affects one team differently than another, making it impossible for the first team to match? Zygi would be satisfied with a poison pill that wasn't quite as snarky? Whatever.
Wednesday, March 29, 2006
Monday, March 27, 2006
Big day of arguments
Tomorrow (Tuesday) brings two big cases to the Supreme Court for oral argument. The first is a patent case, called Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings v. Metabolite Laboratories Inc. The AP has a preview here, and the case promises to have big ripples in the technology, specifically biotech, community. I'd be interested to hear what you techies think about it.
The second case is even bigger, in my view: Hamdan v. Rumsfeld. Hamdan was Osama bin Laden's personal driver, and was captured during military action in Afghanistan. The press is all over it, so there are perspectives all over the Internet, but here's a simple Reuters preview. I spent many, many hours last week writing a bench memo on this case for my Supreme Court Litigation class. It is a very complicated case, and it would take me more than 6,000 words to get it all down here. Essentially there are three questions before the court. The first is whether Congress can strip the federal courts of jurisdiction over habeas corpus petitions (as it tried to do with the Detainee Treatment Act). The second is whether an "enemy combatant" may be tried in a military commission, instead of a court-martial or a civil court. The third is whether Hamdan can assert any Geneva Convention protections.
The overarching theme of it all is the balancing of two interests: military flexibility, and separation of powers. This is a balancing act that has happened many times in our history -- basically every time this country has been at war. The thing that, to me, makes this case different is that this is such a different war than any that has been fought before. It's not a war with any concrete geographic boundaries. It isn't against a clear enemy. It may last indefinitely.
All the hazy details about the war on terror contribute to giving the Executive even more power than ever before. It can decide whom to try in military commissions, decide what crimes to charge him with, and then try and punish him. It can also decide what types of process (whether he gets counsel, whether he may cross-examine witnesses, whether he may present exculpatory evidence, etc.) he will receive in these trials. That's all three branches, combined into one. It's a little scary.
Anyway, it's hard to say how the Court will come out on this. I think they'll ultimately defer to the Executive, but throw in some concurrences that worry about the erosion of the separation of powers. I have very little sympathy for enemy combatants, but the government hasn't convinced me why the commissions (instead of courts-martial or civil trials) are necessary.
If anyone is interested, NPR's "This American Life" has a terrific program on habeas corpus and the Guantanamo situation called "Habeas Schmabeas." Click here, and look for episode 310. (RealPlayer required. Here's the direct link to the audio file.)
The audio of the oral arguments will be available soon. I'll post it when it is.
The second case is even bigger, in my view: Hamdan v. Rumsfeld. Hamdan was Osama bin Laden's personal driver, and was captured during military action in Afghanistan. The press is all over it, so there are perspectives all over the Internet, but here's a simple Reuters preview. I spent many, many hours last week writing a bench memo on this case for my Supreme Court Litigation class. It is a very complicated case, and it would take me more than 6,000 words to get it all down here. Essentially there are three questions before the court. The first is whether Congress can strip the federal courts of jurisdiction over habeas corpus petitions (as it tried to do with the Detainee Treatment Act). The second is whether an "enemy combatant" may be tried in a military commission, instead of a court-martial or a civil court. The third is whether Hamdan can assert any Geneva Convention protections.
The overarching theme of it all is the balancing of two interests: military flexibility, and separation of powers. This is a balancing act that has happened many times in our history -- basically every time this country has been at war. The thing that, to me, makes this case different is that this is such a different war than any that has been fought before. It's not a war with any concrete geographic boundaries. It isn't against a clear enemy. It may last indefinitely.
All the hazy details about the war on terror contribute to giving the Executive even more power than ever before. It can decide whom to try in military commissions, decide what crimes to charge him with, and then try and punish him. It can also decide what types of process (whether he gets counsel, whether he may cross-examine witnesses, whether he may present exculpatory evidence, etc.) he will receive in these trials. That's all three branches, combined into one. It's a little scary.
Anyway, it's hard to say how the Court will come out on this. I think they'll ultimately defer to the Executive, but throw in some concurrences that worry about the erosion of the separation of powers. I have very little sympathy for enemy combatants, but the government hasn't convinced me why the commissions (instead of courts-martial or civil trials) are necessary.
If anyone is interested, NPR's "This American Life" has a terrific program on habeas corpus and the Guantanamo situation called "Habeas Schmabeas." Click here, and look for episode 310. (RealPlayer required. Here's the direct link to the audio file.)
The audio of the oral arguments will be available soon. I'll post it when it is.
Friday, March 24, 2006
Contractual Revenge
The Seahawks signed an offer sheet with the Vikings' Nate Burleson today, to the same $49M, 7 year contract Hutch signed. The contract also includes two tasty provisions:
The first would guarantee the entire contract, all $49 million, if Burleson plays five or more games in the state of Minnesota in any season of the contract. The Vikings, of course, play home games in Minneapolis, at the Metrodome there. The second bizarre provision would guarantee the full contract if Burleson is paid more on average per year than all of the Minnesota running backs combined. At least for now, the averages of the Vikings' tailbacks fall well shy of the $7 million average of the Burleson offer sheet.Pretty funny. Cleary, the Seahawks and Vikings don't get along right now. Should be a fun game this year, when the Vikes come to Qwest Field.
Our symposium
I'm currently sitting at a copyright symposium, hosted by my journal. The most interesting thing I've heard so far is how copyright and trade secret law is being used in anti-democratic ways. We count votes in this country with software, but we don't know what the software is doing, or how it's counting the votes, because the code is protected by IP law. There are a lot of good anecdotal reasons for thinking that the software might very well be rigged, and the ways votes are counted are not on the up-and-up. But we can't prove it; we can't get into the code and see how it works.
The most frustrating thing might be that the entire trade secret idea is a canard -- the software contains very little of the value generally protected by copyright and trade secret law: "They just count the damn votes," a speaker says.
The upshot is that we need new IP laws in this country, especially with regards to voting machines and voting software.
The most frustrating thing might be that the entire trade secret idea is a canard -- the software contains very little of the value generally protected by copyright and trade secret law: "They just count the damn votes," a speaker says.
The upshot is that we need new IP laws in this country, especially with regards to voting machines and voting software.
Thursday, March 23, 2006
More Tree reaction
Stricken by the news of the suspension of her favorite mascot (note the sweatshirt), Maddie stops mid-Cheerio to ask, "Is there no justice?"You see? This anti-tree discrimination is affecting our children.
Wednesday, March 22, 2006
Anti-Tree discrimination!
The Tree has been suspended for the remainder of post-season play! This is the second time this year the Tree has been suspended. Once is a coincidence, but twice is surely a sign of a deep-rooted, widespread conspiracy to keep the Tree out of sports arenas around the country.
This will not stand; this aggression will not stand, man.
This will not stand; this aggression will not stand, man.
He stole my prom date.
The UConn-UW rematch puts Donald Watts back in the news.
Watts played overseas and in American minor leagues for a few years but said his career was hampered by Chronic Fatigue Syndrome, which also bothered him during his UW days. He was diagnosed after leaving college and said he's now improving enough that he is trying to get back in shape to take another shot at playing. He also helps run the Hoopaholics Academy with former teammate Michael Johnson.Chronic Fatigue Syndrome? Ha. That's what I thought.
Monday, March 20, 2006
The NIT... it's fannnntastic!
I went to the Michigan-Notre Dame NIT hoops game tonight, and lo and behold a great game broke out. It took two overtimes before Dion Harris hit a fadeaway 3 at the buzzer to win it. And the crowd went wild, temporarily forgetting that it was the NIT.
Bad news on Hutch
Even though the Hawks restructured Walter Jones' contract to make Hutch the highest-paid offensive lineman on the team, this news report says it won't matter. The "special master," who in my opinion is an absolute cretin, ruled that not only is the poison pill clause valid, but he also specified that the clause kicked in at the time Hutch signed the offer sheet, which was last week. So, restructuring or not, Hutch wasn't the highest paid offensive lineman on the team when he signed the Vikings' offer. The Hawks would have to guarantee the entire contract.
What absolute buffoonery. I don't know how he came to this conclusion, but it seems to me that the "transition" tag system is done. Any team can lure a player away by adding any kind of ridiculous, unmatchable clause. "If Hutch doesn't make 20 times as much as the backup long snapper at the time of this signing, he will get $100 billion guaranteed. Otherwise he gets $40 million, with $10 million guaranteed. What? Your long snapper already makes $4 million? Whoops. Sorry. You lose."
Fine. Whatever. Hutch clearly doesn't want to be a Seahawk anymore anyway. Have fun on the love boat with Fred Smoot. I hope he breaks his leg. Again.
UPDATE: And so it ends.
What absolute buffoonery. I don't know how he came to this conclusion, but it seems to me that the "transition" tag system is done. Any team can lure a player away by adding any kind of ridiculous, unmatchable clause. "If Hutch doesn't make 20 times as much as the backup long snapper at the time of this signing, he will get $100 billion guaranteed. Otherwise he gets $40 million, with $10 million guaranteed. What? Your long snapper already makes $4 million? Whoops. Sorry. You lose."
Fine. Whatever. Hutch clearly doesn't want to be a Seahawk anymore anyway. Have fun on the love boat with Fred Smoot. I hope he breaks his leg. Again.
UPDATE: And so it ends.
Today's Hammon and Davis arguments
It's an exciting day for my Evidence class: we don't have class today! The reason is that our professor, Richard Friedman, is arguing a case before the Supreme Court: Hammon v. Illinois. The case is presented in tandem with Davis v. Washington, which is being argued by Jeffrey Fisher, a UMLS alumnus and current partner at Davis Wright Tremaine in Seattle. Fisher was the lead advocate, and Friedman the brains behind, the breakthrough Crawford v. Washington case from a couple years ago, which established a new theory of hearsay law, rooted in the Confrontation Clause of the 6th Amendment. SCOTUSblog has good summaries of Hammon and Davis.
Friedman and Fisher had a moot argument last week before a panel of professors, and Fisher came to our Evidence class the next day for some Q&A. The cases are pretty important for establishing the scope of the Crawford ruling. Professor Friedman has a lot riding on it on a personal level, as it's essentially his theory that the court will be ruling on. As I write this, the arguments are surely over; I'm eager to hear how they went, and how receptive the court was to their arguments. Tomorrow's class will be very interesting, as we get the insider's lowdown on how it all went.
UPDATE: Here's an article about today's arguments. Hard to tell how it went.
UPDATE 2: Here's the NY Times on the arguments. Sounds like they went pretty well.
Friedman and Fisher had a moot argument last week before a panel of professors, and Fisher came to our Evidence class the next day for some Q&A. The cases are pretty important for establishing the scope of the Crawford ruling. Professor Friedman has a lot riding on it on a personal level, as it's essentially his theory that the court will be ruling on. As I write this, the arguments are surely over; I'm eager to hear how they went, and how receptive the court was to their arguments. Tomorrow's class will be very interesting, as we get the insider's lowdown on how it all went.
UPDATE: Here's an article about today's arguments. Hard to tell how it went.
UPDATE 2: Here's the NY Times on the arguments. Sounds like they went pretty well.
Sunday, March 19, 2006
Next year's home
I've found a place to live for next year. It's right here. It's in the Bootlegger's Cove neighborhood of Anchorage, which is supposed to be nice, but I'm afraid it might also mean that I'll get shanghai'd at the local speakeasy, and forced to work on a fishing boat.
For reference, the courthouse is right here.
I haven't seen the place, but other clerks are living there now, and we hear it's nice. My future roommate comes at the recommendation of a friend; they are classmates at the UW Law School. She has a cat.
For reference, the courthouse is right here.
I haven't seen the place, but other clerks are living there now, and we hear it's nice. My future roommate comes at the recommendation of a friend; they are classmates at the UW Law School. She has a cat.
Saturday, March 18, 2006
3 years of Iraq
It's a sad day, this third anniversary of the invasion of Iraq. Especially sad that there appears no sign that it'll end soon.
Sadder still to know that my friend Jay, who already served a year in Iraq as a Captain in the Army (he was among the first who rolled into Baghdad), may be forced to go back. He graduated from West Point in 1998, served his required 5 years of active duty, extended it to 6 because of the war, and then retired so he could go to business school. He knew there was always a chance that the Army could force him back into active duty again, and it looks like it might happen.
Sadder still to know that my friend Jay, who already served a year in Iraq as a Captain in the Army (he was among the first who rolled into Baghdad), may be forced to go back. He graduated from West Point in 1998, served his required 5 years of active duty, extended it to 6 because of the war, and then retired so he could go to business school. He knew there was always a chance that the Army could force him back into active duty again, and it looks like it might happen.
Friday, March 17, 2006
Hutch saga continues
Predictably, the NFL and the Seahawks are protesting the Vikings' offer sheet, and the NFLPA is defending it. I think this is a crazy story, and I'm not quite sure why the national media hasn't talked about it more (how can Contract law not be compelling?).
A couple more details from the NFL-NFLPA collective bargaining agreement:
* a "principal term," which the Seahawks would have to match, is defined as salary, incentives and individual league honors -- plus "any modifications of and additions to the terms ... requested by the free agent and acceptable to the New Club, that relate to non-compensation terms [including guarantees, no-cut, and no-trade provisions] ..." It's unclear to me whether the clause fits under this definition.
* as Wally asked in comments below, this sort of thing has happened once before. According to ESPN.com: "In 1993, the first year of unrestricted free agency in the NFL, the Indianapolis Colts signed Will Wolford, Buffalo's transition player, to an offer sheet that included a clause that guaranteed he be the team's highest-paid offensive player. The Bills, who already had quarterback Jim Kelly as their highest-paid offensive player, argued the clause violated the CBA. An arbiter said it did not. The Bills declined to match the offer sheet, and Wolford signed with the Colts to become their highest-paid offensive player. After that decision, the league and the union amended the CBA. It now states that no team attempting to match an offer sheet for one of its transition players can be required by an escalator clause similar to Wolford's to pay that player more than what the offering team would pay him." (emphasis mine)
Anyway, it will be interesting to see how this turns out. It really could turn the "transition" tag system on its ear of the Vikings get away with it.
A couple more details from the NFL-NFLPA collective bargaining agreement:
* a "principal term," which the Seahawks would have to match, is defined as salary, incentives and individual league honors -- plus "any modifications of and additions to the terms ... requested by the free agent and acceptable to the New Club, that relate to non-compensation terms [including guarantees, no-cut, and no-trade provisions] ..." It's unclear to me whether the clause fits under this definition.
* as Wally asked in comments below, this sort of thing has happened once before. According to ESPN.com: "In 1993, the first year of unrestricted free agency in the NFL, the Indianapolis Colts signed Will Wolford, Buffalo's transition player, to an offer sheet that included a clause that guaranteed he be the team's highest-paid offensive player. The Bills, who already had quarterback Jim Kelly as their highest-paid offensive player, argued the clause violated the CBA. An arbiter said it did not. The Bills declined to match the offer sheet, and Wolford signed with the Colts to become their highest-paid offensive player. After that decision, the league and the union amended the CBA. It now states that no team attempting to match an offer sheet for one of its transition players can be required by an escalator clause similar to Wolford's to pay that player more than what the offering team would pay him." (emphasis mine)
Anyway, it will be interesting to see how this turns out. It really could turn the "transition" tag system on its ear of the Vikings get away with it.
Wednesday, March 15, 2006
A rant
Now that I've had time to research and analyze the purposes and effects of partisan gerrymandering, I'm shocked that it isn't a bigger issue in this country. Well, not shocked; the issue doesn't feature a runaway bride or a football star murderer. But this should be a huge deal to people, and, well, it isn't.
Everyone -- and I mean everyone -- agrees that partisan gerrymandering is unconstitutional. In Vieth, a partisan gerrymandering case from Pennsylvania decided by the Supreme Court two years ago, all nine justices agreed that the gerrymander there was bad... reprehensible... contrary to the every fundamental principle of a republican government. Four justices (Scalia, Thomas, Rehnquist, O'Connor), though, thought there was nothing Courts could do about it -- it's a political thing, and it has to be left to the legislatures because there's no real way to measure or adjudicate the wrong. Four other justices (Stevens, Souter, Ginsburg, Breyer) thought there were ways a court could do something about it, but none of their ideas were entirely satisfactory. A fifth justice (Kennedy) was embarassingly honest by concurring with Scalia but saying: uh, this is wrong, there must be something we can do; I don't know what exactly is wrong, but we can't do anything with this specific case. I know that makes no sense, but neither did his opinion. It's kinda funny, actually.
Anyway, the issue is back in the Court again in the Perry cases, and it can only win if Kennedy has an epiphany. So, whatever. What I'm really getting at is just how bad the problem is. The Texas gerrymander is the brainchild of Tom DeLay, and if you didn't have enough reason to dislike him already, this should push you over the top. The gerrymander eviscerates the People's right to elect its representatives, instead making it possible for representatives to select their constituents. The People's voice is not heard; instead politicians use voting blocs as interchangeable parts to secure their own political careers.
I don't know what could be more anti-American.
When the petitioners lose in Perry, gerrymandering will only become more prevalent in all states. It's not solely a Republican Party tool by any means -- Democrats are just as guilty. This might be why the problem is most worrisome to me: because courts won't step in, and because legislatures will have no incentive to police themselves, there is very little recourse for the People. One of the few possibilities is an amendment to the Constitution, but that would require a huge groundswell of public support. Which simply doesn't exist. So we need to find a way to put "gerrymander" and "runaway bride" in the same sentence, and maybe then we can get people talking about how they're losing control of their government.
Post-script: for a delightful example of how karma's a bitch, find out why DeLay might now be hoping that his gerrymandered map gets struck down by the Court. It might be the only way to save his seat.
Everyone -- and I mean everyone -- agrees that partisan gerrymandering is unconstitutional. In Vieth, a partisan gerrymandering case from Pennsylvania decided by the Supreme Court two years ago, all nine justices agreed that the gerrymander there was bad... reprehensible... contrary to the every fundamental principle of a republican government. Four justices (Scalia, Thomas, Rehnquist, O'Connor), though, thought there was nothing Courts could do about it -- it's a political thing, and it has to be left to the legislatures because there's no real way to measure or adjudicate the wrong. Four other justices (Stevens, Souter, Ginsburg, Breyer) thought there were ways a court could do something about it, but none of their ideas were entirely satisfactory. A fifth justice (Kennedy) was embarassingly honest by concurring with Scalia but saying: uh, this is wrong, there must be something we can do; I don't know what exactly is wrong, but we can't do anything with this specific case. I know that makes no sense, but neither did his opinion. It's kinda funny, actually.
Anyway, the issue is back in the Court again in the Perry cases, and it can only win if Kennedy has an epiphany. So, whatever. What I'm really getting at is just how bad the problem is. The Texas gerrymander is the brainchild of Tom DeLay, and if you didn't have enough reason to dislike him already, this should push you over the top. The gerrymander eviscerates the People's right to elect its representatives, instead making it possible for representatives to select their constituents. The People's voice is not heard; instead politicians use voting blocs as interchangeable parts to secure their own political careers.
I don't know what could be more anti-American.
When the petitioners lose in Perry, gerrymandering will only become more prevalent in all states. It's not solely a Republican Party tool by any means -- Democrats are just as guilty. This might be why the problem is most worrisome to me: because courts won't step in, and because legislatures will have no incentive to police themselves, there is very little recourse for the People. One of the few possibilities is an amendment to the Constitution, but that would require a huge groundswell of public support. Which simply doesn't exist. So we need to find a way to put "gerrymander" and "runaway bride" in the same sentence, and maybe then we can get people talking about how they're losing control of their government.
Post-script: for a delightful example of how karma's a bitch, find out why DeLay might now be hoping that his gerrymandered map gets struck down by the Court. It might be the only way to save his seat.
Tuesday, March 14, 2006
The Hutchinson signing
The P-I today has interesting details about the offer sheet signed by Steve Hutchinson with the Vikings. The quirky part is that one of the provisions states that Hutch must either be the highest-paid offensive lineman on his team, or all $49M of the contract must be guaranteed (whereas only $16M would otherwise be guaranteed). However, because the Hawks already have Walter Jones, Hutch cannot be the highest-paid offensive lineman on the Hawks.
So, either this is a brilliant move by the Vikings (and Hutch, if we wants to leave Seattle), or this contract violates the spirit of the "transition" tag according to the collective bargaining agreement. That tag is supposed to allow a player's current team to match the best offer of another team. This deal makes that virtually impossible. For one thing, the deal Hutch would get from the Vikings is not really the same deal he would get from the Hawks. The Vikings only have to guarantee $16M, whereas the Hawks have to guarantee it all. The "highest-paid lineman" provision is essentially meaningless to the Vikes, and is only there to screw with the Seahawks. As I said, this is a brilliant move by the Vikings. But I also think it has to be illegal.
One way for the league to fix this -- or else face the possibility of their "transition" tag system being completely blown apart by more deals like this -- is to decide that this particular clause isn't a "principal term." That would be the easiest way around the problem. Otherwise... could be trouble. Hawks could lose Hutch, and the NFL could lose its transition tag.
So, either this is a brilliant move by the Vikings (and Hutch, if we wants to leave Seattle), or this contract violates the spirit of the "transition" tag according to the collective bargaining agreement. That tag is supposed to allow a player's current team to match the best offer of another team. This deal makes that virtually impossible. For one thing, the deal Hutch would get from the Vikings is not really the same deal he would get from the Hawks. The Vikings only have to guarantee $16M, whereas the Hawks have to guarantee it all. The "highest-paid lineman" provision is essentially meaningless to the Vikes, and is only there to screw with the Seahawks. As I said, this is a brilliant move by the Vikings. But I also think it has to be illegal.
One way for the league to fix this -- or else face the possibility of their "transition" tag system being completely blown apart by more deals like this -- is to decide that this particular clause isn't a "principal term." That would be the easiest way around the problem. Otherwise... could be trouble. Hawks could lose Hutch, and the NFL could lose its transition tag.
Lost Liberty Hotel
In case you thought it was over, it's not. The Kelo protesters are still trying to use eminent domain to take Justice Souter's house. There's a fairly representative discussion of the good and bad points going on at Professor Ann Althouse's blog. Some people get it, some don't, and some are really angry.
Ramblings
* It's been busy around here, as I had to prepare for an oral argument in yesterday's Supreme Court Litigation class. I was arguing the petitioner's side in Jackson v. Perry, the Texas redistricting (read: DeLay gerrymandering) case. The argument went okay, but I don't think my side is going to win unless someone can convince Anthony Kennedy that something extra bad was going on there. (Which it was.)
* It has officially become Crazy Weather season here in Ann Arbor. Springtime is not for the timid, as weather will shift from upper 60s (yesterday) to low 30s and windy (today) in a hurry. As soon as you think warm climates will prevail, zoom -- it's back to cold-ass Ann Arbor again. Unpredictable.
* I had been nominated to be student speaker at our graduation in May, which was very kind of some crazy classmate out there, but I didn't garner enough votes to advance to the run-off. Which is a blessing, actually. I would have been happy and honored to speak, but it will be perhaps more fun to be amongst my classmates -- free of all obligations -- on graduation day. On the flip side, my friend Mike -- who was the least degenerate gambler who went on the Vegas trip (though that's not saying much) -- is in the run-off, so that's good.
* We just found out who our keynote speaker at graduation will be: Shirin Ebadi, winner of the 2003 Nobel Prize for Peace. According to her bio: "She received this award for her tireless efforts to promote human rights, in particular, the rights of women, children, and political prisoners in Iran. She is the first Muslim woman to receive the Nobel Peace Prize, and only the fifth Muslim to receive a Nobel Prize in any field. Dr. Ebadi was the first female judge in Iran. She served as president of the city court of Tehran from 1975 to 1979. In addition to being an internationally-recognized advocate of human rights, she has also established many non-governmental organizations in Iran, including those for protection of children, women, and political prisoners, as well as an organization dedicated to carrying out the Land Mine Treaty. As a lawyer, Dr. Ebadi has taken on many controversial cases defending political dissidents and as a result has been imprisoned numerous times."
* It's sad to have neither Stanford or Michigan in the NCAA tournament. I guess I'm rooting for Washington, Gonzaga, and (ugh) Cal.
* It has officially become Crazy Weather season here in Ann Arbor. Springtime is not for the timid, as weather will shift from upper 60s (yesterday) to low 30s and windy (today) in a hurry. As soon as you think warm climates will prevail, zoom -- it's back to cold-ass Ann Arbor again. Unpredictable.
* I had been nominated to be student speaker at our graduation in May, which was very kind of some crazy classmate out there, but I didn't garner enough votes to advance to the run-off. Which is a blessing, actually. I would have been happy and honored to speak, but it will be perhaps more fun to be amongst my classmates -- free of all obligations -- on graduation day. On the flip side, my friend Mike -- who was the least degenerate gambler who went on the Vegas trip (though that's not saying much) -- is in the run-off, so that's good.
* We just found out who our keynote speaker at graduation will be: Shirin Ebadi, winner of the 2003 Nobel Prize for Peace. According to her bio: "She received this award for her tireless efforts to promote human rights, in particular, the rights of women, children, and political prisoners in Iran. She is the first Muslim woman to receive the Nobel Peace Prize, and only the fifth Muslim to receive a Nobel Prize in any field. Dr. Ebadi was the first female judge in Iran. She served as president of the city court of Tehran from 1975 to 1979. In addition to being an internationally-recognized advocate of human rights, she has also established many non-governmental organizations in Iran, including those for protection of children, women, and political prisoners, as well as an organization dedicated to carrying out the Land Mine Treaty. As a lawyer, Dr. Ebadi has taken on many controversial cases defending political dissidents and as a result has been imprisoned numerous times."
* It's sad to have neither Stanford or Michigan in the NCAA tournament. I guess I'm rooting for Washington, Gonzaga, and (ugh) Cal.
Friday, March 10, 2006
I am a bad bowler
Really, really bad. So bad, that I will not report my scores and I will not think about them ever again. I mean, I really suck.
Thursday, March 09, 2006
Wednesday, March 08, 2006
Rumsfeld v. FAIR
I wanted to say something briefly about this case, since it's something that some people at my school really care about. As a recap, the case involves the right of law schools to protest against the US Military's discriminatory hiring policy (don't ask don't tell) by not allowing military recruiters on campus to interview law students. Almost every law school (including Michigan) has a policy that refuses access to employers (private or public) who engage in discriminatory hiring processes. If these law schools had their druthers, the military would not be allowed on campus until their hiring policy changed.
The US government fixed this problem by saying, fine, if you don't allow our recruiters on campus, you won't get federal funding. And by that, I don't mean that just the law schools won't get federal funding, but the entire universities (including medical schools, engineering, undergrad, etc.). So if a law school wants to stand up and take the hit, it's going to have to screw over its entire institution to do it. Michigan isn't a member of the FAIR group (to keep things simpler, FAIR consists only of private institutions), but if UMLS wanted to bar access to the military, U-M as a whole would basically have to shut down. So there's really no choice in the matter for these law schools -- they either let the military on campus, or the schools shut down. It's hardball.
Anyway, FAIR decided to challenge this law, called the Solomon Amendment, by claiming that the law infringes on its right to free speech and free association. The claim is that the schools' non-discrimination policies are a form of protected speech against discrimination, and the law prevents the schools from being able to engage in this speech.
I was skeptical of this claim at first, but the more I thought about it, the more I saw FAIR's point. I think the non-discrimination policy is speech -- essentially saying "We don't approve of discrimination in the workplace, and we won't tolerate it on our campuses." The Solomon Amendment forces the schools' message to change to: "We'd prefer to not tolerate discrimination, but we have no choice in letting these recruiters on our campuses." It's a small difference, but I think it's a real one.
Students at UMLS get an email from the Dean twice a year, announcing the arrival of military recruiters. There's always a few paragraphs in the email about the Solomon Amendment, and how the school doesn't normally tolerate discrimination but has to in this case. The administration here takes it very seriously, and they don't like having to capitulate like this.
However, in the end I think the Court got it right when it voted with the government. The military has a compelling interest in recruiting the best law students to become military lawyers, and the change in speech that the law forces the schools to make is outweighed by that compelling interest. This case is not a referendum on Don't Ask Don't Tell (which, in this current day, seems indefensible); instead, it's a battle between speech and government interests. I think the government interest prevails.
So, FAIR loses. But maybe now they can start thinking about how to defeat Don't Ask Don't Tell directly. That's where the better fight is.
Post Script: the Court didn't decide the case the same why I would have. They were much harsher to FAIR's argument, saying it was hardly speech in the first place, and congress can pretty much tell anyone what to do when there's money involved. So I disagree with the reasoning, but not with the holding.
The US government fixed this problem by saying, fine, if you don't allow our recruiters on campus, you won't get federal funding. And by that, I don't mean that just the law schools won't get federal funding, but the entire universities (including medical schools, engineering, undergrad, etc.). So if a law school wants to stand up and take the hit, it's going to have to screw over its entire institution to do it. Michigan isn't a member of the FAIR group (to keep things simpler, FAIR consists only of private institutions), but if UMLS wanted to bar access to the military, U-M as a whole would basically have to shut down. So there's really no choice in the matter for these law schools -- they either let the military on campus, or the schools shut down. It's hardball.
Anyway, FAIR decided to challenge this law, called the Solomon Amendment, by claiming that the law infringes on its right to free speech and free association. The claim is that the schools' non-discrimination policies are a form of protected speech against discrimination, and the law prevents the schools from being able to engage in this speech.
I was skeptical of this claim at first, but the more I thought about it, the more I saw FAIR's point. I think the non-discrimination policy is speech -- essentially saying "We don't approve of discrimination in the workplace, and we won't tolerate it on our campuses." The Solomon Amendment forces the schools' message to change to: "We'd prefer to not tolerate discrimination, but we have no choice in letting these recruiters on our campuses." It's a small difference, but I think it's a real one.
Students at UMLS get an email from the Dean twice a year, announcing the arrival of military recruiters. There's always a few paragraphs in the email about the Solomon Amendment, and how the school doesn't normally tolerate discrimination but has to in this case. The administration here takes it very seriously, and they don't like having to capitulate like this.
However, in the end I think the Court got it right when it voted with the government. The military has a compelling interest in recruiting the best law students to become military lawyers, and the change in speech that the law forces the schools to make is outweighed by that compelling interest. This case is not a referendum on Don't Ask Don't Tell (which, in this current day, seems indefensible); instead, it's a battle between speech and government interests. I think the government interest prevails.
So, FAIR loses. But maybe now they can start thinking about how to defeat Don't Ask Don't Tell directly. That's where the better fight is.
Post Script: the Court didn't decide the case the same why I would have. They were much harsher to FAIR's argument, saying it was hardly speech in the first place, and congress can pretty much tell anyone what to do when there's money involved. So I disagree with the reasoning, but not with the holding.
Late Oscars reax
I haven't seen any of the movies nominated for the big awards this year, so I was only able to sit passively and watch without any real rooting interest. I was hoping Paul Giamatti would win, because I've liked him in so many things in the past, but I didn't see Cinderella Man, and I didn't see Syriana, so I can't complain about Clooney winning. I was also rooting for Reese Witherspoon because, as is common knowledge, I went on a blind date with her roommate when she was at Stanford (she was a frosh when I was a sophomore). I never met her, and I never saw the blind date girl again, but there it is. Go Reese.
Monday, March 06, 2006
Billy Madison in the law
The movie quote that inspired the footer that marks the bottom of every Me Gusta! page made its way into a federal bankruptcy judge's order in a footnote. Heh.
Sunday, March 05, 2006
Congrats, Glen
Congratulations to my good friend from high school and college, Glen, who just became a daddy for the first time the other day when wife Ikuko had a baby boy. Welcome to the world, Riku Shimbo. You have a crazy dad, but you're in good hands.
Break is over
Ah, that was nice. A week away from cold Ann Arbor, school, and my computer. And now I'm back, ready to finish the last 10 weeks of law school.
My break was at times fun, and at times misery. As I mentioned last week, I headed to Vegas for a few days, and then a couple days in Palm Springs, then one last day in Vegas before coming back. I learned on the trip that I am the worst gambler of all time. Every game I played, I lost. Poker, blackjack, 3-card poker, pai-gow poker, caribbean stud... everything. The casinos ate me for breakfast, lunch, and dinner. The only successes were sports betting: I won a small bet on the Stanford-WSU game, and I pushed a bigger bet on a Warriors-Magic game. Everything else I touched turned to gold... for the casino.
It was uncanny bad luck. I'm not a bad poker player, but by no means an expert. I played about as well as I think I can, and I continually ran into other players beating long odds to catch cards. The other guys I was with could only shake their heads... and urge me to gamble more to get out of the funk. Didn't happen.
That's where the misery really kicked in. We went to casinos for six straight nights. Even when we were in Palm Springs, we kept gambling. After two days I knew I didn't want to gamble any more, but this is what I get for vacationing with degenerate gamblers. So I kept going to casinos because there was really nothing else to do, and I had the feeling that my bad luck couldn't really continue forever. Ugh. I lost an average of $100 per day. Ugly. By the end, it was starting to affect me psychologically, as I began to question my self-worth and I had to start telling myself comforting things about the other blessings I had in my life. So sad, I was.
But the times outside of the casinos was great. We had a great time hanging out on a balcony at the Bellagio. The weather was warm. Palm Springs was wonderful, and my friend Tommy's parents were so welcoming and generous, I don't have the space to mention every kind thing they did for us. The only bad thing they did was give Tommy directions to the nearest Indian casinos.
All in all, a great trip, though I'm a few dollars lighter now than when I left. It's great to be back, with graduation not so far ahead.
My break was at times fun, and at times misery. As I mentioned last week, I headed to Vegas for a few days, and then a couple days in Palm Springs, then one last day in Vegas before coming back. I learned on the trip that I am the worst gambler of all time. Every game I played, I lost. Poker, blackjack, 3-card poker, pai-gow poker, caribbean stud... everything. The casinos ate me for breakfast, lunch, and dinner. The only successes were sports betting: I won a small bet on the Stanford-WSU game, and I pushed a bigger bet on a Warriors-Magic game. Everything else I touched turned to gold... for the casino.
It was uncanny bad luck. I'm not a bad poker player, but by no means an expert. I played about as well as I think I can, and I continually ran into other players beating long odds to catch cards. The other guys I was with could only shake their heads... and urge me to gamble more to get out of the funk. Didn't happen.
That's where the misery really kicked in. We went to casinos for six straight nights. Even when we were in Palm Springs, we kept gambling. After two days I knew I didn't want to gamble any more, but this is what I get for vacationing with degenerate gamblers. So I kept going to casinos because there was really nothing else to do, and I had the feeling that my bad luck couldn't really continue forever. Ugh. I lost an average of $100 per day. Ugly. By the end, it was starting to affect me psychologically, as I began to question my self-worth and I had to start telling myself comforting things about the other blessings I had in my life. So sad, I was.
But the times outside of the casinos was great. We had a great time hanging out on a balcony at the Bellagio. The weather was warm. Palm Springs was wonderful, and my friend Tommy's parents were so welcoming and generous, I don't have the space to mention every kind thing they did for us. The only bad thing they did was give Tommy directions to the nearest Indian casinos.
All in all, a great trip, though I'm a few dollars lighter now than when I left. It's great to be back, with graduation not so far ahead.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
