The Genius Blogroll
Reclaim Your Brain!
A Small Victory
SoCal Law Blog
The Truth Laid Bear
The Volokh Conspiracy
The Blog Directory
Proof of Liberal Media Bias?
Boarder Patrol Agents Told To Make Fewer Arrests?
Federal Judge Rules Nebraska's Same Sex Marriage C...
Computer Generated Columns?
Greatest Footnote In The History Of Legal Opinions...
Buffett and Munger Warn of Real Estate Bubble.
U.S. Economy Slows Down
Senate To Subpoena 2 Former-Volcker Committee Inve...
350 Episodes Of The Simpsons.
Thursday, May 19, 2005
And they wonder why Americans consider used car salespersons more trustworthy than the media....
posted by Armchair Genius @ 5/19/2005 03:57:00 PM
Friday, May 13, 2005
U.S. Border Patrol agents have been ordered not to arrest illegal aliens along the section of the Arizona border where protesters patrolled last month because an increase in apprehensions there would prove the effectiveness of Minuteman volunteers, The Washington Times has learned.
Not good. If they are going to do this, I say we just fire them all and reform our immigration laws rather than spend millions for nothing.
posted by Armchair Genius @ 5/13/2005 06:18:00 AM
Thursday, May 12, 2005
here. Eugene Volokh has a good summary and response, and I generally agree with his analysis, and especially his conclusion that this will be overturned. I think it might be overturned on a more fundamental issue though: standing. It is not clear to me that the associations at issue should be allowed standing to challenge this constitutional amendment.
But more importantly, if the opinion were the law (it is not - it is a horribly flawed opinion frankly), the slippery-slope consequences would be astounding. The case would have to be limited to its facts to prevent those consequences, which is the hallmark of a bad decision.
It will be interesting to see just how harsh the appellate court is on this opinion.
posted by Armchair Genius @ 5/12/2005 04:41:00 PM
Monday, May 09, 2005
And the NYTimes is trying to figure out why they are losing credibility? Here is a hint, trying cutting back to just either biased reporting and columns or factually inaccurate ones. When you combine both it makes it really hard to be taken seriously.
There are legitimate criticisms of the Iraq war, but you should probably have at least some of the facts before you try to make such a criticism. Clearly Herbert does not have those facts...
posted by Armchair Genius @ 5/09/2005 06:56:00 AM
Friday, May 06, 2005
So ultimately, this idiot that finds the finger in his ice cream (bad, but not the end of the world - its not like he actually put it in his mouth), tortiously causes the innocent kid to permanently lose his finger. And why? To possibly make a windfall of money from the store. Too bad the kid will probably win 2-3 times more (at a minimum) than this moron when he sues him for not giving him his finger back.
Plus, with the public behind them, the store will never settle with this guy, and even if he wins at trial, I guarantee you the kid's claim will (at least they will try) be tried with his suit (potentially the kid could assign his claim to the store or something to insure that happens - there is probably a workers' comp issue here that I am unfamilar with. I am pretty sure workers' comp preempts a tort claim against the employer, but not sure if (or why) it would preclude a claim against someone other than the employer - such as this customer).
So even if the customer wins at trial, he will almost assuredly also lose, and most likely more than he just won.
He is screwed, and frankly, he deserves to be screwed. What an idiot.
posted by Armchair Genius @ 5/06/2005 06:22:00 AM
Thursday, May 05, 2005
The trial transcript quotes Ms. Hayden as saying Murphy called her a snitch bitch "hoe." A "hoe," of course, is a tool used for weeding and gardening. We think the court reporter, unfamiliar with rap music (perhaps thankfully so), misunderstood Hayden's response. We have taken the liberty of changing "hoe" to "ho," a staple of rap music vernacular as, for example, when Ludacris raps "You doin' ho activities with ho tendencies."Tremendous.
posted by Armchair Genius @ 5/05/2005 01:20:00 PM
Sunday, May 01, 2005
On the market and the dollar their comments are much more ominous and similar to my thoughts, it is not a question of if, it is a question of when:
posted by Armchair Genius @ 5/01/2005 02:18:00 PM
Sounds like it will probably get worse before it gets better....
posted by Armchair Genius @ 5/01/2005 11:22:00 AM
Saturday, April 30, 2005
The committee’s chairman, former Federal Reserve chief Paul Volcker, has been calling senators and congressmen, urging them not to subpoena the investigator, Robert Parton. Volcker has emphasized the confidentiality agreement in Parton’s contract and the U.N.-appointed committee’s diplomatic immunity, said Mike Holtzman, a spokesman for the Volcker committee.I wonder why Volcker is so concerned about having the former investigators testify? Cover-up anyone?
posted by Armchair Genius @ 4/30/2005 06:20:00 AM
Wednesday, April 27, 2005
posted by Armchair Genius @ 4/27/2005 06:10:00 PM
What is surprising is how unsurprising this result is, yet there is still so much opposition to the privitization of social security. Would anyone be satisfied with the same return they receive from Social Security if they had put that money in a mutual fund? The answer is no. Everyone knows (and expects) to obtain a higher return on investment from their mutual fund than from Social Security (of course that is a pretty low expectation).
So this really begs the question, why would anyone be opposed to privitization of the Social Security program?
posted by Armchair Genius @ 4/27/2005 05:04:00 PM
"What makes it so dangerous for our country is their willingness to do serious damage to our American democracy in order to satisfy their lust for one-party domination of all three branches of government," Gore said of the GOP in a speech. "They seek nothing less than absolute power."Hmm. What about the fact that it was American democracy that put one-party in power of all three branches of government (two directly, and one via the Constitutional judicial appointment process)?
posted by Armchair Genius @ 4/27/2005 04:52:00 PM
Sunday, April 24, 2005
here, there is significant evidence that the Volcker Committee is engaged in a cover up. Now there is more evidence from Roger Simon, who reports that one of the two senior investigators of that committee has gone public with the fact that he resigned from the committee on principle.
It is ironic that those who claim to support the U.N. continue to support Kofi Annan and attack John Bolton when it is clear to me that both those actions, if successful, will just continue to allow the U.N. to fade into the history books as a slightly longer lived version of the League of Nations....
If you truly support the U.N., and you have any intelligence whatsoever, you would realize that it needs massive reform, including a massive house cleaning. And also people like John Bolton to be the guard dogs against future corruption (which is rampant at the U.N.).
posted by Armchair Genius @ 4/24/2005 01:57:00 PM
Inflation is surging, wages are flat, all sorts of deficits are exploding how do we sleep at night? Just imagine how we'd feel if the economy weren't doing reasonably well.The U.S. economy is indeed in for a troubled future, and I really don't think there is any policy that will change that fact. You cannot legislate demographics (at least not in a democratic nation - so I exclude China from that statement).
The driver of the U.S. economy (and probably all economies) is productivity and consumer spending. Our workforce is disproportionately comprise of older workers - the baby boomers - who are starting to retire. As they retire they likely will spend less since they will have lower income streams. They will also start selling off their investments to fund their retirements, they will start selling their large homes to move into smaller ones, and of course they will no longer be working. At the same time, more and more people will be collecting social security income - starting in about 2017 this will require expenditures from the general tax revenue fund in addition to social security tax income - an additional drain on our government. And perhaps more importantly, these same people will need more and more help from medicare and medicade. And in addition to purely medical related costs there is the incredibly expensive, and largely prefunded expense of long term medical care once these retirees can no longer care for themselves.
So what you have is a major reduction in productivity corresponding to massive increases in the needs for government programs to care for our elderly. The economy will tank when this happens. The only real question is how bad it will get.
I for one plan my future with that 2017 date in mind. I will "only" be 42 on that date, but I want to be financial set at that point. Because it could get really, really ugly. I suspect my generation will not be as bad off as those 20 years behind us who will be entering the workforce at that point. Probably with massive school debt too. For them it is a dark future....
posted by Armchair Genius @ 4/24/2005 09:46:00 AM
The circulation of daily U.S. newspapers is 55.2 million, down from 62.3 million in 1990. The percentages of adults who say they read a paper "yesterday" are ominous:
posted by Armchair Genius @ 4/24/2005 07:40:00 AM
Title IX, the 1972 federal law mandating equal opportunity for females in high school and college sports, has helped spur huge changes. But its supporters have trouble believing their eyes. Despite the enormous gains for female athletes, they act as though the gains could be erased overnight.What about all the men who actually want to participate in sports who have had their programs cut in order to meet the Title IX equality requirements when the schools were unable to pay women to participate? That is right, schools have tried to bribe women into participating in sports and they still can't find any willing participants. Most often schools use rowing programs for women as it is a relatively inexpensive sport. See here, here, here, here, and here.
Essentially many of the Title IX proponents want to force women to play sports or force schools to cut men's programs if they can't find women willing to participate. It is simply a bad policy. The premise seems to be that all women want to play sports, they just don't feel they have the opportunities. Well Bush's new proposal will test that premise, and it is clear that those who make their livings off of Title IX graft are worried that this proposal will demonstrate what most know to be true. Despite the fact that 56% of college students are female, more male college students want to participate in sports than female college students.
Hopefully this proposal becomes the law. Gender discrimination is a two way street, and while it used to be females being discriminated against, the pendulum has swung and it is now male student-athletes who are being discriminated against.
In high school, girls outnumber boys in nearly every extracurricular activity except sports. One type of interest may preclude another. There has been a vast increase in athletic participation by females since 1972, but it has yet to match that of males, even in arenas where discrimination can't explain the gap.Well said.
posted by Armchair Genius @ 4/24/2005 06:55:00 AM
writes about interracial relationships in today's NY Times, but has some pretty absurd arguments when trying to criticize Hollywood for not representing the gains that have been made in society. For example Kristof writes:
The latest "Guess Who" is about a white man in love with a black woman, and that's a comfortable old archetype from days when slave owners inflicted themselves on slave women. Hollywood has portrayed romances between white men and (usually light-complexioned) black women, probably calculating that any good ol' boy seeing Billy Bob Thornton embracing Halle Berry in "Monster's Ball" is filled not with disgust but with envy.Huh? So it is not good enough that they have an interracial relationship, it has to be the right mix of gender and race.... And the "usually light-complexioned" line just kills me. So according to Kristof some people are not "black enough," for Kristof. What a joke. Should this same logic be applied to affirmative action programs? We could set up two boxes, one for dark skinned African-Americans, and one for light-skinned persons. And only the dark skinned persons would qualify for the programs, because according to Kristof light-skinned minorities don't really count.
Pathetic. And racist really. I wonder why so many people think liberals are idiots, when this kind of logic is floated around.
"Guess who," and movies like that could be criticized for the fact that when a interracial couple is cast in Hollywood it is too often done to perform a plot function (i.e., it is intentional that the relationship is interracial). What we should be seeing more of is movies where race is irrelevant to the plotline, yet there is an interracial relationship.
Kristof tries to think of movies with interracial relationships and doesn't do a very good job. Just off the top of my head you have "Fools Rush In" with Matthew Perry and Salma Hayek; Austin Powers (I forget which one, but the one with Mike Meyers and Beyonce - of course, maybe Beyonce doesn't count per Krisof's "logic"); Monster Ball was named by Kristof earlier; pretty much every Jennifer Lopez movie, but I was thinking primarily of "Out of Sight," where race was totally irrelevant to the plotline; and "The Bodyguard," with Kevin Costner and Whitney Houston. I am sure there are plenty more.
So to me Kristof's criticism rings hollow (and certainly seems uneducated). But that doesn't mean there shouldn't be more movies where there happens to be interracial relationships where race isn't a plot line. I can think of a half a dozen movies where I can think of a black actor that would have been much better in the lead role than the white actor. I wonder how many of those movies were cast without ever considering black actors. If any of them were, than that is a problem worth writing about. Kristof should engage is some actual journalism and find that out before he writes on this topic again.
posted by Armchair Genius @ 4/24/2005 06:26:00 AM
Saturday, April 23, 2005
Criminal defense attorney Ronald S. Miller does more than file briefs -- he also takes them off.
posted by Armchair Genius @ 4/23/2005 07:27:00 PM
My Post 2005 NFL Draft (First Day) PredictionsOne of the beautiful things about having a blog is that you can make predictions on them, and then have proof when it turns out you are right. So in that spirit here are a few of mine:
(1) Troy Williamson will do almost nothing in the NFL, he will be a mediocre wideout at best. Mike Williams, on the other hand, will dominate the league (although I suspect that Detroit will have such a potent pass offense that it will be fairly random which WR gets the TDs etc., sort of like with Indy last year).
(2) Mike Williams will have a much better career than Braylon Edwards, and I sort of suspect Edwards will not have a good career. You hear rumors about him driving around campus in a Bentley, and you have to buy stock in the "flameout" category. There is a good chance he will just not put in the work necessary to be a great player, but we will see.
(3) Alex Smith will not be a successful NFL quarterback. I have 2 premises to support this prediction: (a) he will be rushed into starting at SF, and given how messed up that team is he will have no support (any QB at SF would fail right now); (b) he just doesn't have a sufficiently strong arm to be a success. When I see his highlight reel, all I can think is that if those throws were made in the NFL they would have all been picked off.
(4) Jason Campbell will be the starter by the end of the season in D.C., and he will also have a significantly better career than Alex Smith.
(5) Aaron Rodgers will be a success. He fell to a perfect situation, he won't have to start since Favre never gets hurt, and he can learn from the best. Plus despite the idiots on TV (only Mel Kiper got this right), Rodgers mechanics are perfect with one exception, he holds the ball to high. Well guess what, he was coached to do that in college. Which means (a) he didn't naturally do that, so it won't be as hard to change back or improve his ball position; and (b) he is very coachable. It probably will take him all of a month to fix where he holds the ball. And once he does that his mechanics are as good as they get. And compared to Smith, Rodgers has a cannon for an arm.
(6) "Pacman" Jones will not be a success. I don't care how fast he supposedly is, it seems to me he had to use that speed too often to recover against college wideouts, and in the NFL he won't be able to do that. Also, against a WR like Mike Williams he is screwed - he is only 5' 9, good luck covering a guy almost a foot taller.
(7) Matt Jones will be awesome. I don't care what position he plays at, he is going to be a huge impact player from day 1.
posted by Armchair Genius @ 4/23/2005 06:07:00 PM
this guy, over Mike Williams. According to most analysts it is because he is the fastest WR in the draft. But if he is so fast, why did he only have 7 TDs and 43 receptions in his Junior year. And why was Mike Williams able to double that production in his freshman year, and do better than double that production in his sophomore year.
And is Williamson really that fast when he ran the 40 slower than Matt Jones, who is going to play tight end after being converted from a QB?
The Vikings are idiots.
posted by Armchair Genius @ 4/23/2005 01:25:00 PM
Tuesday, April 19, 2005
Volokh Conspiracy, David Garrow concludes that Justice Blackmun became merely a clerk to his clerks in his final years on the Court. In support he relies primarily on a few notes from one clerk:
[Clerk Michelle] Alexander gave Blackmun a note that read, "This morning at breakfast you mentioned that you would like to release the death penalty dissent by the end of the calendar year. I think that is wise," because several pending cases offered appropriate opportunities. In particular, "there is little chance that a better vehicle for your dissent will come along before the end of the year" than Schlup v. Delo, an "extraordinary" capital case. In closing, she stated, "I would love to hear your thoughts."
I know nothing about the author of this article, David Garrow, but I strongly suspect he is not a lawyer, or certainly was never an associate at a large law firm (where you work for many masters so to speak). I think the notes are ambiguous at best. I work with many partners that are, how should I say, anal about citations or other similar details. Certain partners (or people more generally) have pet peeves and things they focus on in their work product. So I would be inclined to let them know that the citations didn't change so that they wouldn't have to double check them (or more likely, so that they wouldn't ask me if they had changed - you learn to anticipate questions which may be exactly what this note is doing).
The rest of the note - for example the "I think that is wise," comment is properly respectful and a bit brown nosing at the same time. It is something a good associate would write to a partner. And the "I would love to hear your thoughts," is similar to the way almost all associate to partner communications end - asking for any comments/input or whatever from the partner.
In short, the conclusions reached based on these notes are specious at best.
posted by Armchair Genius @ 4/19/2005 03:59:00 PM
Sunday, April 17, 2005
pathetic. Of course what that says for people that idolize them is probably just as bad.
I have never understood the celebrity-craze in this country. Most celebrities are some of the biggest losers you will ever meet in life. I certainly respect some of their talents (although more and more celebrities have less and less talent). But I can't imagine caring about their lives the way it seems most Americans do....
On a positive note though, I think there is a backlash against that trend - and it is somewhat intertwined with the backlash against democrats too.
posted by Armchair Genius @ 4/17/2005 03:01:00 PM
Arch political consultant and rising Democratic Party star Markos Moulitsas  Zuniga of Daily Kos was interviewed on C-SPANs Q&A last Sunday, and proudly displayed his laptop computera revealing demonstration of the mean-spirited, foul-mouthed, debased state of the modern left.But as someone who actually watched the entire interview, Kos came across as very reasonable and intelligent. In fact, LittleGreenFootballs, based on this article alone, comes across as the mean-spirited, and unreasonable party.
If you don't agree with Kos, you should probably try to take on his arguments on the merits. And before you criticize him for something, you probably should at least watch the interview. For example, I wonder if LGF knows what Kos said about Fox News? He actually noted that his sticker was inaccurate in representing his views. He thought highly of Fox News vis a vis its power in pushing its ideology. He was just critical of it for claiming it was fair and balanced when it was biased. I would agree with that. But I would also say the same point can be made with equal force about the NYTimes, CNN, etc., and their clear liberal bias.
Kos didn't want to take Fox News off the air, to the contrary, he hoped the left would create their own version of that network. You would think Soros would be all over something like that by now.
Its too bad LGF didn't actually watch the interview before posting about it.
posted by Armchair Genius @ 4/17/2005 06:43:00 AM
Saturday, April 16, 2005
good column today, until she tries to use political corruption as a partisan attack:
I am all for indicting dirty politicians, and trying to clean up politics. But it is naive, to say the least, to think that either party is "less dirty," than the other. So if you are trying to push a partisan agenda, you might not want to choose this route for your attack strategy....
posted by Armchair Genius @ 4/16/2005 06:19:00 AMTake Me Back Home
I am an attorney in Chicago. Politically speaking, I am an indepedent that tends to lean conservative on fiscal issues and progressive on social issues. I try to remain as unbiased and open-minded as possible. Please email or post any comments, and especially criticisms. If something I say is wrong, or you disagree - let me know about it!
Email Me Your Comments
|| Powered by Blogger
Blog Design by:
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons License.
The views expressed on this website are solely those of the author, and do not necessarily represent the views of his employer or any other organization or person.
Nothing in this weblog is intended as legal advice, nor should anything contained in this weblog be construed as legal advice.
This is a forum for personal views and opinions. Accessing this website is not a consultation for legal advice or services and nothing contained in this weblog creates an attorney-client relationship nor should it be construed as creating an attorney-client relationship.
Some Rights Reserved - ArmchairGenius.com - Copyright ©2005