The U.S. Patent Code ... in verse

I can't believe I hadn't seen this before: http://jergames.blogspot.com/2006/08/us-patent-code-in-verse.html

What the hell...

So I haven't posted in about 6 months.

Sorry about that. Between thesis problems, first year of law school, and work, life got away from me. I'll try to be a bit better about posting in the future. To that end, I shall resolve to try and post at least once a week.

I will be leaving for a study abroad in London on Saturday, and will be gone for two weeks. Depending on the internet situation I have there, this whole resolution to post may be delayed just a bit.

Not Blogging

As you've probably noticed, I haven't written anything for a while. You should probably expect this trend to continue for the near future, for several reasons--

• I'm spending my summer working at a firm. Until and unless I figure out how to completely separate anything written here from anything worked on there, I'm uncomfortable posting on things to do with law. And since you really don't need my rants on politics to get through your day (I assume), I can't add much value by blogging. Not that I did before, but I could at least deceive myself into thinking so.
  
• Even if I was inclined to brighten your day by blogging on non-law topics, my time has been severely constrained, at the very least until the end of this month. There's some small chance that, after the end of this month, I'll actually have time to read the news and blogs and such and therefore comment semi-intelligently on them, but I wouldn't count on it.
• I've found blogging has lost a bit of luster. I think this will pass, particularly once I'm back in school next semester, but I've just lost interest in it for the moment.
• I'm just not that into you.

So anyway, I hope you all (translation for southerners: all y'all) have a great summer and I see you back here come fall!

What do we really want?

"Is Rudy Giuliani presidential timber? I think not," Dobson wrote. "Can we
really trust a chief executive who waffles and feigns support for policies that
run contrary to his alleged beliefs?"

http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/05/17/giuliani.dobson/index.html

I'm pretty sure the ability to understand an opposing viewpoint is precisely what we should ask for in a Chief Executive, no?

Live by the sword ...

Well, I suppose it's a good thing that the press would criticize him. It's rather a bad thing when the criticism takes the form of applying the same ridiculous standard, rather than criticizing the standard itself. Welcome to the 21st century ... same as the last 20.

Moments I Hope Never To Have In A Deposition, Part 38

I really wouldn't want to be the attorney on either side of this exchange:

"Were you armed with a hand gun when you were arrested?"

"Yes."

"Did you have a concealed weapons permit at the time?"

"Yes."

"Would you show it to us?"

Client looks in pocket. "It's not here - I must have it in my truck."

"Could you bring it up and show it to us after we break?"

"Yes."

"Why were you carrying a gun when you were arrested?"

"I always carry one with me when I'm not at home."

"Are you carrying one now?"

"Yes."

. . .

Heh

Boy, did I misinterpret this headline.

Iraq--Getting Better All The Time

A few days ago, Phil Carter wrote a sober-headed retrospective of our plans in Iraq, showing how disingenuous it is to refer to the surge as plan A while refusing to discuss a plan B (lv:MarkKleiman, discussing the shocking lack of discussion of the piece on conservative websites). And according to Carter--no liberal defeatist he--the surge will fail. It won't necessarily be because of failures on the grounds or even in the current leadership, but it will happen.

That takes us to this article in the National Journal (lv:ThePlank), paraphrasing a retired colonel and former JCS and NSC member as saying "It's almost impossible for the military to seriously plan for a contingency -- withdrawal -- that the commander-in-chief won't even discuss." It goes on to quote him: "The probability that it would leak to the press is too high, and no one in uniform wants to take that chance. [snip] Yet only with deliberate planning will we be able to take some of the sting out of what will surely be seen as a U.S. retreat."

It all comes neatly together in Paul Krugman's column today (excerpted and discussed by hilzoy at Obsidian Wings here, thanks TimesSelect). He describes the Administration's prospective veto of a war supplemental budget just because it contains an advisory deadline as "a hostage situation, in which a beleaguered President Bush, barricaded in the White House, is threatening dire consequences for innocent bystanders — the troops — if his demands aren’t met."

Remember all this next time you read a Republican politician assert that Democrat[ic] and press defeatism is ruining our chances for success in Iraq. Incompetence ruined that a long time ago, if it ever existed. Now that same incompetence is ruining our chance to mitigate consequences of the defeat it brought us, while using our soldiers as political pawns in its twisted game.

New Book About Clarence Thomas

It looks very interesting. Kenji Yoshino reviews it for the Washington Post here. At one point, he asks, in regard to Thomas's originalism, "[W]hat does it mean for Thomas to interpret the Constitution according to the intent of those who would have considered him to be chattel?" That strikes me as a ridiculous question. What does it mean for us to be following a Constitution written largely by racists and sexists? If we want to, we can just scrap the project and start over (though even if we did, I think we would still have a Constitution written largely by racists and sexists, only it would be better hidden and we would likely end up without a 3/5 clause), but originalism as an interpretive philosophy suffers from guilt-by-association with the framers as much as the Constitution itself does.

David Schraub adds some thoughts on Justice Thomas's views on racism as well. It's a very well-written post, making a coherent argument along the same lines as, but far more eloquently and completely than, some bits and pieces I've posted here in the past.