Notes

And since I’ve been writing so much about politics the last couple days, I want to say one more thing that’s on my mind.

Everywhere I look in the press, I see Democrat-friendly people complaining that the primary contest between Clinton and Obama is so divisive that Democrats will be unable to unite once one of them is finally nominated.

Okay, I’m sorry, but if you are partial to either Clinton or Obama (and, for my money, I’m highly partial to the latter) and you really think divisions between them or their respective supporters are so great that you could not in good conscience vote for the other one, then what exactly are you going to do come November? Vote for that lame excuse for a Republican, John McCain?

(In case you haven’t noticed, John McCain appears to have approximately one plank in his platform: “I’m a war hero, dammit!” I guess if you want a candidate who is completely out of touch with the interests of most Americans, including all those “red state” people, then sure, you could vote for McCain. I guess.)

Are you going to just not vote at all, because you have sour grapes over your favorite Democrat not getting the nomination? If so, then maybe you should go back to high school and re-take your civics class. Our system works when people participate, not when they stay home on election day.

If you plotted these three candidates on a political spectrum, they would form a skinny little isosceles triangle: Clinton and Obama over there next to each other with McCain off somewhere to the right. There’s no meaningful difference or division. I’d vote for either of those Democrats. I think Obama can think and clearly express more nuanced ideas than any public figure I’ve ever seen, but I suspect Clinton is just as smart behind closed doors. She just seems to be a little more embedded in the game of “politics” than he is. (McCain, on the other hand, seems to me like one of those cranky old anti-intellectual, let’s-just-go-blow-them-up kind of guys. No nuance at all.)

Would I prefer to vote for an atheist libertarian? YES. But none are in the race and there’s no way I’m going to vote for yet another old pandering white guy who claims to be a war hero. And the differences between the Democrats are negligible, in the grand scheme.

So what’s all this about a Democratic party that can’t unite under one candidate? It means we have to conclude that all (or substantially all) the supporters of one of those candidates will either stay home or go running to the arms of John McCain on election day. Really? Really? That’s ludicrous. And if you’re one of the people who would do either of those things, maybe you need to check and see whether you are really participating in politics or just playing the game of “politics.”

It’s always nice to see a politician change his mind, explain why, and actually have good reasons.

A few minutes ago, I received an email from “CREDO Action.” Here are the important parts:

President Bush wants an endless war, but the majority of Americans want to bring our troops home. Now there is a real plan, endorsed by military leaders, over 50 congressional challengers, and 50,000 citizen co-sponsors like you.

. . .

The Responsible Plan will:

1. End U.S. military action in Iraq
2. Use U.S. diplomatic power
3. Address humanitarian concerns
4. Restore our Constitution
5. Restore our military
6. Restore independence to the media
7. Create a new, U.S.-centered energy policy

And then there is a link to a page where I can help deliver this “Responsible Plan” to a Congressional representative’s office and another link to a page where I can sign a petition endorsing the “Responsible Plan.” Uh-huh. Right. Like I’m gonna do that on the basis of seven hugely vague phrases that are utterly without details. Sure, maybe I want to “Restore our Constitution,” but maybe what I think about that is not exactly what the people at “CREDO Action” think about that, or what the authors of this “Responsible Plan” think about it.

How about maybe putting the full text of this plan in front of people’s faces before you ask them to “endorse” it? How would that be? Maybe, oh, I don’t know, HONEST? Are you trying to hide something? Are you just so cynical that you think constituents are too lazy to read such a thing? I really can’t think of a good reason why you wouldn’t put a big giant link to the actual plan at the top of the email.

See, to actually read this “Responsible Plan,” you have to:

1. Click on the only one of six links in the body of the email that will take you to the petition page.
2. Scroll down to the bottom of the petition page.
3. Click on the link to www.responsibleplan.org.
4. Find the link at the top of that page that says “read the plan.” Click it.
5. Scroll down through the executive summary, which is equally devoid of specifics.
6. Click on the button that says “Download the Full Plan.”

Yeah, sorry, that’s lame. And it feels deceitful. And it’s just the kind of lunacy that political “activists” love: State massively broad and unobjectionable goals, leave out the details, expect people to rally around you, all grassroots-like, a bunch of drones.

It’s just one more reason why, as I mentioned in a recent post, “political” types bother me. I don’t trust these people. If they have substantive ideas, then they need to present those things up front, instead of hiding them in a virtual back room, like the rest of us can’t be trusted with them.

At any rate, if you download the PDF and read the plan, skip to pages 12-21 (or pages 13-22 of the PDF file). That’s where all the meat is. There are some good ideas. It’s probably worth endorsing. But don’t you dare sign any petition “endorsing” that plan until you’ve actually read it. And if you are an “activist,” then don’t you dare ask anyone to sign any petition endorsing that plan unless you first ask them to read the plan itself and give them a chance to actually do so.

Okay, my study break is over. Back to the law of evidence.

I am tired of George W. Bush. He’s on my TV right now, holding a press conference in the Rose Garden, going on and on about how Congress is so unreasonable not to let him drill for oil in Alaska or build new refineries. No word, however, on whether he would sink any money into research and development of alternative energy sources. We do not need more of this lunacy.

Oh, wait, now he gets a question about this, and he says there is “not enough emphasis on the here and now.” Congress is too worried about ethanol and hydrogen, he says. Huh? No, the problem is that we have too much emphasis on the here and now at the expense of the future.

What a jackass. He’s being rude to the reporters now. Lame. Listening to this jerk is like listening to a petulant little boy. He doesn’t act like a president. He acts like a child. Talks like one, too.

Oh, oh, this is good. Now he says that Congress is “letting the American people down” because they don’t let him do what he wants to do. “Either it’s a lack of leadership or it’s a lack of understanding.” Right. So Congress, the branch that is inherently and by design more closely connected to the people than the Executive, is “letting the American people down” when they exercise their checks on Executive power. Right.

Ugh. I need to go study.

You know why “political” types bother me? Because they don’t care about real political issues, such as solving social, legislative, or public policy problems. All they care about is their stupid game.

For instance, consider the bloggers discussed in this post over at Threat Level on Wired:

Liberal bloggers are expressing outrage over Barack Obama’s appearance this weekend on Fox News, accusing the Democratic presidential front-runner of kowtowing to the network’s conservative viewers, and throwing his online supporters to the wolves.

. . .

“This will likely further dismay liberal bloggers who had worked very hard to get Dems to boycott Fox as a way of delegitimizing the network and who already criticized Obama for agreeing to appear in the first place[.]”

. . .

“By going on Fox News, Obama made the right-wing press legitimate,” wrote Daily Kos diarist “Bonddad” Sunday morning. “Simply put, I cannot vote or support anyone who participates in this medium.”

Those are not substantive complaints. Those bloggers are not talking about reality. They are talking about making moves in their stupid game in the parallel playing field that calls itself “politics” but which has nothing to do with politics. It’s more like religion or tribalism. It’s not a discourse on how best to govern our nation or a conversation about the public interest. It’s a game. A stupid game.

And it’s a dangerous game because it prevents people from recognizing that taking sides in the Epic Battle of the Political Parties will not get anything done. Ever.

Why should it matter if Barack Obama does an interview for Fox News? Those angry liberals certainly wouldn’t complain if he did an interview with a blatantly biased leftist organization. What, so they prefer candidates that play petty games like “boycotting” Fox News? Are we in the fifth grade here?

If you want to know what’s wrong with America, that could be part of it.

Also, I received a scholarship a couple weeks ago. (I keep forgetting to mention this when I talk to people who like to know about these things.) It was the James K. and Carol Sellers Herbert scholarship, which is given to a student “who demonstrates academic achievement and personal initiative” and “who [is] highly motivated to study law and [is] dedicated to the spirit of learning.”

Funny story: When the Associate Dean was announcing my award at the Barrister’s Ball, she said something about how this award goes to “a true scholar among us” and “someone who loves being in school.” Upon hearing that second phrase, I said to the people at my table, incredulously, “Who’s that?” Moments later, the Associate Dean called my name. Oops.

(In my defense I would point out that the criterion is being “dedicated to the spirit of learning,” not “loving to be in school.”)

Last night was my last substantive class in law school. From here on out, everything until the bar exam is review. It’s hard to believe that I now have a “complete” legal education. I keep wanting to go down to the law school, grab a professor’s arm, and say, “Wait, wait. Is that all? There isn’t anything else you need to tell me? There isn’t anything else I’m supposed to know before you give me a J.D. and send me off to take the bar exam? Are you serious? They let idiots like me into this thing?”

Those of you (mostly family) who have not been to law school or are not lawyers have no idea what this is like. You all say (and will probably keep saying) things like, “Oh, you’ll do fine.” Sorry, but no matter how many times you say that, no matter how much you mean it, no matter how right you think you are, it brings no comfort.

But those of you who are my classmates and colleagues, you know what I am talking about. You know about something my buddy and I came up with when we gave our seminars on torts to the first-year classes the last two fall semesters; you know about The Fear.

If you are a law student facing the bar exam, then the growing balance on your student loans, weighed against your immediately foreseeable earning ability, and added to the shameful prospect of not passing the bar exam makes that phrase “a fate worse than death” sound pretty meaningful.

During my first year of law school, everything was new. I had zero experience with law. Every new idea felt like one of those blue pills from The Matrix. Turned me into a blue pill junkie. During my second year, I felt more like I was drowning in my sleep than waking up to a new reality. Now, at the end of my third year, with only three final exams left before I have to start studying for the bar exam in earnest, it all seems rather flat and confined and nowhere near enough.

At least maybe in August I’ll get the chance to read a book without having to worry about some sadistic professor getting his jollies from grilling me on how I analyzed the text.

What took so long?

I had some friends who got digital cable about five or six years ago. They were all excited. They invited me over to check out the wondrous new technology. So I showed up, sat down on the couch, and watched in horror as: (1) compression artifacts destroyed the integrity of the images and (2) my friends not only seemed utterly oblivious or incapable of recognizing compression artifacts, they claimed that I was just imagining things because I was jealous.

For years it’s been the same every time I see this “amazing” new digital television. It sucks. Big time.

Suddenly today, years after this stuff hit the market, I see this article at Wired complaining that “high definition” digital cable television is bandwidth-starved and therefore hobbled with compression artifacts, like it’s some new thing. Maybe the big deal is that this is alleged “high definition” digital cable, so now it’s really bad that things are still the same. (Is anybody really surprised? When is the last time any telecommunications company wasn’t lousy?)

So was I the only person to notice years ago that digital cable sucks? To this day it still annoys me the way my friends (who, incidentally, are no longer my friends) were so down on my perceptive observations about the pictures on their TV, but it’s nice to finally get some vindication on this point.

Story of my life, though. Be perceptive, point things out in the face of others’ denial, get called “stubborn” for refusing to lie about the perception, then finally be vindicated weeks, months, or years later—when the deniers and epithet-spewing jerks have long since forgotten the incident so nothing counts for anything.

Anyway, I watch TV online, when I watch at all. I see no point in blowing huge portions of my income and credit on fancy schmancy home theater systems that are just going to be obsolete in a couple years. What’s the point? Besides, I have to go study. Couple, uh, quizzes coming up. Like the California bar exam.

The custody hearing for all those kids removed from the polygamist compound in Texas sounds like it was a pretty good time:

Texas District Judge Barbara Walther struggled to keep order as she faced 100 lawyers in her 80-year-old Tom Green County courtroom and several hundred more participating over a grainy video feed from an ornate City Hall auditorium two blocks away.

The hearing disintegrated quickly into a barrage of shouted objections and attempts to file motions, with lawyers for the children objecting to objections made by the parents’ attorneys. When the judge sustained an objection to the prolonged questioning of the state trooper, the lawyers cheered.

Probably a nightmare for the judge, but sure makes for entertaining copy when you can write things like “the lawyers cheered.”

It’s always nice when somebody else says what I’m thinking and writes in on a blog. That way, when I have no time to write, I can just excerpt and link.

Sherry Colb has written about the recent furor over Barack Obama’s remarks about why people may adhere to guns, religion, and fear of outsiders:

Senator Obama has indicated no desire to do anything radical to interfere with religious faith, hunting, or immigration reform. On policy, his views resemble Hillary’s, and he has shown an openness and a respect for those on the other side of the aisle that is quite refreshing and unusual. But he is also a thinking person, and when a thinking person ponders the popularity of God, hunting, and anti-immigration sentiment, he is likely to draw conclusions about the social facts that give to such popularity, quite apart from the legitimacy or illegitimacy of the underlying substance. That Barack Obama is a deep thinker is not a weakness but a strength. He should perhaps have phrased his words somewhat differently, but there is nothing disqualifying, alarming, or even especially controversial about anything that he said.

Go read the rest.