From public housing in the Bronx she came...

Now it is a phenomenal story to see someone like Sotomayor overcome all she has and a testament to how far this nation has come, but how is her background a qualification for the Court?

George Will (without a SINGLE baseball reference, seriously) discussed in the WaPo today (and I think I agree) why identity jurisprudence is an approach that is antithetical to our conception of the rule of law. If the application of the law changes depending on your perspective, then is it even impartial anymore? Is this jurisprudential approach antithetical to the Equal Protection Clause? I think it is. And this is what has bothered me about this nomination, not the fact that she's going to take a liberal approach to issues or even to constitutional interpretation.

Read, and discuss.

Judith Warner on Meghan McCain's pro-sex stance

Check out this NYT piece, The Young and the Snarky, by the ever-snarky, elitist Judith Warner, whose contrived pity for Meghan McCain and Bristol Palin makes my blood boil.

Warner claims she, like the rest of the blogosphere, ought to be mocking Meghan McCain, but that instead she feels sorry for the young heiress. Ms. Warner proceeds to mock Ms. McCain anyway: not with humor, but with the kind of vicious sarcasm utilized by upper-class white women the world over and explained in painful detail in Tom Wolfe's I Am Charlotte Simmons. "You haven't paid your dues, daaaahling," Warner is saying, "and have no credibility with the established sorority" -- this from a women who regularly criticizes other mothers' parenting.

Warner argues that Ms. McCain cannot afford to go on Colbert and talk about her sex life, can't afford to tweet about licking Colbert's face, declare herself a pro-sex twentysomething, or assertively state she's a size 8. It's probably best that McCain leave out the face-licking stories, but Warner's attitude on the other stuff is sexist, ageist, and just plain old-school. Until the media stops reporting on women's dress sizes (Michelle Obama), shoe labels (Nancy Pelosi), and love lives (Elizabeth Edwards), Meghan McCain is demonstrating a fearless (dare I say feminist?) honesty in confronting head-on what journalists, pundits, and bloggers will speculate on anyway. Everyone knows her father is a frisky, flirty old bastard: well, now we know for certain that Meghan favors smart birth control over abstinence. Warner is a generation older and the product of a very different time for American women. Her criticism disguised as pity shows just how out of touch she is.

Michael Pollan makes me swoon

Check out Amy Goodman interviewing Michael Pollan here.

The food companies are so clever--I love how Pollan points out that they're now marketing "pure sugar" as a health claim. Hey, our products contain sugar--not HFCS--so stock up; sugar is great! Yet just last summer I saw a commercial (paid for by the corn lobby) talking about the greatness of HCFS as a "natural" sweetener (it's made from corn! Corn's a vegetable!).

Here's another good link--an article from WaPo on the cost of being poor. I think it's related to the Pollan interview in the sense that some of the most nutrition-less food (Pollan calls it "food-like substance") is marketed to the poor. I heard a radio commercial about Kool-Aid the other day; it touted Kool-Aid as a cheaper and tastier alternative to fruit juice. Gross. Fresh food is hard to come by in poor, urban areas, but it doesn't have to be: community gardens are inexpensive and relatively easy to create. A stickier problem is the pursuit of profit by food giants, corporations that will say virtually anything in order to sell a food product. And don't get me started on Monsanto, which has taken over huge amounts of farmland all over North America with its genetically-modified, pesticide-resistant products.

"Christian" as an adjective

DISCLAIMER: This is a rant.

I can't find a news site that's not running the new American Idol as the top story, so it's unavoiable not to read about it. But since when did "Christian" become a required adjective for a person? Does AP Style require it? We don't throw around "non-Christian" or "atheist" or anything else unless it's relevant to the story. We're afraid to note someone's race unless it's important (see, e.g. Barack Obama) but religion is still a big deal. How does this make sense?

Got that off my chest.

GOP Option #2

The Ron Paul Option, Crazyapocalypticism. Do the following:

1. Draw on scary eyebrows.
2. Describe the economic recession for 5 minutes in one sentence, long enough to make C.S. Lewis blush, using metaphors, similes, and simply adjectives, but no (and I mean NO) verbs. Present active participles are to be considered adjectives in this situation, not verbs.
3. Use "torture" and "generous" in the same sentence.
4. Use "revolution" and "change" in the same sentence.
5. Use proper parliamentary procedure.

GOP Option #1

As we face the remaking of the Right in America, I will be presenting several options the GOP can take. The obvious thing would be to take a look at David Cameron's Tories in the UK (where he became pro-environment, pro-social justice, all based on the traditional morality values that old Britain holds, but putting them into the public sphere as we envision it today) who are quite soon to be looking at winning 10 Downing Street, but there are some other great options presented by GOP figureheads.

1. The "Pro-Sex" Party. Let's listen to Meagan McCain on Colbert:

Let's Appreciate Jesse Ventura

I was just saying to my mom and Mama Z the other day that I understand why Jesse Ventura would have a certain appeal. He says what he thinks and you can't fit him into any sort of idealogical box.

That being said, what is most enjoyable about this clip is that you can't help but think that at any moment he might jump over the table and throttle Elizabeth Hasselbeck as if he is having some sort of Running Man flashback.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=104226887

"For if there is one law that we can be most certain of, it is the law that binds people of all faiths and no faith together. It is no coincidence that it exists in Christianity and Judaism; in Islam and Hinduism; in Buddhism and humanism. It is, of course, the Golden Rule — the call to treat one another as we wish to be treated. The call to love. To serve. To do what we can to make a difference in the lives of those with whom we share the same brief moment on this Earth."

This stood out to me, especially. While I am certain there is some supreme being or force that is our raison d'être, to me, this "Golden Rule" is what matters more in the end. There is a certain shared moral compass among all religions and peoples, and this is what Obama speaks to in this paragraph.

Also, if you didn't read his Arizona State speech, you should: http://www.huffingtonpost.

com/2009/05/13/obama-asu-speech-full-tex_n_203287.html.

Warning for those venturing to the Gobi...

In my productive afternoon I have learned of the cryptid creature known the Mongolian Death Worm. I for sure want to meet this creature that spews sulfuric acid and kills at a distance by means of an electric discharge.

I like this picture particularly:

Federal Budget Update!

It appears Obama's now proposing $17B in budget cuts to the original $3.5T proposed. That's up from $100M (170x). This is good news, as it would reduce the $3.5T to $3.483T instead of down to just $3.4999. My beef now remains with Congress who is trying to cut some of the reductions in that $17B. Thanks, Harry. Nevertheless I still wish we weren't adding $1.17T to the deficit even if all these cuts go through.

For all the tax nerds in the room...

I give you the UK's tax problem. Why raising rates and creating new complicated deductions is a bad idea.

The RTD Doesn't Want Energy Independence!

The Richmond Times Dispatch published this "commentary" where they took a Obama's Earth Day speech and commented in bold after every paragraph or so. Really?

I haven't seen that tactic used so effectively since the Davidsonian. Really?

This is what journalism has come to... snarky comments made in the margins. Lewis Black did a bit like this with a George Bush speech one time. Except he is comedian who is funny!

The best part is when they question why Obama would want energy independence.

Why energy independence? The U.S. does not pursue "independence" in any other economic sector. It imports food and clothing. It coordinates banking policy with other major nations. It embraces technological innovations from overseas. Why should it strive for autarky in energy, and only energy.

Interesting that should say this when they drummed the energy independence drummed repeatedly over the last few years when demanding offshore drilling, uranium mining and new coal production.

The RTD sucks.

Souter: The Last Conservative?

Though I do not think he is the last, I could not agree with this assessment more. Judicial conservatism should generally be lauded, and so should Souter.

Boston Globe???

As if the Rocky Mountain News and the Seattle Post-Intelligencer weren't bad enough, now we have this.  It's true that I don't currently subscribe to a paper (I'm afraid I have little interest in the local news of Richmond, since I'm just passing through), but I did subscribe to the NYT and Raleigh News & Observer at various points in college.  Anyway, it's just depressing to think that one of the biggest papers in the U.S. might be gone soon.  I really hope this is more of a negotiating ploy.  

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/04/30/obama-family-photos-sent_n_194074.html

I loved these pictures...I know I'm partial, but during the campaign, a lot of people griped about how the Obamas seemed too perfect, and they wanted to see them as real people.  This batch as a lot of really humanizing shots.  I think this was my favorite of the lot...it was just too freaking cute:

Copyright for both images belong to The Huffington Post (I think).  

This one's another personal favorite because of who it is (Teddy's one of my heroes): 

Also from HuffPo: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bradley-whitford/waterboard-dick_b_194244.html  (I choose to pretend Josh Lyman wrote this). 

What really matters?

Everyone who does not go to Yale Law hates the USNews rankings. This year, sadly, University of Richmond dropped in the rankings back to its number in 2008 of 77. Bummer.

Tax Prof Blog has taken the individual measures and ranked schools based on each individual factors. Although we have a big problem when it comes to employment stats (possibly because we tell the truth about it), we ROCK when it comes to bar passage rates. The only school in Virginia above us is UVA. We beat William & Mary, George Mason, and W&L. Go Spiders!

CSOs

http://abovethelaw.com/2009/05/wake_forest_law_student_the_la.php

This kid is an idiot, maybe not so much for writing the original email, but saying his account got hacked and he didn't write it?  Please.  All I can say is that the repercussions of denying you wrote it are going to be much worse than the ones for if you just said, "Yeah, these were my views."

I don't know what the situation is at Wake Forest's CSO, but I think CSOs are being blamed universally right now for lack of employment.  I wonder how proactive this kid has been in going to CSO and asking for specific and individualized help.  Also, sorry to ruin this kid's scapegoating, but the economy is just BAD.  Oh, and it's entirely possible to interview and get jobs without using CSO (or using CSO minimally).  

Twitter, once again.

OK so I still classify myself as a Twitter skeptic. I opened an account a few months ago because I thought that way I might figure out what the big deal was, but then dropped it for several weeks. Now I've only started using it once in a while because I have this awesome dashboard widget and it's easier to update by FB status if that desire strikes me. Safari Beta is kinda slow.

But it's not something that I think is going to last. So why on earth does Obama need to keep using it? This article explains he needs to keep up his tech cred, but really, I'm kinda relieved. He would never use it personally, so it would be some office peon updating it, or the communications office would get a hold of it and it would be just one more vehicle through which he could spew PR. I don't think the tech world is served by creating one more medium to do nothing.

Clinton will not be on the SCOTUS!

I was appalled to see a post on a friend's Facebook page that she would be "pissed" if Obama appointed Bill Clinton to the Supreme Court to replace Souter. I think such a thing is VERY unlikely. There are many reasons for my thinking that it is unlikely. For example, I think Obama likely does not want a Clinton in a branch of the government he does not control.

However, the main reason I think it is INCREDIBLY unlikely that Obama will appoint Clinton is that Clinton was DISBARRED from the Supreme Court Bar. Come on people!