Comments for Futures and Options

Comment on On Second Thought… by Meleagris gallopavo

Meleagris gallopavo — Tue, 07 Jul 2009 20:30:57 +0000

Huzzah, I agree.

Comment on Soft Despotism, Democracy’s Drift by Meleagris gallopavo

Meleagris gallopavo — Tue, 07 Jul 2009 20:29:43 +0000

The sovereign extends its arms about the society as a whole; it covers its surface with a network of petty regulations—complicated, minute, and uniform—through which even the most original minds and the most vigorous souls know not how to make their way… it does not break wills; it softens them, bends them, and directs them; rarely does it force one to act, but it constantly opposes itself to one’s acting on one’s own … it does not tyrannize, it gets in the way: it curtails, it enervates, it extinguishes, it stupefies, and finally reduces each nation to being nothing more than a herd of timid and industrious animals, of which the government is the shepherd.

^This sounds an awful lot like the GOP.

Concerning Bethea : wow, what a huge problem she is. As the inventor of Political Theater, and Lobbying, she must not be allowed to continue corresponding with the federal government! /sarcasm

Comment on Ricci v. DeStefano by Strix nebulosa

Strix nebulosa — Mon, 06 Jul 2009 11:35:43 +0000

Finally got around to reading the opinions in Ricci. The majority’s holding actually struck me as fairly narrow. Here’s the substance of it:

“We hold only that, under Title VII, before an employer can engage in intentional discrimination for the asserted purpose of avoiding or remedying an unintentional disparate impact, the employer must have a strong basis in evidence to believe it will be subject to disparate-impact liability if it fails to take the race-conscious, discriminatory action.”

This seems fairly unexceptional. It merely sets out an evidentiary standard (“strong basis”) to apply in situations where an employer is concerned about disparate racial impacts of certain actions. It certainly does not do away with disparate impact liability altogether, as Scalia points out in his concurrence but which some of the popular (liberal) accounts of the case seem to suggest.

I agree, a win for rationality.

Comment on Reinventing Capitalism by Zenmervolt

Zenmervolt — Wed, 17 Jun 2009 18:33:59 +0000

I still think that all Ford has to do to increase sales right now is to run one simple ad and run it often:

“Ford: We didn’t steal your tax dollars.”

Comment on Crosby, Stills, Nash, and Politics by Zenmervolt

Zenmervolt — Tue, 09 Jun 2009 14:52:35 +0000

This will be controversial, but I’m inclined to put Boston above CSN&Y. How many bands have essentially every song on their first two albums receive consistent radio airplay? Boston had more hits in their first two albums than many other bands have in 10. Still, it’s difficult to compare a straight-ahead guitar-rock group like Boston to a folk-rock group like CSN&Y. While they are both technically “rock”, there’s a great difference in overall style.

I’m also inclined to argue for ZZ Top; a band that has been touring and recording with all of its original members for an uninterrupted for nearly 40 years now. Again though, they are stylistically quite distinct from CSN&Y.

For last, I’m saving the clearest case of an American artist superior to CSN&Y: Stevie Ray Vaughn. Although, again, there are stylistic differences and Vaughn is solidly a blues-rock artist while CSN&Y are folk-rock.

Comment on Legitimate reasons to question Sotomayor by Strix nebulosa

Strix nebulosa — Fri, 05 Jun 2009 16:35:38 +0000

Reasons 2, 3, and 4 seem solid to me. I think Reason #1 is a closer call. The Court in Heller explicitly declined to decide the incorporation question, and there are some valid bases for an appellate court to decline to incorporate the Second Amendment against the states. The Seventh Circuit’s recent decision on the issue (where three fairly conservative judges reached the same result as Sotomayor’s Second Circuit panel) lays out the reasoning fairly well. Basically, it argued that there were some old Supreme Court cases declining to incorporate the Second Amendment; those cases have never been overruled; and even if it would be appropriate to overrule them, that is a task for the Supreme Court, not the circuit courts. This is true even though the old cases didn’t even consider the doctrine of selective incorporation, which hadn’t been invented yet (and which provides the strongest basis for incorporating the Second Amendment today). Personally, I think this decision was incorrect, because appellate courts should be able to ignore Supreme Court precedent if the doctrine on which the old cases rely has become obsolete. But I don’t think the decision was completely unreasonable; it is a good thing when appellate courts recognize their place in the judicial system and not try too hard to foreshadow what they think the Supreme Court will do.

Comment on Things I just plain do not understand by Strix nebulosa

Strix nebulosa — Mon, 01 Jun 2009 12:27:32 +0000

I’m pleased to see that the scientific bird name motif is catching on among commenters. We now have Meleagris gallopavo and Eurypyga helias adding their thoughts to our illustrious forum. Nice taste in species, by the way. But don’t think you can completely cloak yourself in Latin anonymity: your choices reveal your identity! I know who you are!

If any other commenters want to leap onto the bandwagon, here are some other impressive-sounding names (and reasonably cool species): Nycticorax nycticorax, Phaethon aethereus, Asio otus, Otus asio, Falco peregrinus, Heliomaster constantii, and Ixoreus naevius.

Comment on Sotomayor…ehhh by Strix nebulosa

Strix nebulosa — Mon, 01 Jun 2009 12:12:36 +0000

I should clarify my position. I do not think Sotomayor is a racist or would reach certain outcomes in cases based purely on the race of the litigants. I do think that her comments make clear that she considers the policy outcomes of her decisions when engaging in legal interpretation, and that the effect of her decisions on different racial groups (as informed by her identity as a Latina) is appropriate to consider. I do not agree that such outcome-based judging is appropriate. Appellate decisions should start and end with interpretation and application of the legal text at issue.

Comment on Sotomayor…ehhh by Strix nebulosa

Strix nebulosa — Mon, 01 Jun 2009 03:08:26 +0000

I didn’t claim she was racially motivated in her legal work; I claimed that Obama’s nomination was motivated by the fact that she is a Hispanic woman. Yes, the thinking was exactly “Whoops, too many white men, better find a Hispanic woman,” and you’re kidding yourself if you think otherwise. There are many accomplished and brilliant judges in the country that would “deserve” a seat on the Court sooner than Sotomayor. That she is at least a competent judge doesn’t change that reality. It’s not the first time this has happened, either: Clarence Thomas was appointed because he was black, no question about it (incidentally, Thomas had less impressive credentials than Sotomayor at the time of his nomination, but he has since justified Bush’s confidence in him). And what is this quote from Obama’s nomination speech supposed to mean?

“And when Sonia Sotomayor ascends those marble steps to assume her seat on the highest court of the land, America will have taken another important step towards realizing the ideal that is etched above its entrance: Equal justice under the law.”

I can’t imagine what the “important step” is if it’s not having the first Hispanic woman on the court.

On an unrelated note, I have long wished that Ben Franklin’s efforts to canonize Meleagris gallopavo as our national bird had been successful.

Comment on Things I just plain do not understand by Eurypyga helias

Eurypyga helias — Sun, 31 May 2009 21:13:39 +0000

Very, very funny post. Penis-themed bachelorette parties make no sense to me either, and I’m a female. Another weird thing is that some girls I know have their mother, sisters, and future mother-in-law at the party. Wouldn’t that just be embarassing?
Bachelor parties don’t make sense to me either, especially if there is a stripper or strip club involved. I don’t understand wedding showers either.