JOHN BONO offers a hopeful observation concerning Afghanistan.
Archive for 2003
January 2, 2003
COULD FEAR OF TERROR MUZZLE SCIENCE?
I thought this article was about environmental extremists, but it’s not. It’s still worth reading, though.
UPDATE: This paper from Johns Hopkins on biological research and terrorism is interesting, too. I don’t have time to offer any analysis, since I’ve just skimmed it. But if you’re following the subject, you might want to follow the link.
HOW WALT DISNEY put “rip, mix and burn” into practice. Courtesy of Larry Lessig.
GAWKER reports on the “Southern culture that seems to be quietly infiltrating New York.” Buwahahahaha!
THE DIPLOMATIC EQUIVALENT OF CALVINBALL: Steven Den Beste is unimpressed with the efforts of war opponents.
ERIN O’CONNOR IS RESPONDING to a critical article about bloggers and the Boalt sexual harassment case.
DALE AMON HAS POSTED JOHN POINDEXTER’S POWERPOINT SLIDES on the Information Awareness Program.
HOORAY FOR THE BLOGOSPHERE! John Scalzi put his novel online, and touted it on his weblog. The result: it was picked up by a publisher whose editor saw it there. I can’t put it any better than Scalzi does:
What I am saying is clearly we’ve gotten to the point where it’s no longer the smart thing to automatically dismiss writing online — even an online novel — as “not good enough.” Sometimes, it is good enough. It’s just that simple. I’m happy to be one of the guys who gets to be the case in point for that.
Amen. If I’m not mistaken — and if I am, I’m sure she’ll correct me — Claire Berlinski sold her novel Loose Lips after publishing it online. Though she’s not a blogger herself, she did get a lot of bloggers to link to it and generate publicity.
HERE’S A RESPONSE TO CHARLES RANGEL by a military dad who thinks bringing back the draft is a bad idea. Read the whole thing, but here’s an excerpt:
Congressman Rangel, I know you served this country bravely fifty-odd years ago in that same land. You were there with a varied bunch of guys — some draftees, some volunteers, some older WWII vets, some career guys. You saw the hell of war up close and personal.
My boy’s a volunteer. He wants to join one of, if not the best and most professional military organizations that this planet has ever seen. He wants to test himself against other proud professionals.
He’s willing to risk his life for the chance to travel and for the GI educational benefits.
He wants to drive a tank someday.
Save the anti-war politicking for another time, Congressman
I want to know that, if my boy has to put his butt on the line for this country, he’s going to be accompanied by other brave men like him. Brave men who believe in the mission and who believe in each other.
Highly trained men. Professionals.
All of them.
Sons and brothers, daughters and sisters of families who support them and pray for them to return safely home.
They are not bargaining chips in your cheap, rhetorical, political game.
One of them is my kid.
Really, you should read it all. (Via Donald Sensing.)
UPDATE: Occam’s Toothbrush has more on this. As well as one of the cooler blog titles.
READER CHRIS WRAY WRITES:
Glenn, now that you’ve linked a story on the virtues of John Edwards, trial lawyer, perhaps you can comment on this terrrible situation in West Virginia – and explain to your readers how the trail lawyers are not culpable here. Or perhaps you might admit that the pious John Edwards notwithstanding, the trial lawyers have a pernicious effect on the well being of our society, and it’s only getting worse.
He also links to this story on the West Virginia doctors’ strike over malpractice insurance premiums.
Well, I’m of two minds on this. Though I used to teach torts (I gave it up a few years ago to start teaching Internet Law) insurance policy isn’t an area of special expertise. But I think that the tort reform = good / trial lawyers = bad formulation is just as simplistic as the big corporations = bad / trial lawyers = good formulation.
What troubles me most is when trial lawyers are actively allied with government against an unpopular group — as when states pass special legislation to facilitate lawsuits against tobacco companies or gun manufacturers. That sort of partnership, where political contributions by trial lawyers facilitate legislation that then enriches trial lawyers and allows regulation outside of ordinary democratic processes, seems entirely wrong to me.
On the other hand, subjects like medical malpractice are just a mess. It’s true that fear of malpractice suits is crippling medicine. It’s also true, though, that there’s lots of malpractice that never generates any lawsuits at all, and the medical system doesn’t regulate its own bad apples very well. Everybody knows who the bad doctors are, but they don’t lose their licenses, or their hospital privileges, very easily. That’s improved somewhat, but not nearly enough, in recent years.
On the other hand, though I’m a big fan of juries and I’ve served on a civil jury myself, I think that the trial lawyers are rather hypocritical in the way they sanctify the jury. Watch them change their tune in the face of proposals to strengthen juries in malpractice cases by, say, allowing the jury to call its own expert witnesses!
Malpractice suits don’t play a significant role in preventing bad medicine, or in compensating injured patients — given that most patients never sue, it’s essentially a lottery. Sometimes a particularly bad physician is brought to account, but just as often it’s somebody who made an honest and forgivable error of judgment, or who did nothing wrong at all. And in some truly dreadful cases, trial lawyers won’t bring suit because there’s no money in it; I can think of one in particular I know of that would curl your hair, but that a major plaintiffs’ firm turned down because they weren’t sure they could make money.
So the social value of malpractice suits is overrated: if you wanted to compensate people who were hurt by bad doctors, or if you wanted to police bad doctors, you wouldn’t have a system like this one, where profitability to plaintiffs’ lawyers — which is at best only roughly correlated with severity of harm, and even more roughly correlated, if at all, with severity of malpractice — is the major determinant of what cases get brought and what cases don’t.
On the other hand, the tort system is the ultimate fallback. Leaving aside politically motivated shakedowns like the tobacco suits (which, ironically, basically turned the states and the trial lawyers into virtual partners of the tobacco companies they previously condemned as evil), you see a lot of lawsuits because no other regulatory or quality-assurance system is doing the job. And that’s largely the case in medicine. The system used to be run for the convenience of doctors. Now it’s run for the convenience of insurance companies. It’s run for everyone but patients. Lawsuits won’t change that, and limiting them won’t either.
UPDATE: Meanwhile Duane Freese says it’s trial lawyers who have made America fat.
ANOTHER UPDATE: A reader points out that I have two “other hands” above. Well, I said I was of two minds, so shouldn’t that entitle me to four hands? That means I still have one in reserve!
YET ANOTHER UPDATE: Here’s a take on the political context of the Frist / Edwards imagery.
OKAY, THIS IS THE LAST UPDATE: A reader emails:
I found your post thoughtful regarding malpractice suits, but I would add two observations. First, the malpractice issue is a symptom of the real problem, which is government intervention in health care. Prior to the 1960s, there was no “malpractice crises,” and there likely would not have been one without the advent of Medicare, Medicaid, and HMOs. It’s the government controls that gave rise not just to increased costs, but mediocre physicians as well. There simply are less incentives every year for the best students to go into medicine — not when then can make a quicker, relatively risk-free buck by becoming a lawyer (a simplistic claim, I admit, but one the admissions numbers for law and medical schools support.)
The second point I would raise is that there is a government alliance at work here, but not necessarily with the trial lawyers, as is the case in the examples you cited. The HMOs and insurers are allied with the government — notably the FTC and the Justice Department antitrust folks — in a campaign to prevent physicians getting together to collectively bargain for better compensation. I know, because this has sadly become my specialty in the past year. The FTC has been making examples out of the smallest physician groups in order to scare them into capitulating to large HMO demands. This has nothing to do with protecting competition, as the government claims, but everything to do with passing blame. The government won’t admit the failure of their own interventions, so they try and blame the doctors by saying their collective bargaining efforts are unfairly raising patient costs. That the facts don’t support this argument is entirely irrelevant, since ultimately the FTC can compel forced settlements out of physicians without going to court.
Sorry for the long post, but I’m getting a little tired of nobody paying attention to this. In some respects, the FTC problem is worse than the malpractice crises. The latter can, and likely will, be fixed with a few legislative adjustments.
Well, there’s a cheerful note for you.
WATCH OUT, ANDREW: Oliver Willis is closing in.
KOS’S POLITICAL STATE REPORT is up and running. Check it out. I think this will be very useful, and very interesting.
TIM BLAIR takes on journalistic bloopers and modern media myths.
TED BARLOW IS WONDERING what impact wargames will have on American society’s view of war in 20 or 30 years. I don’t know — though I think the impact of computer gaming is likely to be huge, and largely unappreciated.
But here’s a piece that Dave Kopel and I wrote on the impact of war-gaming on present-day America. And I think that events over the past year or so have turned out as we hoped.
FRIST AID: First of all, that pun stinks. Memo to journalists: don’t use it again!
More seriously, I’ve been interested to see how much attention the story of Bill Frist’s roadside rescue, which I mentioned yesterday, has gotten. Two quick points:
First, the fact that he administered first aid and may have helped some people has, basically, nothing to do with his ability to serve as a Senator, much less Majority Leader — except, perhaps, that it will make it hard to demonize him as Ebenezer Scrooge returned from the grave, which is the reflexive way Dems treat Republicans. Sorry, new playbook needed guys.
Second, while Frist acquitted himself well, there were (according to a CNN press conference I saw) six other people, including a nurse and a paramedic, who also stopped to help. It seems that some of them even had some medical equipment in their trunks.
The real lesson here is the “pack not a herd” lesson. Official help was nearly a half-hour away, but people with skills and dedication spontaneously organized themselves to do what they could. If we did what I’ve recommended more than once, here and elsewhere, this sort of thing would happen more often, and more effectively, in a variety of settings.
UPDATE: Reader Jonathan Guest observes: “The reason Frist’s roadside assistance is newsworthy is that he’s a Senator. Journalists know that most senators are such self absorbed pussies that they’d never think of diving into a situation like that. They’d just wring their hands and go back and pass a law.” Well, to be fair, that’s only if there were no cameras around.
A huge number of other readers emailed, rather unfairly, that John Edwards would have stopped to help by offering to sue Isuzu or Firestone on the victims’ behalf. I believe they may have been inspired by this item — which is, after all, satire.
UPDATE: Here’s the Spoons take on how media coverage ought to be done. But you won’t see stories like this until closer to the next election.
ANOTHER UPDATE: And here’s an email defending John Edwards, from one of my former students:
I’ve gone on to be an insurance defense lawyer in Raleigh (putting to work all I learned in your torts class). My firm had a lot of cases with John Edwards when he was still practicing, and continues to do so with his former partner, David Kirby.
I’m not sure I’m what I think of Edwards as a presidential candidate, or whether I’d vote for him, but I wanted to say something in his defense based on the “huge number” of e-mails you’ve gotten from people saying that Edwards would have offered to sue Isuzu and Firestone if he had been faced with Frist’s situation.
Edwards was, in fact, confronted with a similar situation. In 1996, his own teenage son was killed in an accident when his Grand Cherokee rolled over. Edwards did not sue Jeep or whoever the tire manufacturer was. I know that most of the people who thought they were being funny when they sent those e-mails didn’t know about Edwards’s son, but the jokes become somewhat inappropriate when you know his history.
Well, I didn’t, but I do now. And so do they. Here’s a link to an article on the subject, too. And this is worth reading, too.
ANOTHER UPDATE: The New Republic thinks it knows why Edwards is running.
THEY’RE TAKING NOMINATIONS for the “Bloggy” Awards.
THIS SOUNDS PRETTY DAMNED TACKY TO ME:
Fairfax County Police are targeting Reston and Herndon area bar-restaurant patrons suspected of having one too many drinks.
Police have been taking them outside for sobriety tests and, if they fail, arresting them for public drunkenness.
The owners of local bar-restaurants are complaining that these tactics are too aggressive. But a county police spokesman says the practice is nothing new and, besides, helps prevent worse abuse that can lead to alcohol-related driving accidents.
Next step: Warrantless visits to your home to see if you’re drunk, since — after all — you might get in your car and drive somewhere before you sober up.
Ken Layne, through whom I found this story, wants to carpet-bomb the Commonwealth of Virginia. That seems a bit much to me. But if you want to let them know what you think about this, here’s the page with their contact information.
There’s a picture of George Washington on the website. I can’t help but note that the colonial-era response to such tactics would probably have been tarring and feathering.
LILEKS TV IS COMING!
SURFING IN CLASS: Boy, this topic is generating the email. Here’s some more — none of which, I hope, was actually sent from a classroom. Certainly this first one — which comes from one of my former students — wasn’t:
To quote Woody Allen’s famous aphorism, “Seventy percent of success in life is showing up.” As a 1999 grad of UTK law, I was quite happy to see my classmates playing Solitaire in class, as I knew that they might as well have stayed home. We did not have wireless Internet in those days, but I suspect that the end result is about the same: those who do not show up (whether in mind or in body) end up paying the price with their class rank and their job prospects. Incidentally, I did extremely well in law school (mostly by showing up and sitting in the back row), notwithstanding the fact that you gave me my lowest grade. : )
Oh, well. Here’s another observation:
I’m a 1L at the University of Virginia Law School.
I deliberately avoided the problem you mention by purchasing an ethernet card with a cable. While many of my classmates feel tempted to surf, I can’t.
At Virginia, few people complain about others surfing, because (like many schools) the class rows are placed on steeply inclining levels, as one would find a sporting event.
Two other points: (1) Females are much worse than males about emailing, instant messaging, and surfing during class. (2) Only a tiny percentage of our students do it at all (maybe 10% at any given moment), even though students in the middle or bottom of the class have an excellent chance of getting decent jobs. The academic culture here harshly punishes the unprepared. It’s a matter of honor.
I was a visiting professor at Virginia (loved the school, but as a then-single guy found Charlottesville deadly) and they do take their honor seriously, though I actually found the students there somewhat less studious than the ones at Tennessee, perhaps because of better job prospects for those in the middle. But that may well have changed since then. Here’s more:
I am a 1l at the Ohio State University College of Law, and most classrooms are equipped with a wireless network. I sit in the back of the class in most cases, due to alphabetical seating, so I get a good perspective on the laptop habits of my classmates. I would say that in terms of distracting neighbors, the larger culprit is the games. Solitaire of course is popular, but more and more I see people playing web based flash and java games, ROMs of old nintendo and genesis games, and even internet games through the MS or Yahoo gaming service. If people think that someone checking their email or reading CNN is distracting, they will have big problems when sonic the hedgehog is running across their neighbor’s screen. That being said, I have no problems concentrating or ignoring the distractions, and fail to see how someone who has made it all the way here cannot possess the mental dicipline to not spend the whole class period staring at their neighbor’s computer.
As for cheating, I have yet to see anything that even smells of cheating with the net or with laptops. Part of the reason is that the school appears to have disabled the wireless network in the classrooms, yet not in the whole building during exams. The result is that the network connects even in the hallway, but when you enter the classroom, it disconnects. Even during earlier tests however, when the network was working during the tests, I never saw anyone with explorer open, let alone cheating. In the end, our tests are open book, and so cheating would be near impossible anyway, unless one opened an instant messenger conversation with another student or something like that.
Yes, law school exams don’t lend themselves to cheating, which has the unfortunate side effect of making them harder to grade (and we don’t use graders, unlike people in some other disciplines — we plow through all those bluebooks ourselves.)
Where surfing is concerned, the blame-the-professor angle surfaces:
Having just graduated from UCLA (and done quite well), I can positively state from my own experience that in-class websurfing usually has little to do with any particular student’s desire to learn. Law school professors have not been chosen for their ability to teach, especially the professors that have been around for awhile. In-class websurfing is a survival tactic designed to keep the student awake as the professor explains for the fourth time the policy implications of granting ex-parte TROs in highly unlikely hypothetical situations.
Well, speaking as someone who is generally regarded as an “entertaining” teacher, I do have to point out that entertainment isn’t the test of good teaching. One of my best professors in law school was deadly dull, but things that he said still bubble up in my brain from time to time. But several readers felt that way. Here’s another:
I am no longer a law student, thank God, but when I was reading your blog and the posts on the subject of web-surfing in class, I was shocked that law students were doing that. Here at the University of Memphis, we just don’t have that capability. However, I have noticed more and more laptops in the classroom. One student in particular used to pound the keys of her ancient laptop with the fervor of Jerry Lee Lewis in concert. It was very distracting. The newer models of laptops have much quieter keys, but their presence is still annoying when you see people playing video games during class. However, I think this problem of not paying attention in class could easily be solved by teachers at the university level actually teaching and not just droning on and on at the front of the class at a lectern.
I had a teacher at the University of Tennessee who constantly moved around the class as he taught and he asked the students questions and most of the students were attentive.
I had a law professor at the University of Memphis who lectured from the lectern and never moved. He always called on students in alphabetical order, so the rest of the class never paid attention. I, myself read the paper, did crossword puzzles, and passed notes with my fellow students. It did not matter as far as grades went because I knew people who studied hard and paid attention, but made C’s and people like me who did relatively nothing and made B’s.
However, my point is this: college professors who are researchers and not teachers will not demand or keep students’ attention. Professors who are dedicated to teaching will demand and keep their students’ attention. A little fear is not a bad thing for a teacher to instill in their students. I was terrified of Robert Banks throughout my law school career, but I studied harder for his classes than any of the rest.
By the way, I had you for a BARBRI session and you were pretty good at keeping the attention of burned out, jaded law school graduates.
Thanks, though the fear of flunking the bar (BAR/BRI is a bar-review course) probably helped hold people’s attention, too. . . .
Then there’s this example of how wireless networking can produce a “smart mob” that the professor isn’t even aware of:
As a recent graduate of Harvard Law (’02) I would like to report that having the internet in the classroom built a collegial atmosphere that stayed with my class for our three years in the school. As you may know, our first year is spent divided into sections each with its own schedule. This meant that we went to every class with the same group of 150 students for basically the entire year. With many of us having seen the Paper Chase before coming to school, imagine our collective relief when we say the numerous Instant Messages that would pop up as the professor bore down with questions. You could pretend to be looking at your notes or materials as you searched the IM’s for the consensus answer or to find messages from those you trusted. No longer was it the harsh professor against the lone, scared, student. The entire class helped clandestinely fight every battle, it was all of us against him/her and the professor didn’t even know it. Perhaps the positive job market at the time lessened the urge to compete mercilessly, or maybe we were really relieved to find the classroom stocked with normal easygoing people instead of the arrogant cuthroats we heard so much about, but this experience brought our section together. The only danger was that occaisionally, as the Professor kept you on the hook, someone in the class would send you a remark by IM that could never be said aloud. It would take all your effort not to openly crack up, and I distinctly remember at least one time when even that effort wasn’t enough. It’s kind of hard to explain to the prof. what is so funny about an “easement in perpetuity.”
Yeah, it’s only the “easements by necessity” that are really funny. Finally, an observation from the pedagogical side about computers in general from a University of Texas faculty member:
I’ve been reading–with parochial interest–the discussion of students surfing the Web during class. Our school also has a ubiquitous wireless system and my take is similar to your own: a student who fails to pay attention in class, for whatever reason, does so at his own peril. (Or as our technology dean put it, before they were surfing the web they were doing crossword puzzles in my class. Same difference.)
But since I teach the research and writing class, I figured I throw in an observation about another way that law students’ affinity for computers can damage their legal education. I’ve been teaching this class for 10 years and as you would expect students have become far more computer-literate in that time. I now rarely encounter students who are afraid to use online legal research services (Lexis and Westlaw) as I did 10 years ago. Also, because students are familiar with search engines they pick up the mechanics of Lexis and Westlaw searching much more quickly.
On the down side, students in my more recent classes have a much harder time mastering the analytical side of research because they assume that they already know how everything there is to know about online research. In fact, mostly what they’ve learned to do is enter a query and get a more-or-less relevant hit. There may be more relevant sources out there and there may be better quality sources, but for their purposes those distinctions haven’t mattered. When they begin doing legal research, however, suddenly relevance and quality matter a lot and getting just ANY hit isn’t enough. Furthermore, legal research often requires them to research slippery and abstract concepts that don’t lend themselves to keyword searching. In this environment, if they confine themselves only to what they already know how to do, they aren’t likely to get any hits at all. My conversations with practicing lawyers tell me that as a result a lot of new law-school graduates are almost “research-illiterate.”
Over the past several years we’ve been revamping our teaching of legal research to completely integrate use of online services so that students better understand their power and their limitations and are able to rationally choose between print and electronic resources. I can’t really say at this point whether we’ve been successful: it’s a work in progress.
That’s very true. I have to constantly remind students that just because electronic research is easy doesn’t mean it’s sufficient. There are many things still to be found in books that are not available on the Web or on commercial services.
The email continues to pour in. I may post more on this later.
BILL HOBBS has been saying that retail sales were better than news reports tended to suggest. He’s got another post, with evidence.
READERS OFFER SOME THOUGHTS ON IN-CLASS WEBSURFING:
I sit in the rear center of the classroom, so I can see most of the terminals in front of me.
The sophomores(my class) lost roughly half of those initially enrolled, which is about typical. John and Christy both believe that maintaining standards is paramount, so that is not an issue. By the middle of the first semester, it was obvious that about 6 students were surfing the net full time. Of those, only two survived the freshman year(and neither one is doing well this semester). I took a 2nd year class last spring with the then sophomores, and only one of them
surfed the net. He’s completely out now.
The new freshman class is the worst. It’s a very young class, with no old coots like me to provide stability. John teaches all the freshman level classes, and he was noting that most of the students are surfing the net constantly, even during tests. It shows in the work that is turned in, which is dreadful. Given the types of questions that I was being asked even in the last week(How do you draw a line at an angle?), it was obvious that these students were not paying attention during class. Granted, a few of them were merely hung-over every morning, but I estimate 17 of 23 will not make it. Of those, 15 are net-surfers. I’ve told John that I’m not going to worry about competition for jobs from this class.
What concerns John the most is cheating, which he is seeing at a very high rate in the freshman class.
The undergraduate / community college world is very different from law. No doubt we have some degree of cheating, but the essay exams that I give — which are usually open-book — stress reasoning, which makes cheating difficult. (The zero-sum world of class-ranking, though it has its downsides, also discourages other students from turning a blind eye to such things). I do, however, make a point of speaking the key parts of at least one exam-question answer sometime during the semester, for the benefit of students who pay close attention.
Another reader writes:
My 2 cents on law school success:
I think your correspondent is 80% right on paying attention in law school.
IMHO, the single most important thing to know to get good grades in law school is: YOU ARE NOT IN CLASS TO LEARN WHAT THE LAW “IS”, OR WHAT THE LAW “SHOULD BE.” YOU ARE THERE TO FIND OUT *WHAT THE PROFESSOR WANTS YOU TO WRITE DOWN ON YOUR FINAL EXAM.*
This has a few practical implications. First, the single best study method is anything which lets you see inside the prof’s thought processes. Read old 4-point exams to see what writing style he prefers, pull a couple of his articles for the same reason. (If he wrote one of the commercial outlines – goldmine).
Second, the second best method is paying attention in class, but specifically to see (1) how the prof approaches problems and (2) what the prof’s particular themes are. Is he interested in irreconcilable conflicts (e.g. justice/mercy, strict contract compliance/intent of the drafters), law and econ, “litigants’ stories”, or what?
(It’s worth mentioning that “law school realism” is defensible on something other than pure results. Lawyers are going into the world to learn to communicate with judges, juries, clients, opposing counsel, supervising attorneys, etc. Learning how to tailor a message to a specific audience is one of the key practical skills one can get out of law school.)
A bit cynical, but largely sound. On a more positive note, there’s this observation:
Personally, I love looking up stuff the guy up front is talking about as he talks. I think this could be deadly in Q&A sessions–it’s a new dimension to rapid response.
My brother sometimes assigns a couple of students to do just this in his history classes.
Another reader adds this less-positive perspective:
“Students who don’t pay attention in class are likely to do badly on the exam. That’s their problem, not mine.” Posted Jan 1, 2003 11:38pm
Unfortunately, it also turns out to be MY problem, too. I’m certain I’m not alone in the category of law students who would love to pay attention in class, and who hope to avoid looking dumb when called on, but are too often distracted by their peers’ web surfing, keyboard pounding, and mouse clicking to concentrate properly. Don’t get me wrong, I love the net and all that comes with it (blogs included), but perhaps wired schools should install some sort of on/off switch for the professors to control when teaching, so that the internet may be accessible when desired (e.g., for use as an instructional tool or some other useful purpose) and be similarly inaccessible when desired. You’re right, these are grownups, and they use technology at their own peril, but there might be more than their grades at stake – can’t we at least pretend that there’s still some value to education, as an institutional enterprise (inspiring young minds) apart from the grades=job equation? If a slight patriarchal nudge from you and other professors gets a few students’ minds off the net and into the classroom, I’d say it’s worth it.
Interesting stuff. My advice: sit in the front row! Then you won’t see the screens. As for the rest, well, by the time students are in law school, if they don’t care enough about learning to avoid distraction, then I’m not sure that I can help. (The undergraduate world is very different, but most undergraduates won’t be able to get into law school. Even at the University of Tennessee, a good but not top-level school, our median is the 75th percentile, and that’s among the self-selected group of law school applicants.)
But my laissez-faire attitude on this could change, with evidence. I’d be interested to hear more, especially from my law student readers.
HEY — yesterday was the 20th anniversary of the Internet (well, the TCP/IP protocol, which is close enough) and I didn’t even notice. But Mr. Mustard did.
JUSTIN KATZ has a vlog entry on independent music — and it features the first-ever video-fisking done entirely via facial expressions.
The inexorable march of vlogging moves on. . . .
TALKLEFT CALLS CHARLES RANGEL’S DRAFT PROPOSAL “despicable.”