Ex Parte: Official Weblog of Harvard Federalist Society

Friday, March 11, 2005

Rice for President in '08?


HLS's own Stefani Carter writes this USA Today column on the prospects of Sen. Clinton's foil, Sec. Rice, for receiving the Republican nomination for President in 2008.

Update: In an interview with the Washington Times, Sec. Rice indirectly responds to Stefani's column. This idea certainly is spreading quickly.

Thursday, March 10, 2005

What's in a word?


I just wanted to respond to the worries associated with my use of the word, "extremists" in my Record article.

First, this is the first time I have written as a journalist. In fact, my official capcity on the Record is as the Photography Editor.

Secondly, I found not only Dr. Pipes and the woman from the ACLU to be extremists, I spoke with a few of the attendees on my own, and there were certainly a few "extremists" present. Additionally, because there were extremes on both the political left and the political right, I concluded that the panels were overall well-balanced. For anyone to say that there were no "extremists" at the conference is just plain denial.

The "extremists" are the reason for my having joined the Federalists Society. As a moderate-libertarian-type, I think of most people as extremists. This is especially true when someone feels so passionatly about a cause as to advocate the sacrifice of individual rights, and Dr. Pipes did just that. He said that profiling was a price that "we" are willing to pay, but it seems odd that he's not a member of a group that is very likely to be negatively profiled by law enforcement figures.

Additionally, Dr. Pipes did not limit his views regarding profiling to just Islamists "behaving suspiciously". Furthermore, Dr. Pipes' definition and ancedote regarding "suspicious behavior" also played into my viewing him as an extremists. He has an extreme view of what kinds of behavior are suspicious.

It seems now that we as a society are now living in a time when describing someone as an extremists is almost as bad as saying that he/she is a criminal. I however, don't think of being an extremists as something dirty. I'd like to think of myself as an extremist in certain circles.

I have an extreme inclination to oppose any imposition on individual liberties and those who have proposed many of the new kinds of infringment on those liberties. It seems that since 9/11, such strong views regarding the protection of individual liberty has made me an extremist.

I hope I didn't offend anyone with what I never intended to be a criticism of the Society's Conference. I was simply trying to highlight my favorite part of it all.

Related Posts (on one page):

  1. What's in a word?
  2. Extremists?
Odds on Supreme Court appointments


Here are the current odds being offered by an online sportsbook on the next justice appointed to the US Supreme Court (notice that these odds implicitly factor in the likelihood of a candidate getting through the nomination process):

Next Justice Appointed to US Supreme Court

114 Alex Kozinski +1500
115 Jon Kyl +1200
112 Orrin G. Hatch +1200
113 Frank Easterbrook +1000
110 Larry Thompson +900
103 Miguel Estrada +900
106 Edith Jones +750
108 Theodore B. Olson +600
104 Emilio Miller Garza +600
102 Janice Rogers Brown +600
109 John Roberts +350
101 Samuel A. Alito Jr. +100
111 James Harvie Wilkinson III -280
107 J. Michael Luttig -350

+1500 indicates that a $100 bet would win $1500, for a $1600 payback. -350 indicates that a $350 bet would win $100, for a $450 payback.

Here also are the odds for the next chief justice, which apparently fail to consider the possibility of someone who's not currently a member of the court being appointed chief justice.

Next Justice Appointed to US Chief Justice Seat

124 David Hackett Souter +750
121 Anthony Kennedy +350
123 Stephen Breyer +350
127 Sandra Day O'Connor +300
125 Clarence Thomas -145
122 Antonin Scalia -450

I think Kennedy's not a bad bet at over 3-1 odds.

Wednesday, March 9, 2005

A rice cooker in every pot?


Leftists love to point to the nationalized health care and high literacy rate of communist Cuba as examples for the US to follow. Now they'll have another item to add to their list - government subsidized electric rice cookers! In a nearly 6 hour speech yesterday, Castro announced that Cuba would be subsidizing the cost of rice cookers imported from China.

This article suggests that the new pressure cooker plan is part of a larger (more despotic) economic centralization agenda designed to reduce the number of private, local makers of home-made pressure cookers. Yes, comrades, entrepreneurship and innovation are capitalist evils that must be suppressed!

But this news item also raises the question of whether all is well in idyllic, centrally planned Castro-land. Why are Cubans celebrating the importation of something as mundane as electric rice cookers? How can this possibly be a big deal to some of the most highly educated, highly medicated people in the world? How is it the government can afford to provide all this "free" health care and top-notch education in a country where citizens are too poor to afford rice makers at market rates? And what's with the references to frequent gas shortages/outages - could government-run gas companies be less efficient than the private monopolies we have in the states? Also, how bad of an energy crisis must a country have in order to actually BAN rice cookers? (Do you think Fidel gave up his use of electric appliances during that time as well?)

But surely these concerns are foolish...one can only imagine how good the health care must be in a country that will soon have an electric rice cooker in every home!
Academics Who Can't Handle Criticism


Donald Luskin is being threatened with a libel lawsuit for this post:
Ever wonder how college professors pick textbooks? It ain't rocket science, apparently. Here's an email I got from Worth, the publishers of Paul Krugman's new economics textbook Microeconomics. It seems that the "adoption decision" is influenced by lottery prizes associated with filling out surveys with respect to the "adoption decision" itself...

[Text of letter announcing $200 gift drawing for faculty participating in a survey about textbook adoption]

Righty-o. One has to hope that Professor Gail Hoyt's students will "enjoy" Krugman's textbook as much as she will "enjoy" her "holiday spending."
Here's an excerpt from what the publisher's lawyer tells Luskin:
In that post, you make the false and defamatory claim that Professor Gail Hoyt was induced to adopt Paul Krugman's economics text, published by Worth Publishers, at least in part by a $200 Amazon gift certificate that she won from Worth.

You have your facts wrong.
The survey, and the drawing Worth held for what essentially was a token prize to thank professors for taking their valuable time to fill out the survey, were unrelated to the participants' adoption decisions... Moreover, as it turns out, Professor Hoyt has not adopted the Krugman textbook...

The allegation that Worth would pay and Professor Hoyt would accept in effect a bribe to influence her selection of her class's economics text defames both Worth and Professor Hoyt. In addition, your republication of Charlie Van Wagner's letter without permission infringes Worth's copyright in the letter.

Accordingly, whether out of respect for the truth or to avoid further action on our part, I will expect that you will remove the offending post and replace it with a correction and apology
Hmm. Anyone want to take a crack at the likelihood of success in that libel suit? Or the propriety of threatening a lawsuit? It's just a hunch, but I'd bet the publisher isn't very eager to discuss in court just how it is that they persuade professors to adopt a textbook written by Paul Krugman, whose usually-wrong "economics" columns are regularly ridiculed by Mr. Luskin.
A solution? Or another problem?


In a move likely to be criticized by human rights organizations, the Palestinian Authority announced it will begin dictating the contents of some sermons in Palestinian territory:
This will be the first time that since the establishment of the PA that preachers will be unable to deliver their own Friday sermons. The move is seen as an attempt by the PA leadership to stop incitement against Israel and the US in mosques.

"From now on, the preachers will be given speeches prepared in advance by the PA authorities," the official said. "Anyone who does not abide by the text will be fired."

The majority of the mosque preachers receive their salaries from the PA's Ministry of Islamic Wakf Affairs...

The PA's decision to impose censorship on preachers follows protests from Israeli and the US officials over a recent sermon in the Gaza Strip, in which the khatib, or preacher, called for the liberation of all of Palestine.
Ah, the problems of Islamic socialism. You run the mosques, you pay the preachers, you take the blame when they preach terrorism. To save yourself, you then decide the mosques will be your mouthpieces.

Of course, the problem this "solves" is the problem of state-funded sermons that contradict state policy. I'm sure the PA will be pleased to take advantage of this opportunity to limit criticism of the new Palestinian government on other subjects, as well. Not that I'm saying this is bad: it's not as if the Palestinian Authority makes pretenses that Palestinians have freedom of speech. If the government has the power to arrest, imprison, and execute people for their speech, they might as well use it in a circumstance like this. But ultimately, they face the problem of transforming these sentiments, regardless of whether they're preached in public or seen as sponsored by the government.

Undoubtedly this incident will contribute to some future "libertarian panic," as Adrian Vermeule is describing in his new article (hat tip: Prof. Goldsmith; Orin Kerr). I can envision it now: President Bush announces that we've learned "lessons" from the Israelis in how to fight terrorism. His political opponents spin it as "the President intends to follow the Israeli model," which then gets distorted into plans to suspend firebrand imams from preaching hatred in American mosques. We've already seen criticism from the ACLU of the ability of terrorism investigators to attend religious services, despite evidence of the ongoing promotion of terrorism and hatred for America in Saudi-funded mosques across the United States.

Tuesday, March 8, 2005

Coming soon to a state near you


I don't know much about environmental convenants, but they seem like a good way to accelerate redevelopment that might otherwise be tied up in litigation with environmentalists and consumer advocates for years. It looks like Nebraska's occasionally-productive unicameral legislature is about to become the second state to adopt legislation defining a system:
Under the new system, a landowner and the Nebraska Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) would come to an agreement about what cleanup should be done and what restrictions there should be on future use of the land.

An environmental covenant, spelling out the agreement, would be recorded with the county register of deeds, available to warn prospective buyers of the limitations on the land, according to Lincoln Sen. Chris Beutler...

The proposal acknowledges that there are limited resources and some degradation may never be completely repaired, said Lincoln Sen. David Landis, sponsor of the plan. The bill allows DEQ to require remediation. Then all parties agree that the future uses will be limited, he said.

The environmental covenant makes the land more marketable because future owners know the situation. Right now such land often can't be sold because potential buyers don't know what kind of cleanup might be required.

"There are no buyers. No one wants anything to do with the property," Landis said.
It's nice to see legal creativity being put to a productive use once in a while.

Monday, March 7, 2005

More on University Governance


This post, on Left2Right, comparing the academic profession to the self-organization of slime molds and ant colonies, lends support to the point I was trying to make about university governance last week.
Tsunami Lawsuit


Ed Fagan filed a suit in New York Friday, seeking damages against the Pacific Tsunami Warning Center for failing to warn the world about December's tsunami, 7000 miles away and in an ocean the institute does not study. The Baltimore Sun printed my thoughts on this suit earlier today; Overlawyered has a more interesting discussion of the issues and characters involved.