After writing on this date about 9/11 for years, I decided to stop. I had said all I had to say. Then last year, I saw something different, that the time that elapsed since 9/11 had been long enough that it was no longer about personal experience but something to be read about in history books and magazines. A generation now exists for which 9/11 is outside their lived experience. It’s a story, as Pearl Harbor was for my generation, something we knew all about but wasn’t our reality as it was my parents.

Last year, I wondered whether 9/11 would be a historical footnote or a tool. The answer is developing. Continue reading →

The ability to conjugate the verb “to be” was once considered to be a minimal sign of an educated person. Replacing it with a more active or appropriate verb was indicative of a better education. These were the rhetorical skills that would enable people to succeed in America, to become all they hoped to become in their lives. And if you could not use words properly, pronounce words correctly, distinguish between similar words so as to select the one that means what you intend it to mean, well, it would not serve you well. Continue reading →

If it’s been unclear up to now, I abhor arguments grounded in claims of morality. This isn’t because I have no morals, or have anything against people who do, but that it’s not an argument except at its fringes. If something is so wrong that it’s universally considered immoral, then there would be no need saying so or arguing it.

After all, it would be so obvious as to not need to be said. So if you have to say it, chances are very strong that it’s not obvious or universally accepted, but merely one person’s idiosyncratic version of morality. That doesn’t make it wrong, but it does make it unavailing as an argument. No one needs to be informed of your version of morality when they have their own, thank you very much. Continue reading →

Even without the travesty of Whren, car stops held a special place of infamy in the police “arsenal.” Largely excepted from the constraints of the Fourth Amendment under the “automobile exception,” rife with potential for racial profiling and abusive threats to obtain consent and obeisance from the understandably fearful, it was an opportunity too easy for cops to ignore. Bad things happened. A lot. Far too often.

But the argument in favor of them is that “good things” came of it too, such as the busts where drugs or an illegal gun was found, thus justifying, or at least off-setting, the many abuses. Whether the occasional felony bust that came of a random car stop was sufficient to assuage the conscience of those who squinted hard at the tens of thousands of abusive stops for that one big bust was a matter of sensibilities. Continue reading →

The question isn’t a legal one, as the First Amendment, subject to certain content-neutral time, place and manner restrictions, would permit it. But just because the law allows something does not mean it should be done. In the distant past, the idea of protesting at a government official’s home crossed a line. The norm was that homes and families were off limits as a matter of civility.

That’s long since changed, as reflected by the middle-of-the-night protests at the home of Portland mayor Ted Wheeler and New York City police commissioner Dermot Shea. No doubt the neighbors were thrilled. Continue reading →

One of the most problematic aspects of being a lawful gun possessor has been the risk from cops. They care more about the First Rule of Policing than your right to possess a gun (or any other right, for that matter), and the fact that you have a facially valid permit isn’t necessarily sufficient to assuage their concerns, as Basel Soukaneh found out the hard way.

In 2018, Basel M. Soukaneh stopped his car to check his phone in a questionable area of Waterbury, Connecticut. When he was approached by a police officer, he presented his driver’s license and pistol permit, notifying the cop that he had a gun in the car. Continue reading →

After once-respected Harvard Prawf Larry Tribe’s imaginative if disastrous journey down the road to eviction moratorium 2.0, which lasted all of about 12 minutes until he embarrassed a president (who wasn’t Trump) for deliberately engaging in unconstitutional conduct and himself for being Dersh’s bookend, one would have expected a bit of circumspection. Perhaps even humility, given how flagrant his indulgent exercise in fantasy proved. But no. Larry Tribe is back, and he’s got another brilliantly imaginative idea! Continue reading →

What’s striking is the underwhelming characterization of the writer in this New York Times twit.

OnlyFans “offers the illusion of safety and deniability for producer and consumer alike,”  Catharine MacKinnon, a lawyer, writes in a guest essay.

A lawyer? Catharine MacKinnon? How very modest. With Andrea Dworkin gone, MacKinnon would be in the lead, axe in hand, smashing reel to reel movie projectors in “art film” houses across the nation, because porn is evil. Continue reading →

Whether you choose to put away the seersucker suit for the season is up to you, but Labor Day was established in 1894 to celebrate the “contributions and achievements of American workers” in the early days of the Industrial Revolution, when working conditions were so dangerous and horrific as to be unfathomable to today’s worker. And thankfully, legislation changed much of that, between the Wagner Act and the Fair Labor Standards Act, and later the  Civil Rights Act, Occupational Safety and Health Act and Equal Pay Act, workers have enjoyed vast improvements over the past century.

But what about now? According to MIT prof David Autor, while pandemic benefits have played a role in the current labor shortage, the rules is insignificant. The lack of affordable child care has also been raised as a reason, but that, too, doesn’t empirically bear out as the cause of the problem. He posits another rationale. Continue reading →

Had it been used to stay an execution, it would be glorified. But this time, the outcome was contrary to pop desires and, in my view, wrong, even though the Supreme Court, in my view, is often wrong. When the Supreme Court refused to enjoin Texas’ sweetest gift to the Democrats ever, SB8, the reaction from the left wasn’t just to catastraphize the ruling at the brutal back door murder of Roe v. Wade, but proof that the Supreme Court had to go.

There were the usual calls to expand the Court to put a majority of reliable and dedicated progressives on the bench, so the Court would never rule “wrong” again. But Jamelle Bouie at the New York Times found a new demon to slay: The Shadow Docket. Continue reading →