As has become a holiday tradition at the New York Times, they’ve included their annual “how to talk to your angry uncle” op-ed, featuring the Angry Uncle chatbot. It’s fun for a few minutes, but the upshot quickly becomes clear: to avoid unpleasantness, say nothing unpleasant.
The “try this” suggestion is: Continue reading
There’s little new in the New York Times’ lament over the reaction to the new breed of progressive prosecutors. Neither legislators nor judges are taking particularly well to their assertion that they were elected to provide their brand of “justice” to an unjust system and subject to no constraints.
Laws? Feh. Judges? Meh. They were elected to be free to do as they please, subject to no limits but the cries of the righteous.
These Prosecutors Promised Change. Their Power Is Being Stripped Away.
As a new crop of district attorneys takes a different approach to criminal justice, some are seeing their authority removed and their actions blocked in court.
Sir Tim (as opposed to Al Gore) invented the world wide web,* and he’s not entirely pleased with how his baby has been treated.
I had hoped that 30 years from its creation, we would be using the web foremost for the purpose of serving humanity. Projects like Wikipedia, OpenStreetMap and the world of open source software are the kinds of constructive tools that I hoped would flow from the web.
It was supposed to provide us with the entirety of human knowledge at our fingertips, plus the ability to hang around with our new friends from distant places, where we could hug and share and become one. Continue reading
As a tenured professor at the Kelly School of Business at Indiana University, Eric Rasmusen has the cred to give some gravitas to his words. And words they were.
As many of you may be aware Professor Eric Rasmusen, a member of the Kelley School faculty, tweeted a link and quoted from an article entitled, “Are Women Destroying Academia? Probably,” written by Lance Welton. This article suggests women academics and most women students are harmful to the academy. Unfortunately, the views espoused in this article and endorsed by this professor on the matter of gender diversity reflect similar views expressed in his private Twitter account.
Moreover, he holds similarly reprehensible views regarding other areas of diversity. The professor demonstrates a lack of tolerance and respect for women as well as for racial diversity and diversity in sexual orientation. The leadership of the Kelley School stands united in condemning the bias and disrespect displayed by this professor; we find his sexist, racist, and homophobic views abhorrent.
I have a very real problem with grandchildren. I don’t have any. I want some. Hell, I want one, but I have none. I joke that my kids have failed me by not providing me with the grandchildren I want, but it’s not a very funny joke, and my kids don’t find it funny at all. Apparently, I’m not alone.
Fertility rates have been dropping precipitously around the world for decades — in middle-income countries, in some low-income countries, but perhaps most markedly, in rich ones.
Fulfilling my desire to be a grandfather isn’t really much of a reason for my kids to have children, despite all I’ve done for them, but the list of reasons given for this decline in fertility rates in all demographics emits the unpleasant odor of excuses. Continue reading
People send me books to review all the time. To some extent, I try to read them. I say try, because most are blog posts spread over a few hundred pages, or personal stories of injustice that are largely the same as the last hundred personal stories of injustice. But over the past couple years, a new genre of book on criminal law reform has emerged. It’s got one singular feature: It’s mostly written in adjectives and adverbs rather than nouns. In other words, it’s filled with passion and devoid of substance.
Which is why I appreciate this book review of “Usual Cruelty,” written by Alec Karakatsanis and reviewed at Slate by Lucy Lang. The subtitle of her review strikes the perfect note.
Are you good with some car blowing through a stop sign? There’s a reason for the sign. There’s a reason why it’s a stop sign, not a “have a nice day” sign. Most of us would strongly prefer that drivers stop, because we rely on general adherence to traffic control signs to remain alive. It’s not so much about being compliant as about the necessity for certain rules to avoid certain death.
So what the hell are they thinking in Oakland?
Oakland police, long criticized for using traffic violations to search and interrogate people of color, are trying something new: They’ve dramatically cut back on enforcement. Continue reading
Long Island is a collection of ghettos, primarily grouped by race and relative wealth.* The latter can’t be helped, as million dollar homes cost a million dollars, but the former is inexcusable and, not insignificantly, unlawful.
In one of the most concentrated investigations of discrimination by real estate agents in the half century since enactment of America’s landmark fair housing law, Newsday found evidence of widespread separate and unequal treatment of minority potential homebuyers and minority communities on Long Island.
The three-year probe strongly indicates that house hunting in one of the nation’s most segregated suburbs poses substantial risks of discrimination, with black buyers chancing disadvantages almost half the time they enlist brokers.
An editorial in the Columbus Dispatch raises a question that percolates through a great many convictions, particularly those taken up by the Innocence Projects. Why do prosecutors fight so hard to prevent a defendant convicted long before DNA testing was readily available from testing the DNA?
Brunner possibly could have been exonerated sooner, when the Innocence Project based at the University of Cincinnati’s law school identified him for The Dispatch as someone with a questionable conviction. But at that time, a judge in Stark County denied his request for testing.
It’s hard to see any reasonable justification for the denial. DNA technology continues to advance, meaning evidence that previously wasn’t testable may now be able to provide certainty about guilt or innocence.
The Innocence Project didn’t give up; it again requested testing for Brunner in 2018 and the judge this time, Kristin Farmer, granted permission.
In the case argued before the First Circuit by Harvard prawf Jeannie Suk Gerson, after much inexplicable melodrama, the sole issue before the court was whether to reverse a temporary restraining order issued by Judge Douglas Woodlock. Ordinarily, this isn’t a tough call. This time, it wasn’t merely tough, but added another level of bizarre to the case.
A TRO maintains the status quo ante until the suit against Boston College is determined, much like letting a defendant remain on bail rather than serve his sentence while his appeal is proceeding. The reason is fairly obvious: if the defendant is constrained to serve his sentence immediately, but the conviction is subsequently reversed, he doesn’t get that time back. Not even the god-like power of a federal court can alter time. It’s gone, lost forever, together with the consequences that follow from the punishment to family, job, life. Continue reading