About a month ago, All-American swimmer Riley Gaines was supposed to speak at San Francisco State University. It did not go well for her, or free speech, after all.

“I give my speech and, of course, there’s many protesters in the room. But I welcome protesters. I welcome people with different perspectives,” Gaines said. “That’s why I choose to go somewhere like San Francisco. I know a lot of them won’t agree with me but that’s who I want to get in front of. That’s who I want to change their minds to see from my perspective. So there was lots of protesters and it was relatively civil. There was some heckling. But it was good. Continue reading →

Norms are what society organically says they are. Or at least, that’s what they were. If most men in society removed their hats indoors, then removing hats indoor was the norm. It’s never been clear to me why men remove their hats indoors, or why women don’t, but that’s the norm. One can challenge norms they find unacceptable, but that doesn’t make the challenger’s choice the new norm. It’s the opposite, even if the norm is silly, outdated or contrary to the challengers beliefs. It’s not that norms are set to offend those who don’t like them. Norms are nothing more than what most people do, whether for good reasons or not. It’s how we get along with each other. Continue reading →

ONE. A letter never sent.

SHG:

I hope this letter finds you in good spirits, because I’ve got a bone to pick with the universe, and you’re the closest thing I’ve got to a cosmic complaint department. You see, I thought I could escape the madness of this writer’s strike in LA, but my grand plan went awry. And whose fault is that? Nobody’s but my own, I suppose. But still, I’d like to vent. Continue reading →

The killing of Jordan Neely has become one of those cases where mythology has swiftly consumed the unpleasant task of actual thought. While the unduly passionate inexplicably decided that standing on subway tracks chanting about lynchings would somehow help Neely, the district attorney of New York County, Alvin Bragg, has announced that Penny will be charged with Manslaughter in the Second Degree.

There are four crimes with which Penny could have potentially been charged. The first two fall under Murder in the Second Degree, whether under an intentional murder theory or a “depraved indifference” theory. There was no evidence that Penny intended to kill Neely, and the crux of “depraved indifference” murder is conduct that is so clearly deadly that the perpetrator knew it created a “grave risk of death.” The classic example is shooting into a crowd, where the shooter may not intend to kill any particular individual, but recognizes that his actions would almost certainly result in someone being killed. That wasn’t the case here either. Continue reading →

Dr. SJ stayed yelled at the TV, at Kaitlin Collins. “Say something.” And she tried, to no avail. Whether it was because she wasn’t up to the task or it was an impossibility no matter who was moderating the “Town Hall,” filled with supporters whose questions ranged from the equivalent of “what’s your favorite color” to the always tough, “if you were a tree, what kind of tree would you be,” the answers were the same. The election was rigged.

On a scale of 1 to Marjorie Taylor Greene, I’d give him an 11.

Continue reading →

Little Marco’s reaction was the best he could muster. “That jury’s a joke.” On the contrary, it was every bit as valid a verdict as it would have been had it found for Trump, as it did on the rape cause of action where he was not found liable. For those who understand nothing about trials, at least when it suits their convenience, this is the kicker in the verdict.

But would a jury so hopelessly biased against Trump jury reject Carroll’s rape claim? Or is that an indication that the jury actually weighed the evidence supporting each charge?

Of course, the flip side of ignorance “interprets” this finding differently. Continue reading →

Much as some wish passionately that Heller never happened, that the Second Amendment would disappear, that Bruen didn’t make it worse and even less coherent, the reality as we find it today is that Americans have a fundamental individual right to bear arms and the limits on that right are, well, far more limited than Nino Scalia thought when he wrote his errant paragraph in Heller.

These are not the subjects of argument here, because this reflects the current state of the law and, if one enjoys their constitutional rights, one can’t deny the constitutional rights of others that one doesn’t like as much. Continue reading →

The headline in the New York Times is pure Larry Tribe, very important Harvard con law prof emeritus (as opposed to Dersh, who taught crim law).

Why I Changed My Mind on the Debt Limit

Of the myriad things that could possibly matter, why Tribe changed his mind does not make the list. But if he has an actually sound reason why the debt limit would be unconstitutional under Section 4 of the Fourteenth Amendment, that could actually be interesting. After all, much as he’s demonstrated his gymnastic willingness to bend and twist with the latest progressive fashion, he was still a prawf, even if at Harvard. So did he have anything worthwhile to offer this time in contrast to his genius last time? Continue reading →

Who does it persuade? Who does it inconvenience? Who does it harm? What does it accomplish?

https://twitter.com/RebsBrannon/status/1654973123916095488

Continue reading →

When I first read the words, I knew Lyrissa Lidsky was right. They’ve stuck with me ever since.

Nevertheless, I know that in the war of generations, the younger always wins.  I just wonder what victory looks like.

Ross Douthat has a lengthy and interesting column arguing that the progressive revolution is winding down, and its legacy will be of less consequence in journalism than it will be in academia. In the course of getting there, he makes a point that has long been of concern. Continue reading →