If you think the Trent Lott debacle was bad, get a load of this one.
Vladimir Zhirinovsky, the extreme far-right Vice Speaker of the Russian Duma, visited Iraq four months ago and had some illuminating words on America, Bush, and a potential war on Iraq.
The following is from a video of him (apparently completely loaded -- the tape was filmed after a private party in Baghdad) that was just released a couple of days ago. You'll have to click on more below for selected excerpts from the "speech"; let's just say it's not very nice. Please don't visit if you are easily offended (like you could stop yourself now!).
If you read Russian, you can read it yourself here. The amazing part about it all is that the whole spectacle has not been reported whatsoever in the U.S. news, although it's been on constant play on the Russian news channels. The consulates of Azerbaijan and Australia have requested copies of the video.
Update: Ooooh! Video! Click on the little movie camera.
In other Russian news, college students held a peace rally in Moscow today. They arrived dressed as Santa Clauses because they thought Americans would understand their message better because Santa is such a positive image for Americans.
The following is a loose translation and not necessarily in order. Some are remembered from the broadcast and may not be 100% accurate. Unfortunately, there's not an english transcript available.
Put away your bullets far away into the warehouse and forget about your daddy!
If you want to bomb somebody we can bomb Australia together.
Your predecessor, fuck, Clinton, fuck, they pulled his zipper down right in his office. Everything fucking went to cock. In the office of the head of the state she sucked him. And this is America? What are you doing fuck? Monica fuck? What fucking president! Devils blow-job givers, fuck. Masturbators fuck. George, George, watch cowboy films.. and look over here fuck. Look at the sky fuck.
Do not attack Iraq. Napolean met his doom at Waterloo, Hitler lost the Battle of Berlin... You will meet your doom in Baghdad. You! Bback to Texas, back, on your ranch, on your jeep run around your empty land and learn the Spanish language. New York already speaks Russian.
We will send ten more million of Russians to America and elect our own president and you George will get a good cell in the bighouse. Do you understand George?
Moscow doesn't want this war and our president explained this clearly in Russian to you: "Do not dare shoot at Baghdad." Lets fuck the Tbilisi together, Baku and other cities. We will find targets on this earth. So much earth, fuck. If you want, we will send Australia to cock. To the bottom of the ocean. Do you want us to show our rocket, fuck. Do you want it? Fuck. We have so much weapons. Fuck.
At night our scientists will slightly change the earth's gravitational field and your country will be under water. 24 hours. Fuck.
Thanks to C.D.B. (a certain Russian cutie) for the news!
As promised, my year end retrospective! Well, at least it's out before the end of January. All things in italics are verbatim searches (punctuation added).
How do I throw a tea party? I have no freakin' idea. Try here.
Roommate Advice. Don't get one. If you must have one, avoid the "interesting" ones. You know, the ones who talk about the indie cinemas (yet never seem to go) and deconstruct clothing in order to "recreate" it for fun. Run like hell from the ones who get all misty when they start blabbering about cooperative living. That means they want you to do their laundry. Ph.D. students in some sort of science field that require wickedly long hours in the lab are best.
Roommate is breaking the law. Call the cops. Duh.
Can't live with roommate. Kick them out!
Feeder Judges. You can find a list of 'em here. Your chances of clerking with one of them? Just about nil, but good luck trying!
(Click more! Do it!)
Candlelight Associates. Well, if that's what you're into!
Were there other parties besides the Boston Tea Party? Apparently so.
Playing games on laptops. That's fine, just so long as it isn't in class! Just don't take the term laptop literally. (ouch!)
Legal Academia. Here's a good starting place. And more. And some stuff from the Libertarians (Their link to their own guide is broken, go here instead). You should try clerking first.
Why the Pledge of Allegiance is important. To inculcate "traditional values" into our nation's youth? To assure conformity in our young robots? Hey, at least we don't do the Hitler-esque salute anymore. The important thing is to keep them pledging.
Buffy party. This Tuesday, and every other Tuesday night.
First year law student nicknames You don't search for those. You make them up!
How to make a rabbit hole. This implies that a rabbit is required to make the hole. First, you got to get yourself one of them bunnies. Then you get yourself a pole. Tie the bunny to the pole so its front half extends beyond the pole. Situate it close to the ground. The bunny will start digging automatically. Really. Or you could read Watership Down for other bunny excitement. Those bunnies would be able to tell you exactly how.
Boston Blog. Try here.
Rational Choice Theory for Selecting Course. Eliminate all courses with a final exam. Eliminate all courses that meet before noon. If you have any options left, pick the one with the least reading.
What is law school like?
Law School and Bad Experiences. See this page, and the links section. There are some doozies!
Why shouldn't students swear? Because God says it's bad. Or at least these people do.
Breaking attorney-client privilege. Didn't you learn anything in law school? Bad idea. But while you're at it, make sure you know what you're talking about. You're probably thinking about the duty of confidentiality. Remember, privilege applies only in courts.
Financial Tea Party. Uhm, yeah. That's weird.
homosexual tea party
urban tea party
silicon valley tea party
alex tea party
tea for one
tea party georgetown
monkeys tea party
tea party cats
royal school party
I think you people might have some problems. Or at least too much time on your hands.
party\busted Dude, like you are so busted! Next time, try flushing your junk before the cops come.
How to get hired at Hale & Dorr. Be a tool. No, really.
Sophisticated party games. How oxymoronic can one get? They don't exist.
Law school slacking. Aww yeah.
party party oscar wilde Ooh yeah, what a party!
Law school curves. Either you love them or you hate them. If you're at the bottom it doesn't really matter much. Centered at different spots at different schools (usually B+, B, or B-).
Interviewing with law firms What a drag! Why don't you write your own rejection letter? It's easier!
Should we teach business ethics in school? Yes.
Do we need to teach ethics in a b-school? Yes, dammit!
Business students shouldn't study ethics. Um, okay.
Ethics should not be taught in business school. Alright, already!
Teaching business ethics is unnecessary. Okay, okay.
Business ethics and why you should lie. Yes, because that's such a good idea!
Bang head against wall. If you can't figure this one out, I just can't help you.
Law clerk hiring freeze. Start here.
Law school mother 1L The mother of all law schools during 1L? An overly mothering law student? None here!
Good game to play on laptops. Snood!
Hale and dorr the truth about. The real truth about Hale & Dorr.
Law students ugly. That's just mean! (But I so know what you're saying!)
free princess party
cordial party
royal school party
first monday party
speech party
mad girls party
honour party
I really really don't know what's wrong with you guys.
Reasons to party. Does one need a reason?
pledging games You're a frat boy. You figure it out. I don't need the liability.
bar exam no law school required There's something about it in Planet Law School.
Boston interview suits pearls. That's definitely a do.
Flare pant suits. Do I need to say anything?!?!
Fish shocker Animal Hater!
What are the best law firms in boston? The ones that don't fire anyone.
Law firms and criticism. Right here, baby.
Professor party picture. Eeeeuw.
Law school professors are evil. You needed to search for that?
hate-underwear I think there's professional counseling for that.
Law stupidity. Try this website.
Tea for professors. Goodness, you are a suck-up, aren't you?
Do law firm partners keep all profits? It's a pyramid scheme. You do the math.
Older law student. Nontradlaw.com!
Usefulness of laptops. They're great as beverage coasters!
I got straight A's in law school. Well, aren't you special!
crack spiel salt lake 2002 Yeah.
I need the picture of diploma of university of utah. That's because you're a cheater. Did you go to the crack spiel?
Party games for law students. Now that's one student with no life!
lawschool students social life See above.
Getting into Harvard Law School. I'm pretty sure someone wrote a book on that.
Dirty Tarts.
Tattoo Alice. I am not that kind of girl!
Eject button. We could all use one of those, especially about now.
Foot Massage. Yep, one of those too.
Chief Justice of the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court Margaret H. Marshall (whew, that's a mouthful!) has decided to pull out of the candidacy pool for the deanship of Harvard Law School in a move to save the Massachusetts judicial system. The judiciary and the legislature have been fighting an antagonistic battle: the legislators taketh away, and the judges taketh right back.
Since 1976, there have been six studies on the failures of the Massachusetts court system. The 1976 Blue Ribbon commission headed by Archibald Cox wrote
Chief Justice Marshall promised a revolution last year. It's about time the state house wakes up and realizes that improving the judiciary (or just saving it) is valuable in itself, regardless of costs.
My recent note of Judge Kozinski's law clerk requirements had blogger Waddling Thunder wondering about my true motivations. In the comments section (sorry, no direct link -- javascript!), Nikki wonders if I'm making a subtle dig at everyone else's expense, while Waddle thinks I'm out for sabotage.
Muhahaha. I'll never tell.
There seems to be a massive proliferation of law bloggers lately, but as far as I know, no one is yet blogging on ethics or professional responsibility. I would so love to see a good ethics blog. So if you're knowledgeable or passionate about the topic and have the yen to blog, step up to the plate!
I was apparently struck with a dash of prescience last week. On Friday, Howard asks Judge Jerry Smith why he decided to defect from the law clerk hiring scheme:
The first incarnation of LazyBlawg is online! Kevin & Jonas have dubbed it the Blawgistan Times. I think it's fantastic that they've decided to archive the contents daily. Dynamic experiences are good, but oftentimes it's useful to take a look back.
If you're lost and confused, just visit the site. You'll figure it out. Eventually. Or check out my mini-explanation.
My server is being moved tonight between 7pm and midnight (eastern time). So if you can't get here, it is okay!
The Federal appellate judge hiring plan is starting to show a few cracks. A quick perusal of the Federal Law Clerk Information System reveals the following:
Several justices are apparently using creative interpretations of "fall hiring." For example, Judge Robert Sack (2nd), Judge Paul Kelly, Jr. (10th), and Judge Richard Tallman (9th) are all accepting applications beginning June 1. Judge Kenneth Ripple (7th) is at least starting in the latter half of the year on July 1.
Of course, I have previously noted that Judges Chester Straub and Jerry Smith are defectors.
Senior Circuit Judge Myron Bright (8th) is hiring from now until April 1, but I suppose he's allowed because it's in Fargo. (You Betcha!)
Of course, there's my very favorite, Judge Alex Kozinski. In his information screen (his positions are open until filled, by the way) Judge Kozinski writes,
Has anyone else noticed that Hilary Rosen, Mary Matalin, and Karen Hughes have all resigned to spend more time with their families?
Does this mark a trend of high-ranking and high-profile professional and/or political women quitting their jobs to actually devote more time to their kids? Or is it a strategic move to avoid harsh inquiry on their actual motives in resigning? Who can fault a woman who wants to cozy up with her family?
Professor Jeff Cooper has returned! Yay! Our hearts were bereft during your absence.
Plus there's a link to a wickedly funny blog I hadn't noticed before. (Bonus for all you guys - lots of half-naked women, too.)
If you hadn't noticed, today I have eschewed long posts for little snippets. Bear with me until I get it out of my system. I promise it won't last very long.
Eugene Volokh wants advice on marketing his newest creation, Academic Legal Writing: Student Notes and Seminar Papers. You can get a sneak peek here!
As I have previously mentioned, I found Prof. Volokh's writing advice immensely helpful with my own work.
Are you a 2L? Planning to take the Bar in Massachusetts? You should know (if you didn't already) that the July 2004 exam will be the same week as the Democratic National Convention. If you need a hotel room, you should book it now.
Oh goody. Lazyblawg (see previous post here) is coming to life! Go visit to send in your information.
I think I might have stopped breathing while reading this.
One gem (entitled You, the TVP of my desire):
Truthfully, I always saw that saucepan as a metaphor for us - you as the dehydrated vegetable solids, and me, in my dreams, as the gentle but urgent sauce enrobing you with its sweetness. And the saucepan as perfume-ed sweatlodge; slotted spoon as man-pillar. Oh, my vegan temptress, not a day goes by when i don't think about the texture of your vegetable protein and the gentle curve of your skillet....
LazyBlawg sounds really nifty. It's kind of like a call for papers, except applied to blogs. You ping the site with your post, which adds an excerpt to the collaborative blog/feed, people visit the blog/feed and are able to comment on the excerpt or ping it with their reply.
Even better, I now know about Tech Law Advisor! It's not one of those sites I've visited before and neglected to bookmark, it's that I've not seen it before today. I need to get out more.
From the Did-You-Really-Need-to-Use-That-Metaphor quote of the day pool:
And I all wanted was a little light reading. Now I feel kind of dirty.
Bruce was right - it has all been said before! Here's a short list of law review articles discussing the issue. Links are to Westlaw (subscription required).
Fred Rodell, Goodbye to Law Reviews, 23 Va. L. Rev. 38, 45 (1936) ("Maybe one of these days the law reviews, or some of them, will have the nerve to shoot for higher stakes.... Meanwhile I say they're spinach.").
John G. Kester, Faculty Participation in the Student-Edited Law Review, 36 J. Legal Educ. 14, 14 (1986).
Arthur D. Austin, The "Custom of Vetting" as a Substitute for Peer Review, 32 Ariz. L. Rev. 1 (1990) ("The use of student edited journals as the main outlet for legal writing is an embarrassing situation deserving the smirks of disdain it gets from colleagues in the sciences and humanities.").
Richard A. Epstein, Faculty-Edited Law Journals, 70 Chi.-Kent L. Rev. 87 (1994).
Randy E. Barnett, Beyond the Moot Law Review: A Short Story with a Happy Ending, 70 Chi.-Kent L. Rev. 123 (1994).
James Lindgren, An Author's Manifesto, 61 U. Chi. L. Rev. 527 (1994) ("Our scholarly journals are in the hands of incompetents.").
Wendy J. Gordon, Counter-Manifesto: Student-Edited Reviews and the Intellectual Properties of Scholarship, 61 U. Chi. L. Rev. 541 (1994).
Richard A. Posner, The Future of the Student-Edited Law Review, 47 Stan. L. Rev. 1131 (1995).
Bernard J. Hibbitts, Law Writes? Re-Assessing the Law Review in the Age of Cyberspace, 30 Akron L. Rev. 175 (1996). From the editor of Jurist.
Richard S. Harnsberger, Reflections About Law Reviews and American Legal Scholarship, 76 Neb. L. Rev. 681 (1997).
James W. Harper, Why Student-Run Law Reviews?, 82 Minn. L. Rev. 1261 (1998).
Reinhard Zimmermann, Law Reviews: A Foray Through a Strange World, 47 Emory L.J. 659 (1998).
Nathan H. Saunders, Student-Edited Law Reviews: Reflections and Responses of an Inmate, 49 Duke L.J. 1663 (2000).
Just missed the first installment, but you can now read Brush With the Law by Robert Byrnes and Jaime Marquart in serial form at New York Lawyer.
Unless you've truly been living in a hole, you know the Supreme Court today delivered its ruling in Eldred v. Ashcroft. I thought the rejection of the perpetual copyright argument was rather inevitable given that judicial authority is oftentimes uncomfortable with statistics and modern science, but it doesn't end the fight.
There is room for a later court (it surely won't be this one) to backpedal on the First Amendment issues. The relatively tiny -- yet completely adequate -- copyright monopoly of the Founders' day naturally did not interfere with the incomplete incarnation of First Amendment rights of that time.
I think we have shown, especially in the clashes between innovative social commentary and corporations that hold ancient copyrights, that the built in procedures like the idea/expression dichotomy and fair use are simply insufficient to deal with how we express ourselves in a digital age. Copyright is woefully inadequate at protecting and encouraging modern art and media (or even that of non-Western cultural heritage).
And somewhere in the expansion of the scope of copyright to include more abstract compilations (like plot, character, or feel), the system has yanked out some of the idea and lost the traditional balance that fueled the public domain. Culture is not built on what is merely new, but what situates our new experiences in relation to the past. This is not a new idea, but an ancient one. It is ironic that the Supreme Court, built on the foundational principle of the common law that past experiences help sort out the present, is unable to recognize this.
I've really been wanting some sort of legal reference to Snoop Dogg and all the rage about shizzle-speak. Southern Appeal has kindly translated part of the blog into Snoop speak using the Shizzolator.
Bonus points to the first use of shizzle-speak in a law review article!
Although it has been seemingly beaten to death in other quarters, I too have my own perspective on the nature of student-editing and how it affects legal scholarship.
There seems to me a big hole in how these commentators [see, I am in article mode] are approaching the student-review problem, and it mirrors the hole I see in many law review articles. I am constantly confronted with areas of legal scholarship that have far more complex and advanced counterparts in other disciplines. It's not that student editors don't do a good job in checking legal authority or finding authority (legal, of course) to support a writer's argument -- they do. However, student editors are largely inequipped to provide writers with a perspective on how the article fits in the field, especially in more theoretical or cross-disciplinary areas. Recently I have seen far too many law review articles that replicate work done by political scientists in the 1960s. Unfortunately, this is all too commonplace because of the dependence of editors and writers (i.e., professors) on Westlaw and Lexis-Nexis as virtually the sole source of research for their articles (and, of course, the arrogance of many lawyers that think that academics who haven't been legally trained are incapable of analyzing a problem that touches upon the law in some way).
On the other hand, as others have argued, student-editing helps keep legal scholarship from becoming mired by being more open to more radical thought that doesn't quite conform to the status quo. In some respects, that's true. However, student editors are just as likely as the writer's peers to become seduced by big-name writers. Of course, those famous professors may well be famous for good reason. Unfortunately, some have acquired fame simply by being prolific writers; not all of their work actually advances the scholarship.
This, of course, is another problem. Student editors often mistake non-preemption as an equivalent of advance. Article non-preemption should not be the sine qua non of publication, but rather, progress in scholarship. Often they do correspond. However, student editors usually are not discerning enough to sort out what hasn't been covered and what is truly important.
Finally, the real problem I see with the law review model is that it has enabled the professoriate to become lazy. Law professors know law reviews won't publish until every source is checked and every assertion supported. Many use the law review process as a replacement for well thought-out and executed research. This attitude causes some of the problems above. Relying on student work means that lazy professors are less likely to discover that their work is repetitious or simply unimportant. Of course, many law professors would be aghast at such a suggestion (and surely they are competent and diligent researchers). Unfortunately, they haven't seen the drivel produced by some of their less competent colleagues I've had the pleasure to read recently.
I'm really not pleased with this cold thing. It's just, well, cold! I'd much prefer to be lounging in the sun, but, alas, I have returned. In the past couple days I have also discovered it is much easier to run about town with my pals than to actually blog. Blogging after an absence is particularly painful. It's not that the time away has sapped me of all writing ability. No, it is because I haven't actually read any current affairs whatsoever.
But as I cannot let you down, I will take it upon myself to keep up with the news so as to supply you with my wry and witty commentary. Aren't you pleased?
There are also a few changes. You will notice that the last seven entries are now displayed on the home page, not the last seven days of entries. This will prevent those ugly blank pages that sometimes occur when things get busy.* In addition, in response to many requests, I have made a text counterpart to the site. Hopefully those of you that have difficulty with the page can access that. It is more complete than the PDA friendly version. It is far from perfect, but it should suffice.
p.s. Please welcome my newest link, Paul Gutman, yet another 2L!
* I went back to normal because I have plenty of time to write so I will fill you with the joy of old entries instead of old crusty ones.
I said I'd blog, but I lied! I'm having way too much fun in the sun (and getting a nice tan, too!). I do have a fun year-end retrospective but that will have to wait until my return to the wintry north & constant internet access.
And yes, I laughed when I saw the huge snowstorm on the Weather Channel.
Back in a week!