1000 days to go in the current Presidential term.
Monthly Archives: April 2006
I will be attending the Harvard Law School Berkman Center conference on blogging and legal scholarship tomorrow and Friday.
As part of the fun, Eugene Volokh is organizing a Thursday evening get-together between bloggers and (one hopes) readers from about 9 pm to about 11 pm in the Zephyr Lounge of the Hyatt Regency Cambridge, 575 MemorialDrive.
I’ll be there, as will
Ann Althouse, Althouse
Randy Barnett, The Volokh Conspiracy
Howard Bashman, How Appealing
Douglas Berman, Sentencing Law and Policy
Paul Butler, BlackProf
Paul Caron, Taxprof
Eric Goldman, Technology & Marketing Law Blog
Gail Heriot, The Right Coast
Christine Hurt, Conglomerate
Orin Kerr, The Volokh Conspiracy and OrinKerr.com
Peter Lattman, Wall Street Journal’s Law Blog
Jim Lindgren, The Volokh Conspiracy
Betsy Malloy, Health Law Prof Blog
Ellen Podgor, White Collar Crime Prof Blog
Larry Ribstein, Ideoblog
Gordon Smith, Conglomerate
Dan Solove, Concurring Opinions
Larry Solum, Legal Theory Blog
Eugene Volokh, The Volokh Conspiracy
If you are a reader of this blog, and live within striking distance of Cambridge, Mass, I’d enjoy meeting you. Whether you want to look under the hood of this blog is of course up to you.
“Well, there’s your problem”
(cartoon by Edward Koren)
They had a special event over at the 7th grader’s middle school yesterday, in which a special guest speaker lectured students on the “dangers of the Internet”.
This is something like the fourth program this year for parents or students about the evils of high technology. So far we had the evils of violent video games, the dangers of instant messenger, something or other about how you should never surf bad places or the gremlins will get you and more that I forget. (The stupidest by far was the violent video games talk, by one Jack Thompson. I wrote a letter complaining about that one.) The other talks have been optional evening events, but this one was during school hours, so it was the first one that one of us actually attended.
The 7th grader found it all rather dull. He had on board the idea that it would not be too bright a move to agree to meet a stranger that one ‘met’ online (and indeed is mostly interested in single-player games at the moment). He found the repetition of this idea for more than 50 minutes to be rather boring.
“She talked for the entire period,” he moaned. “And after the first few minutes I just sat there and thought ‘you won’t get me with this Jedi Mind Control’“.
I more than half suspect he is thinking the same thing when we talk to him…
Sometimes there really is a conspiracy:
The multimillion-dollar lobbying effort to repeal the federal estate tax has been aggressively led by 18 super-wealthy families, according to a report released today by Public Citizen and United for a Fair Economy at a press conference in Washington, D.C. The report details for the first time the vast money, influence and deceptive marketing techniques behind the rhetoric in the campaign to repeal the tax.
It reveals how 18 families worth a total of $185.5 billion have financed and coordinated a 10-year effort to repeal the estate tax, a move that would collectively net them a windfall of $71.6 billion.
The report, available at www.citizen.org, profiles the families and their businesses, which include the families behind Wal-Mart, Gallo wine, Campbell’s soup, and Mars Inc., maker of M&Ms. Collectively, the list includes the first- and third-largest privately held companies in the United States, the richest family in Alabama and the world’s largest retailer.
These families have sought to keep their activities anonymous by using associations to represent them and by forming a massive coalition of business and trade associations dedicated to pushing for estate tax repeal. The report details the groups they have hidden behind – the trade associations they have used, the lobbyists they have hired, and the anti-estate tax political action committees, 527s and organizations to which they have donated heavily.
Please note: this is NOT posted to the politics:tin-foil category.
This little ditty from the Daily Mail explains what is going to happen if you go on to the Internet today. Really funny!
L.A. Times Editorial Calls for Cheney’s Ouster: A Los Angeles Times editorial Sunday called for a “far more audacious” makeover of President Bush’s administration, saying he should send Vice President Cheney into early retirement.
Let me start by saying that I don’t think President Cheney will allow this to happen.
But, just for the fun of it, let’s suppose that we wake up one day and for whatever reason we find ourselves de-Veeped. That raises two questions:
- Who would Bush be most likely to appoint?
- Who of the people Bush might conceivably appoint would be most politically destructive for the Democrats?
The media is already having a field day with the first question, and thinks the answer is Dr. Rice. But since I think that even if she were to become the Veep, I don’t think she’d run for President (or would be that hard to beat if she did), I don’t think that she is the answer to the second question.
The Democrats’ worst fear has to be the appointment of a viable Presidential candidate into the heir apparent role. Not only does this person get tons of free media and get to look more Presidential, but a new veep would get a leg up in the otherwise internecine primary fights.
So I think the answer to the second question is probably John McCain. It’s just conceivable Bush would pick him (they seem to have made some sort of deal in 2004). He would benefit the most from being anointed as the heir apparent, as it would allow him to drop his self-destructive run to the right. And a McCain who isn’t destroying himself, and doesn’t have to take full part in the rough-and-tumble of a primary (with the chances to lose one’s cool) would be a formidable candidate in 2008.
(I do note the Machiavellian argument that says Dr. Rice is the answer to the second question too, because that would ensure that Senator Clinton would become the Democratic nominee. I don’t quite buy it, but it worries me.)