Wednesday, October 18, 2006


Sasha told us he used to make money by reciting poetry on a city corner. That sounds fun. But I only know four poems: I believe I will build up my repertoire by memorizing poetry on the metro, culminating with the complete Howl (plus footnote) by Allen Ginsberg, which is the only decent thing he ever wrote, and is also a critique of consumer culture. Consumer culture blows.

Sasha also knows the street price of crack.

Cats in Boxes

Today, Professor Ginsberg and I discussed perhaps the greatest opera ever--Duke Bluebeard's Castle. We're both fans.

What a great day! We had a top notch Delegation and Privatization class today--our professor, I daresay, almost sounded like a market anarchist. We had jokes, and economic graphs, and references to both Robocop and MI:III. Parabolas were etched! The state of nature was constructed, the social contract deconstructed, Sasha said good things about Marx--I was flipping out!

Then gym. Scott strong. Lift weights.

Chinese with Jay, discussion of Richard Dawkins and how he can act like a real prick, talk of the phenomenon of religion, back to campus to wait for the gospel choir to clear out from the chapel piano as I read (and understood) my Structuring Joint Capital text.

I wrote Tambo an email describing the form of Dvorak's Cello Concerto.

I watched a really sweet episode of nip/tuck. (Note, that sentence contained spoilers).

Also ran into Maya and Kevin, had some good talks.

Developed my theory of the meaning of life as I rode the subway home.

And for no reason, a picture of me last year at the Volokh's Christmas Party as an overworked (note coffee mug and undereye bags), Lochner-era chef.

Also, for no reason, a cat in a box:

If you liked that, you can see more cats in more boxes here.

Monday, October 16, 2006


I've moved to a tighter notch on my belt. Gym time has been well spent.

I am mystified that anyone can stay caught up in law school.

Sunday, October 15, 2006


In the library, there's a quote by the building's namesake on one of the walls in the ground floor atrium, saying something along the lines of: "The lawyer is neither expected nor qualified to make moral judgments of his client."

It's trite. And a bit bizarre.

Why shouldn't the lawyer make moral judgments of his client? How exactly is he not qualified? I'd venture that the lawyer spends more time studying issues of right and wrong than the average citizen (certainly more than your average juror). Granted some moral philosopher can be expected to have a tighter grasp of right and wrong, and such a person would be better qualified to make the call, but the lawyer's no slouch.

The lawyer is qualified, not as qualified as some, but much more qualified than others.

Now, whether or not we should expect the lawyer to make such judgments, qualified or no, is another question. On a gut level, I don't think the lawyer is obliged to judge his clients--they are, after all, the (purported) wrongdoers, not he, and their stigma does not infect him. But nor do I think he is obliged not to make such judgments. If you know the guy is guilty, then let him fry--for God's sake don't defend him.

The typical response would be that the adversarial system brings the truth to light, that two sides battling each other to the death will produce the real story, and only then can we judge guilt and innocence. Maybe, depending on many factors. I'm skeptical.