Saturday, February 17, 2007
Thursday, February 15, 2007
Wednesday, February 14, 2007
Tuesday, February 13, 2007
[7:04:30 PM] Scott D. Scheule says: Hey Jay.
[7:04:47 PM] Jay Goodman Tamboli says: Hey, Scott.
[7:04:51 PM] Scott D. Scheule says: What about a fucking panda?! Huh?!
[7:04:57 PM] Jay Goodman Tamboli says: rofl
[7:05:04 PM] Jay Goodman Tamboli says: What about a panda, you dumb fuck?
[7:15:02 PM] Scott D. Scheule says: Also: http://www.whataboutapandayoudumbfuck.com/ is available.
Cheers to the Georgetown Gilbert and Sullivan Society. Also Hanah's getting her note published!
Some day I plan to accomplish something myself.
Monday, February 12, 2007
PROFESSOR YALE: You're not on the seating chart, are you? Why don't you insert yourself here?
SCOTT: (voice-over) Don't say, "That's what she said." Don't say, "That's what she said." Do not say, "That's what she said."
YALE: You look like you want to say something, Scott.
After class I explained to Yale the classy joke I refrained from, but he was unimpressed.
During class, I told him his Critical Legal Scholar-esque position of "the impossibility of neutrality" was quote unquote stupid.
Funny how talking to your family can lighten one's mood.
Note the strangeness of fondness for familial affection. Consider two nearly-identical people each consisting of attributes A, B, C, D... where A is ambition, B is bravery, C is caring, D is dental health... and so on, with only one noticeable difference: the F factor, with a positive indicating a familial relationship and a negative indicating the opposite.
Strange then, that given these two individuals:
1. A, B, C, D... F+
2. A, B, C, D... F-
It should be the first that gets heavy affection, who should warrant deep love, while the other is a stranger, and likely to remain so. So much would turn on a commonality of childhood environs and genes.
Strange, yes, but not problematic. People are, after all, entitled to the unique traits and assets that chance bestows on them. Otherwise Rawls would be right.
Sunday, February 11, 2007
Again, I don't like Justice Holmes, because:
1. He has a shit-eating style of writing. Purple prose alternates with over-cute snark.
2. He's inconsistent, but ignores the inconsistency. This shows up in conflicts between opinions of unbridled allegiance to legislative supremacy against utterly countermajoritarian dissents, among other places.
Now as to one, that's primarily a matter of taste--perhaps--and so may not represent anything objectively worthwhile.
As to number two, that's a real criticism, and carries weight, but as Mark could easily point out--if you're looking for consistency, there's no huge supply among Supreme Court Justices. Not even St. Thomas is above backtracking. So perhaps lumping on Holmes alone on this count is unfair.
Now for the critical caveat--I've not studied the Justice in depth, simply read a few of the more famous dissents. Perhaps I'd find some deep-seated worth if I did so, perhaps I'd hate him all the more, but regardless, expertise makes a respectable opinion, and I have none.
Now, on the subject, here's Mencken on Holmes, typically irreverent and hilarious.
Also, Holmes's father's best poem.