Friday, June 5, 2009
More Knowledge --> More Sorrow?
Here's a sobering thought (from Ecclesiastes [King James version]):
&&&
The dynamic evidence page
He that increaseth knowledge, increaseth sorrow.
Thursday, May 28, 2009
Friday, May 22, 2009
Easy Rider
Gas about Gas
I guess it is finally occurring to enlightened Western European leaders that it is usually unwise to make one's nation or collectivity of nations dependent on the good nature and selflessness of another national entity. See Clifford J. Levy, "Europe and Russia Fail to Agree on Gas Deal," New York Times (May 22, 2009). Leaders of the (Western) World: Welcome to Siberia!
The dynamic evidence page
Sunday, May 17, 2009
Friday, May 15, 2009
Thursday, May 14, 2009
Vacation Spot
Here is a lovely place I recommend for a vacation: Landriault Outfitters.
Caveat: I haven't been there yet. I promise a report (and photos) in the fall.
Do Canadians know they are the luckiest people on earth? Well, they do own some of the grandest real estate on earth.
Wednesday, May 13, 2009
Monday, May 11, 2009
Saturday, May 2, 2009
Monday, April 20, 2009
The Rule of Law?
NYTimes: Waterboarding Used 266 Times on 2 Suspects
I think this is horrendous beyond belief.
&&&
The dynamic evidence page
I think this is horrendous beyond belief.
Saturday, April 18, 2009
Thursday, April 16, 2009
Wednesday, April 15, 2009
Tuesday, April 14, 2009
Tuesday, March 31, 2009
The Managerial Presidency?
President Barack Obama fired Rick Wagoner of General Motors. I have a lot of respect for President Obama. But I think now he may have made a serious mistake. President Obama seems to think he knows how to run General Motors. President Obama is a smart fellow. But he probably does not know how to introduce new product lines, how to run commercial advertising campaigns, and the like. There is good reason to think that Wagoner was quite good at these sorts of things. See William J. Holstein, "One Roadblock Too Many for G.M.," NYTimes (March 30, 2009).
It perhaps happens to all of us: given a chance, we instantiate the Peter Principle (not, harrumph!, the Peter Tillers Principle, which is something exemplary).
the dynamic evidence page
It perhaps happens to all of us: given a chance, we instantiate the Peter Principle (not, harrumph!, the Peter Tillers Principle, which is something exemplary).
the dynamic evidence page
Thursday, March 19, 2009
Academic Law Reviews and Legal Scholarship in the Age of Cyberspace
It would have been hard to imagine just a decade ago: major U.S. newspapers are going out of business. (Quixotically enough, I recently renewed my subscription to hard copies of the New York Times.) The same fate has not yet befallen U.S. law reviews.
But most American law reviews are not, and perhaps never were, subject to normal market forces; most of these student-edited law journals were and are subsidized by law schools.
Subscriptions to major law reviews have fallen dramatically in the last couple of decades. Is the demise of student-edited law reviews at hand?
Well, even if we ignore the nebulousness of the notion of "demise," it's not yet clear that Armageddon for law reviews is at hand. This is because law schools have non-economic reasons for wanting to keep law journals alive.
It may be true -- though demonstrating this would be tricky -- that most "major" American student-edited law reviews are kept alive in significant part because "major" law schools want to maintain some control over access to the halls of legal academe and over the kinds of scholarship that secure access to U.S. legal academe. But there are signs that the gatekeeper role of these law reviews is on the wane.
That's probably a good thing.
The market, she is tricky, fickle, and often downright stupid. But the market is also often relatively democratic and open to innovation.
In the age of cyberspace budding legal scholars have some serious alternatives to student-edited "major" law reviews.
It is true that law schools will very probably still use "major" hard-copy student-edited law reviews as gatekeepers. But cyberspace and other developments are gradually creating alternatives to "major" law schools themselves. As California's Bernard Witkin demonstrated decades ago, such alternatives always existed. But in the age of cyberspace the prospects for market-oriented legal scholarship have grown and multiplied.
I confess that personal history motivates this post. Decades ago, I swore not to submit my stuff to "major" American law reviews. I departed from my populist anti-establishmentarian line generally only when law journals invited me to submit a paper. Otherwise I have published in other venues. I took this anti-establishmentarian tack when, shortly after graduation, I tried to publish a study of Hegel's theory of the "duty to die for the state." I submitted my paper to about five "major" law reviews. They rejected my paper (but, in fairness to them, usually only by close votes).
This experience led me to swear off law reviews. I instead worked at redoing part of Wigmore's treatise.I later realized I was literally ahead of my time: Hegel was not yet in vogue in American law schools. Had I tried publishing the paper a couple of decades later, I would have met with success. But by then I had completely repudiated Hegel and I had little taste for talking about things Hegelian. (The rejected paper was an excellent piece of work. [I concluded that Hegel's argument for the alleged duty to die for the state fails.])
Of course, by swearing off law reviews (for the most part) I figuratively shot myself in my figurative academic foot. But I don't regret what I did. I think my scholarship was more interesting as a result. I discovered, to my pleasure if not entirely to my surprise, that there are lots of inquisitive, creative, serious, and thoughtful people out there in the legal profession and in the wider world. Conclusion: publishing for the "market" and for the "world" has its compensations, very substantial compensations.
Postscript: Bernard Witkin's model of legal scholarship is not the model to which I aspire. But that's another question. My point here is that Witkin succeeded in doing legal scholarship on his own.
the dynamic evidence page
Tuesday, March 3, 2009
Educated Ship of Fools?
Take a gander at Steven Davidoff, "Harvard, Private Equity and the Education Bubble," NYTimes (March 3, 2009).
I regret to say that Davidoff seems right on target. Things look like this: no safe haven anywhere (except gold? religion?).
the dynamic evidence page
I regret to say that Davidoff seems right on target. Things look like this: no safe haven anywhere (except gold? religion?).
the dynamic evidence page
Tuesday, February 10, 2009
The Slowest Music Recital in Human History
Go here.
BBC Radio just did a hilarious broadcast about this but I haven't found a link yet on the BBC web site.
BBC Radio just did a hilarious broadcast about this but I haven't found a link yet on the BBC web site.
Monday, February 2, 2009
Style over Substance
Newspaper reports have it that Tom Daschle, former Senator from South Dakota, earned roughly $5,000,000 in the short time since leaving office (involuntarily) and that he did so mainly by providing "strategic advice" for people who have dealings with the federal government. (Daschle also earned money by giving speeches.) When in office, Daschle was politically liberal; his political leanings suggested his sympathy and concern for the downtrodden. Daschle is also a soft-spoken fellow. Given the sources of his post-Senatorial income, is Daschle an example of how personal demeanor can very effectively camouflage avarice? (Of course, the attitudes of those who paid Daschle for speeches and strategic advice may be equally unattractive.)
the dynamic evidence page
Sunday, January 11, 2009
Europe between the Oceans
Everyone must buy this book: Barry Cunliffe, Europe between the Oceans: 9000 BC - AD 1000 (Yale University Press (2008).
Tuesday, January 6, 2009
Is There Something Wrong with This Business Model?
I am a "faithful listener" of (to?) National Public Radio. But sometimes it is hard to be faithful; sometimes I must stop up my ears. Why? Because NPR -- for years! -- insists on putting on (almost always at the end of an hour) a review (and sounds) of some recent iteration of rock music. What's going on? Is it that the people who run NPR are boomers who just can't reconcile themselves to the fact that they are no longer 20 somethings cavorting in the 1960s? Or is it because NPR feverishly chases the "youth market" -- even as its listenership ages? I suppose a bit of both is the explanation. Well, I can't help NPR about coping with (non-)intimations of mortality. But I can suggest to NPR that it embrace the idea of an adult listenership, a sophisticated adult listenership that grows weary of repeated attempts to discover the Bob Dylan of the 21st century. Old folks, you know, aren't always bad. Some of them have money. Some of them participate in making public policy. Some of them still have some intelligence and creativity in their grey matter. Embrace grownups, NPR! By doing so, b'gosh, you might just find that you attract some young'uns who yearn to be grownups. And who knows: your marketing people might just finally take note that older folks generally have more money. Or maybe not: your marketing people might still be hung up over the fact that they've gotten older and can no longer play the way they once did. But consider this: there is nothing more unattractive than an old person trying to act like a child. Grow up!
the dynamic evidence page
Thursday, January 1, 2009
Sunday, December 21, 2008
Friday, December 5, 2008
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)