Since I've ignored this blog for a year (law is such a taxing profession), and since I'm completely over the layout of this one, I'm shutting this blog down and starting a new one.
Read me at clintsaddenda.blogspot.com.
AND I LIKE COMMENTS!
Clint
Saturday, May 2, 2009
Sunday, July 13, 2008
iSubmit
I'm not exactly sure why, but on Friday I went down to the Apple store on Boylston and waited in line for five hours instead of going to the library--incurring sore feet and half of a sunburned neck--to spend much of my hard borrowed money on an iPhone that I don't need.
Well, let me qualify that. I did need a new phone. I had the most ridiculous, cheap, ugly, small useless phone that AT&T sells. So I thought, hey, why not spend $199 on the new iPhone! It's a lot of money, sure, but it's an interesting phone with great features and a TOUCH SCREEN.
What sucks is, that $199 advertised price had a teensy weensy asterisk next to it, and the asterisk didn't even show up in the advertising until a few days before the freaking phone went on sale. Since I am a loyal AT&T customer already, that means I wasn't eligible for the "cheap" phone, and instead I had to pay full price. MY phone, in contrast to the price the Verizon and Sprint shlubs paid, was actually $399! And by the time I discovered this sham, I was already dead set on getting the iPhone. I had researched a little and found out that I really couldn't live without it. And Apple KNEW that's what I would think.
No one ever accused Steve Jobs of being an idiot.
But anyway, the wonderful part of the experience is that I now have the iPhone, and it's fantastic and everything I thought it would be and I very happily spent waaaay too much time texting and playing with my contacts list today instead of learning about corporate dissolutions. The sad part of the whole thing is, Apple screwed me with the lights on. And I knew they were doing it. And I just laid there and shouted "MORE MORE MORE."
Well, let me qualify that. I did need a new phone. I had the most ridiculous, cheap, ugly, small useless phone that AT&T sells. So I thought, hey, why not spend $199 on the new iPhone! It's a lot of money, sure, but it's an interesting phone with great features and a TOUCH SCREEN.
What sucks is, that $199 advertised price had a teensy weensy asterisk next to it, and the asterisk didn't even show up in the advertising until a few days before the freaking phone went on sale. Since I am a loyal AT&T customer already, that means I wasn't eligible for the "cheap" phone, and instead I had to pay full price. MY phone, in contrast to the price the Verizon and Sprint shlubs paid, was actually $399! And by the time I discovered this sham, I was already dead set on getting the iPhone. I had researched a little and found out that I really couldn't live without it. And Apple KNEW that's what I would think.
No one ever accused Steve Jobs of being an idiot.
But anyway, the wonderful part of the experience is that I now have the iPhone, and it's fantastic and everything I thought it would be and I very happily spent waaaay too much time texting and playing with my contacts list today instead of learning about corporate dissolutions. The sad part of the whole thing is, Apple screwed me with the lights on. And I knew they were doing it. And I just laid there and shouted "MORE MORE MORE."
Tuesday, July 8, 2008
Sport and Boston
Landing a job in Boston obviously imparts a sense of permanence. The job establishes that Boston is my home, and that is a much different statement than to say Boston is where I go to school. I live here and I'm starting to absorb the local culture much more than I did while in law school. And that means that, through some kind of twisted osmosis, I find that I now care about how the Red Sox are doing. I cared about sports when I was younger, from about age 4 through 17 (I like to say that I was baptized a Steelers fan. It's sort of true. My parish priest would hang a Terrible Towel on the pulpit during playoff Sundays). But in the post-high school through law school era, I didn't have time to care. More precisely, I looked down on those who did care about something so trivial. But now that latent part of my brain is starting to reactivate. I'm again starting to appreciate sport for sport's sake.
Although sports are by definition entertainment, It's so strange how emotionally invested I become in the outcome of a game. I just realized this when I had to turn the channel when the Twins had two on and one out threatening to put the game away at the top of the eighth. Why do I care so much? I remember when I was younger I would be pissed when the Steelers lost a game, but that was usually because I had money on the game (low stakes, obv, but money is money, even to a 17 year old). A part of me realizes how dumb it is to care about what a bunch of multimillionaires do running around on a baseball field, but another part of me takes it personally. The Sox are my guys now.
A tangent to that is, I find it really remarkable how lightswitch-like it is for my sports awareness to kick in. I flicked the sports part of my brain off for about ten years (wow) and just like that, flick, I'm back to being all about it. It's the mental equivalent of riding a bicycle, as well as further proof that you can ignore certain parts of yourself for a while, but in the end, your basic elements are still your basic elements.
Although sports are by definition entertainment, It's so strange how emotionally invested I become in the outcome of a game. I just realized this when I had to turn the channel when the Twins had two on and one out threatening to put the game away at the top of the eighth. Why do I care so much? I remember when I was younger I would be pissed when the Steelers lost a game, but that was usually because I had money on the game (low stakes, obv, but money is money, even to a 17 year old). A part of me realizes how dumb it is to care about what a bunch of multimillionaires do running around on a baseball field, but another part of me takes it personally. The Sox are my guys now.
A tangent to that is, I find it really remarkable how lightswitch-like it is for my sports awareness to kick in. I flicked the sports part of my brain off for about ten years (wow) and just like that, flick, I'm back to being all about it. It's the mental equivalent of riding a bicycle, as well as further proof that you can ignore certain parts of yourself for a while, but in the end, your basic elements are still your basic elements.
Thursday, June 26, 2008
Not so fast...
Well, the whole point of this blog was to show how easy it is to get the narrative wrong when facts first emerge. I noted awhile ago that it looks like Obama would have trouble winning over purple states in the general election and that he might be a weak candidate against McCain.
I was wrong to worry so much. Obama is doing just fine. If the election were held today, he'd win north of 340 electoral votes (270 are needed to win).
This mea culpa is subject to revision or retraction. Especially if Obama starts losing it.
I was wrong to worry so much. Obama is doing just fine. If the election were held today, he'd win north of 340 electoral votes (270 are needed to win).
This mea culpa is subject to revision or retraction. Especially if Obama starts losing it.
End of Term
It's the end of the term in Supreme Court land, and since I should be studying criminal law, I'll write about the end of the term in Supreme Court land.
So the Supreme Court struck down the death penalty for rape of a child when the child doesn't die or the rapist didn't intended the child to die. I definitely agree with the outcome of this decision, but only because I think the death penalty should be ruled unconstitutional under all circumstances. The opinion (the Kennedy case) is very graphic, as it probably should so the Court could not be accused of failing to grasp the monstrosity of the crime. But the graphic nature of the crime is no excuse for imposing an arbitrarily-implemented scheme of officially sanctioned death.
There are many reasons to put forth in support of the death penalty. For example, the Fifth Amendment to the US Constitution explicitly contemplates execution as an appropriate and legitimate punishment so long as the defendant was convicted by due process of law. The Constitution also grants Congress the unqualified power to prescribe the punishment for treason. Congress has defined the crime as one punishable by death. That's all well and good.
But executions occur very rarely in this country. Who is punished with death, and who is punished with life? There are far too many variables to go into here, such as the disparities in execution rates of white-killing felons and a black-killing felons (guess which group gets executed more), or the relatively shoddy representation many criminal defendants receive at least when compared to rich(er) defendants who can afford the Cochrans and the Schecks to game the system most effectively.
Suffice it to say, however, that it makes no sense to call a crime heinous enough for the death penalty yet fail to punish all those who committed the crime with death. It makes no sense to have the imposition of the death penalty contingent on the relative social class of the criminal defendant. And it definitely makes no sense to punish the killers of the majority race more severely than killers of any other race. That is not equal justice under the law. If the death penalty cannot be imposed fairly and consistently, it should not be imposed at all. Scott Turow wrote a really interesting book about his experience on the Illinois Death Penalty Commission.
The Supreme Court also ruled that the Second Amendment is an individual right to keep and bear arms (for self-defense and for hunting). This is a more expanded reading than the one Washington D.C. proposed. D.C., which enacted the gun ban at issue, proposed that the Second Amendment encompassed only a collective right (i.e., for a militia) to keep weapons. Justice Scalia wrote for the 5-4 majority that the amendment was broader.
I agree with Scalia, as I do here and there (and I always LOVE his writing). I'm more libertarian than Democratic, and far more so than Republican. As a libertarian, I think the Bill of Rights should be interpreted expansively. All of the Bill of Rights. It is not consistent to expect or hope for the Constitution to be interpreted liberally with respect to leftish ideals, but restrictively with respect to ideals more associated with the right. I believe that guns are (net) a bad thing, and it's unfortunate that more guns will probably be on the D.C. streets (at least until they draft new legislation). But that's what the Constitution demands. If we don't like it, we should amend it.
I write lighter fare sometimes too. :)
So the Supreme Court struck down the death penalty for rape of a child when the child doesn't die or the rapist didn't intended the child to die. I definitely agree with the outcome of this decision, but only because I think the death penalty should be ruled unconstitutional under all circumstances. The opinion (the Kennedy case) is very graphic, as it probably should so the Court could not be accused of failing to grasp the monstrosity of the crime. But the graphic nature of the crime is no excuse for imposing an arbitrarily-implemented scheme of officially sanctioned death.
There are many reasons to put forth in support of the death penalty. For example, the Fifth Amendment to the US Constitution explicitly contemplates execution as an appropriate and legitimate punishment so long as the defendant was convicted by due process of law. The Constitution also grants Congress the unqualified power to prescribe the punishment for treason. Congress has defined the crime as one punishable by death. That's all well and good.
But executions occur very rarely in this country. Who is punished with death, and who is punished with life? There are far too many variables to go into here, such as the disparities in execution rates of white-killing felons and a black-killing felons (guess which group gets executed more), or the relatively shoddy representation many criminal defendants receive at least when compared to rich(er) defendants who can afford the Cochrans and the Schecks to game the system most effectively.
Suffice it to say, however, that it makes no sense to call a crime heinous enough for the death penalty yet fail to punish all those who committed the crime with death. It makes no sense to have the imposition of the death penalty contingent on the relative social class of the criminal defendant. And it definitely makes no sense to punish the killers of the majority race more severely than killers of any other race. That is not equal justice under the law. If the death penalty cannot be imposed fairly and consistently, it should not be imposed at all. Scott Turow wrote a really interesting book about his experience on the Illinois Death Penalty Commission.
The Supreme Court also ruled that the Second Amendment is an individual right to keep and bear arms (for self-defense and for hunting). This is a more expanded reading than the one Washington D.C. proposed. D.C., which enacted the gun ban at issue, proposed that the Second Amendment encompassed only a collective right (i.e., for a militia) to keep weapons. Justice Scalia wrote for the 5-4 majority that the amendment was broader.
I agree with Scalia, as I do here and there (and I always LOVE his writing). I'm more libertarian than Democratic, and far more so than Republican. As a libertarian, I think the Bill of Rights should be interpreted expansively. All of the Bill of Rights. It is not consistent to expect or hope for the Constitution to be interpreted liberally with respect to leftish ideals, but restrictively with respect to ideals more associated with the right. I believe that guns are (net) a bad thing, and it's unfortunate that more guns will probably be on the D.C. streets (at least until they draft new legislation). But that's what the Constitution demands. If we don't like it, we should amend it.
I write lighter fare sometimes too. :)
Sunday, June 15, 2008
Regarding this NY Times article today where I had a quote, it's important to recognize that nothing in the gay marriage fight is black and white (except, maybe, the equal protection argument).
I think marriage is a double edged sword. Either because it's so new of an option, or because it's just guys being guys, very few of my gay friends in their 20s and 30s are married or engaged. While not many younger gay couples are marrying yet, for the ones that I encounter that are, my question is always, Why so soon? What's the point of formalizing this relationship? It might be healthier in the long run to be able to grow in a relationship and be able to get out of it if it's no longer the best option. That isn't to say that only gays should refrain from getting married when they're relatively young. I think that all couples should really be sure that what they're doing is ultimately in their best interests, and I think most 20-somethings are too young to really know that yet. But I guess the mere fact that young gay people are dealing with these questions is the essence of progress.
I'm in the minority with my group of friends about this, and I've definitely been involved in my share of arguments. It's the same with having or adopting kids (noooo thank you). Some of them can't wait to get married and buy a house and start adopting kids. That's great for them, if it makes them happy. For me, I'm happier living with a different social frame of reference and growing in my relationship while avoiding the pressure of formality. It's easy to be that way now, at 28. When I'm older I'll want to think seriously about the consequences of not being married, and I'll probably not be so against it. But for now, it's not for me.
For me, I acknowledge that there is something fundamentally different with gay relationships. It is not the same thing as a straight relationship, and I hope that in this climate of legal same sex marriage that the gay community doesn't lose its essential character. It's probably inevitable that it does, at least to an extent. But chipping part of that culture away is what colors in a bit of gray to this mostly very positive development.
I think marriage is a double edged sword. Either because it's so new of an option, or because it's just guys being guys, very few of my gay friends in their 20s and 30s are married or engaged. While not many younger gay couples are marrying yet, for the ones that I encounter that are, my question is always, Why so soon? What's the point of formalizing this relationship? It might be healthier in the long run to be able to grow in a relationship and be able to get out of it if it's no longer the best option. That isn't to say that only gays should refrain from getting married when they're relatively young. I think that all couples should really be sure that what they're doing is ultimately in their best interests, and I think most 20-somethings are too young to really know that yet. But I guess the mere fact that young gay people are dealing with these questions is the essence of progress.
I'm in the minority with my group of friends about this, and I've definitely been involved in my share of arguments. It's the same with having or adopting kids (noooo thank you). Some of them can't wait to get married and buy a house and start adopting kids. That's great for them, if it makes them happy. For me, I'm happier living with a different social frame of reference and growing in my relationship while avoiding the pressure of formality. It's easy to be that way now, at 28. When I'm older I'll want to think seriously about the consequences of not being married, and I'll probably not be so against it. But for now, it's not for me.
For me, I acknowledge that there is something fundamentally different with gay relationships. It is not the same thing as a straight relationship, and I hope that in this climate of legal same sex marriage that the gay community doesn't lose its essential character. It's probably inevitable that it does, at least to an extent. But chipping part of that culture away is what colors in a bit of gray to this mostly very positive development.
Saturday, May 24, 2008
Moral Secularism
America is, at least in theory, a secular nation. This article today in the New York Times about Austin Dacey's Book, The Secular Conscience, was provocative. I haven't read the book yet, but I don't agree with its basic premise, that modern secularism is by definition amoral. Dacey, the Times article states, thinks that the secularist movement should attempt to reframe its arguments in the context of the basic morality of the positions. Dacey argues that framing the hot button issues (same sex marriage, abortion, stem cell research, etc.) in terms of the affirmative morality of the secularists' position will ultimately benefit both the secularists' specific policy positions as well as secularists' reputation in political debate generally.
I have always understood secular thought, at least my own, to BE based in morality. On my long journey from traditional Roman Catholic to, ultimately, good-hearted atheist, I made a pit stop in Wiccanism. Wiccans subscribe to their version of the Christian Golden Rule, which they call the Wiccan Rede: "An ye harm none, do what ye will." This to me is a very moralistic argument. It embraces the freedom in which individuals wish to live, but it also requires individuals to take into account the fact that other people are affected by what we do. As I decided that one school of fanciful mythology wasn't the best substitute for another, I abandoned Wicca and have come to think of myself as an atheist/secularist. But I still think in terms of the rede, and my positions on these contentious issues reflect that.
Same sex marriage? I think it's immoral to deny loving couples the right to marry (regardless of what you think about the institution of "marriage" in the first instance). Abortion? A trickier issue, but the morality of forcing a woman to carry a pregnancy to term must be taken into account, as well as the morality of ending a potential human life. Stem cell research? Consider the morality of retarding medical advancement, and the morality of neglecting promising research.
Elaboration on all of this is necessary, but the point stands that I don't think secularists, as I've understood them, neglect to bring morality into the public debate. Their main point has seemed to be to avoid basing a debate only in the context of a particular (majority-approved) scheme of moral belief.
I have always understood secular thought, at least my own, to BE based in morality. On my long journey from traditional Roman Catholic to, ultimately, good-hearted atheist, I made a pit stop in Wiccanism. Wiccans subscribe to their version of the Christian Golden Rule, which they call the Wiccan Rede: "An ye harm none, do what ye will." This to me is a very moralistic argument. It embraces the freedom in which individuals wish to live, but it also requires individuals to take into account the fact that other people are affected by what we do. As I decided that one school of fanciful mythology wasn't the best substitute for another, I abandoned Wicca and have come to think of myself as an atheist/secularist. But I still think in terms of the rede, and my positions on these contentious issues reflect that.
Same sex marriage? I think it's immoral to deny loving couples the right to marry (regardless of what you think about the institution of "marriage" in the first instance). Abortion? A trickier issue, but the morality of forcing a woman to carry a pregnancy to term must be taken into account, as well as the morality of ending a potential human life. Stem cell research? Consider the morality of retarding medical advancement, and the morality of neglecting promising research.
Elaboration on all of this is necessary, but the point stands that I don't think secularists, as I've understood them, neglect to bring morality into the public debate. Their main point has seemed to be to avoid basing a debate only in the context of a particular (majority-approved) scheme of moral belief.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
