Love Ken's articles. Also can highly recommend Serious Trouble, his podcast with Josh Barro. It's very interesting and informative; I've learned a lot from them.
I once broke a 5 minute mile. I was maybe 27 and doing 40 miles a week. I lived in England and I had this long hedgerowed rural lane where there were no vehicles usually. The great thing about this lane is it had just the right consistent slope -- down. Not too steep down, not too shallow. A total cheat. But it felt great. My 5 minute mile. 4.58 really. It took me a dozen weeks to get there.
I ran a 4:42 mile my sophomore year and threw up everything I'd eaten that week immediately thereafter. The idea of running a 4:34 pace for an entire marathon is something I cannot comprehend. I honestly don't know how someone's body can do that.
In the free speech piece you linked to an Esquire article in which Senator Warren noted that Judge Duncan should not be confirmed because he has been on the wrong side of justice in representing clients in cases involving gay marriage and transgender use of bathrooms. So if new candidates for appointment to the bench have a history of representing clients supportive of abortion rights in the federal consitution, are they disqualified because they're now on the wrong side of Dobbs? Obviously not. Thurgood Marshall took many positions opposed to established law before he was appointed to the bench. The fact that he wanted to find new civil rights in the federal constitution is not judicially different than Duncan arguing that such rights are not to be found in the constitution. We don't want bigots on the courts, I get that. But if we want diversity of opinion in our board rooms, surely we want diversity of opinion in our judiciary.
Let's try one more time to get what "free speech" means, right. The guarantee of "free speech" in the 1st means ONLY that government cannot censor the press or publications that the government wants to suppress. People with unpopular ideas are allowed to speak at public and private institutions all the time. But let's be aware that audiences also have free speech rights. Your freedom of speech doesn't mean that you get to suppress the right of others to speak. At this moment, white supremacists, Christian nationalists, anti-LGBTQ+, anti-woke, anti-abortionists, and all other "culture warriors" have many forums where they are unlikely to face opposition to their bigoted speech. If they want to speak to audiences that might not be as friendly they should expect opposition. As Truman said, "If you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen."
The Popehat piece was great. I think twenty-something year old law students are entitled to have some bad judgement. I don't think the judiciary is entitled to have bad judgment. I mean, it's there in the name! Judges judge things, that's the whole point of their job.
The problem with "free speech" is how so many people, left and right, assume they can say/write/podcast/broadcast any wretchedly awful, untrue, positively dangerous or just plain wrong thing it occurs to them to say and they won't have to pay for it. In any form.
I suggest using the term "at liberty to speak anything, at any time, unless it's 'Fire!' in a movie theater." This unnecessary confusion between the related concepts of freedom and liberty has never been so stark in its utter ignorance of normal words nor so emblematic of teh stupid that seems to've infected the public at large.
Indeed, true genius in that title. Great show, btw, Friday. I think the Friday show is now my single fav podcast across all podcasts each week. Charlie’s show is still by far my favorite daily. Great team here. I feel lucky to get all this content at such a great price. I listen to all the podcasts and enjoy every single one of them.
This is precisely why I have always said that those of us who are critical of the excesses of "wokeness" (yes, I know we're having a moment over the meaning of that term) should stop leaning on arguments about "free speech" to defend ourselves from the censoriousness of the far left.
Not that free speech isn't an important principle. The lawyers among us should continue to rely on it as a foundational and basic legal strategy. Furthermore, from a political and cultural standpoint, it might seem like a no-brainer to discredit the purveyors of problematic ideas by portraying them as speech-policing cultural plutocrats.
The problem is that those of us who maintain such criticisms but whose intended audience is *not* the right-wing fever swamps ought to be well aware of the fact that our views unfortunately put us in functional alignment with people who can *easily* be discredited on the basis of their own brand of censoriousness, among *many* other things.
And as this article alludes, defending someone on the basis of "they have the right to free speech" is a little like saying of someone, "they're still a human being". It's true for everyone, but we only generally point it out for people otherwise so objectionable there is no stronger defense for them.
So ultimately, if those of us who find progressive illiberalism concerning *really believe* that we actually represent the basic moral intuitions of most normal people, we should act like it. In particular, we should *not* be ok with playing the role of the Nazis marching down the street in the middle of Skokie, Illinois, defended only by those capable of separating the speech's content from the obligation to tolerate it. We should be standing up for our ideas on the basis of their merits alone, and doing so with confidence and conviction.
Re Stanford: no one covered themselves in glory, to say the least.
Part of being an attorney (if you plan to be a litigator) is representing your clients in front of judges who are stupid, mean, prejudiced & any other number of things. You cannot shout them down in the middle of the hearing or in front of a jury. One way to look at this is that Stanford just provided an opportunity for some (tragically) realistic job training.
In my non-existent perfect world, groups of law students would have gotten together, researched the most egregious crap the judge had written/said, and crafted a line of questions exposing just how toxic some of his ideas are by using his own words against him. You know, calmly but insistently questioning him on evidence and exposing the fallacy, a/k/a, good lawyering.
All of the above aside, the recent years have made it hard to retain my belief that you fight bad ideas & information with better ones.
Jim Walmsley holds the world record in the 50 mile run: 4h 50m 8s for a pace of 5m 48s /mile.
Aleksandr Sorokin holds the world record in the 100 mile run: 10h 51m 39s for a pace of 6m 30s /mile. He also ran 192.1 miles in 24 hours for a pace of 7m 30s /mile.
A few weeks ago Makenna Myler ran a mile in 5m 17s. She was 9 months pregnant.
In Beg to Differ (sorry, I don't know how to comment directly to that Podcast), Mona pointed out that the students at Stanford are the nation's future lawyers. True enough, and I agree they should not have risen so easily to the bait, and agree that shouting speakers down is not useful in any case. That said, I would point out that the speaker they shouted down was a CURRENT lawyer and in fact a Fifth Circuit attorney and no doubt a member of the Federalist Society, and I assume of an age where the excuse of youthful exuberance is long past for his own bad manners.
As a person who has engaged in disruptive behavior, successfully BTW, You have to pick your moments. You need to be prepared, have a goal and accomplish something. It needs to be a temporary thing not a permanent condition. Revolution for the hell of it doesn't work. At some point you have to work constructively with people or you become a gadfly.
Also, you need to be prepared for the fact that your behavior will damage relationships with people you may need in the future. It is not risk free and should not be done in a thoughtless manner.
That is if you really want to accomplish something.
As a 66 year old woman who was taught if you can't say anything nice then don't say anything at all in this age of discourse I feel the world has passed me by. In the name of free speech we have become a bunch of A-holes.
The staff and students at Stanford apparently never heard that old bit of folk wisdom that says if you get into a pissin' contest with a skunk, everybody ends up smellin' bad. But the skunk doesn't mind smelling bad, so the skunk wins.
Judge Duncan came to Stanford to do what skunks do. I think the staff and students in this instance would have done better to let him plant his legs and lift his tail, and then deodorize the place with their intellects and the skills of argument and speech that their 'higher education' at an elite school is supposedly providing them with. I'm not saying they had to be gracious or respectful or even particularly polite while employing those skills but employ them they should have done, rather than simply adding to the odor.
However, it would appear they don't seem to mind smelling bad themselves. More likely, they simply have a selective sense of smell. If this is how they plan to argue court cases, I hope their future clients don't have too much riding on the outcomes.
Black and white stripe awards all around on this one.
Love Ken's articles. Also can highly recommend Serious Trouble, his podcast with Josh Barro. It's very interesting and informative; I've learned a lot from them.
I once broke a 5 minute mile. I was maybe 27 and doing 40 miles a week. I lived in England and I had this long hedgerowed rural lane where there were no vehicles usually. The great thing about this lane is it had just the right consistent slope -- down. Not too steep down, not too shallow. A total cheat. But it felt great. My 5 minute mile. 4.58 really. It took me a dozen weeks to get there.
I ran a 4:42 mile my sophomore year and threw up everything I'd eaten that week immediately thereafter. The idea of running a 4:34 pace for an entire marathon is something I cannot comprehend. I honestly don't know how someone's body can do that.
In the free speech piece you linked to an Esquire article in which Senator Warren noted that Judge Duncan should not be confirmed because he has been on the wrong side of justice in representing clients in cases involving gay marriage and transgender use of bathrooms. So if new candidates for appointment to the bench have a history of representing clients supportive of abortion rights in the federal consitution, are they disqualified because they're now on the wrong side of Dobbs? Obviously not. Thurgood Marshall took many positions opposed to established law before he was appointed to the bench. The fact that he wanted to find new civil rights in the federal constitution is not judicially different than Duncan arguing that such rights are not to be found in the constitution. We don't want bigots on the courts, I get that. But if we want diversity of opinion in our board rooms, surely we want diversity of opinion in our judiciary.
Let's try one more time to get what "free speech" means, right. The guarantee of "free speech" in the 1st means ONLY that government cannot censor the press or publications that the government wants to suppress. People with unpopular ideas are allowed to speak at public and private institutions all the time. But let's be aware that audiences also have free speech rights. Your freedom of speech doesn't mean that you get to suppress the right of others to speak. At this moment, white supremacists, Christian nationalists, anti-LGBTQ+, anti-woke, anti-abortionists, and all other "culture warriors" have many forums where they are unlikely to face opposition to their bigoted speech. If they want to speak to audiences that might not be as friendly they should expect opposition. As Truman said, "If you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen."
Lost me at “preferred pronouns.”
The Popehat piece was great. I think twenty-something year old law students are entitled to have some bad judgement. I don't think the judiciary is entitled to have bad judgment. I mean, it's there in the name! Judges judge things, that's the whole point of their job.
The problem with "free speech" is how so many people, left and right, assume they can say/write/podcast/broadcast any wretchedly awful, untrue, positively dangerous or just plain wrong thing it occurs to them to say and they won't have to pay for it. In any form.
I suggest using the term "at liberty to speak anything, at any time, unless it's 'Fire!' in a movie theater." This unnecessary confusion between the related concepts of freedom and liberty has never been so stark in its utter ignorance of normal words nor so emblematic of teh stupid that seems to've infected the public at large.
Indeed, true genius in that title. Great show, btw, Friday. I think the Friday show is now my single fav podcast across all podcasts each week. Charlie’s show is still by far my favorite daily. Great team here. I feel lucky to get all this content at such a great price. I listen to all the podcasts and enjoy every single one of them.
This is precisely why I have always said that those of us who are critical of the excesses of "wokeness" (yes, I know we're having a moment over the meaning of that term) should stop leaning on arguments about "free speech" to defend ourselves from the censoriousness of the far left.
Not that free speech isn't an important principle. The lawyers among us should continue to rely on it as a foundational and basic legal strategy. Furthermore, from a political and cultural standpoint, it might seem like a no-brainer to discredit the purveyors of problematic ideas by portraying them as speech-policing cultural plutocrats.
The problem is that those of us who maintain such criticisms but whose intended audience is *not* the right-wing fever swamps ought to be well aware of the fact that our views unfortunately put us in functional alignment with people who can *easily* be discredited on the basis of their own brand of censoriousness, among *many* other things.
And as this article alludes, defending someone on the basis of "they have the right to free speech" is a little like saying of someone, "they're still a human being". It's true for everyone, but we only generally point it out for people otherwise so objectionable there is no stronger defense for them.
So ultimately, if those of us who find progressive illiberalism concerning *really believe* that we actually represent the basic moral intuitions of most normal people, we should act like it. In particular, we should *not* be ok with playing the role of the Nazis marching down the street in the middle of Skokie, Illinois, defended only by those capable of separating the speech's content from the obligation to tolerate it. We should be standing up for our ideas on the basis of their merits alone, and doing so with confidence and conviction.
Re Stanford: no one covered themselves in glory, to say the least.
Part of being an attorney (if you plan to be a litigator) is representing your clients in front of judges who are stupid, mean, prejudiced & any other number of things. You cannot shout them down in the middle of the hearing or in front of a jury. One way to look at this is that Stanford just provided an opportunity for some (tragically) realistic job training.
In my non-existent perfect world, groups of law students would have gotten together, researched the most egregious crap the judge had written/said, and crafted a line of questions exposing just how toxic some of his ideas are by using his own words against him. You know, calmly but insistently questioning him on evidence and exposing the fallacy, a/k/a, good lawyering.
All of the above aside, the recent years have made it hard to retain my belief that you fight bad ideas & information with better ones.
Jim Walmsley holds the world record in the 50 mile run: 4h 50m 8s for a pace of 5m 48s /mile.
Aleksandr Sorokin holds the world record in the 100 mile run: 10h 51m 39s for a pace of 6m 30s /mile. He also ran 192.1 miles in 24 hours for a pace of 7m 30s /mile.
A few weeks ago Makenna Myler ran a mile in 5m 17s. She was 9 months pregnant.
In Beg to Differ (sorry, I don't know how to comment directly to that Podcast), Mona pointed out that the students at Stanford are the nation's future lawyers. True enough, and I agree they should not have risen so easily to the bait, and agree that shouting speakers down is not useful in any case. That said, I would point out that the speaker they shouted down was a CURRENT lawyer and in fact a Fifth Circuit attorney and no doubt a member of the Federalist Society, and I assume of an age where the excuse of youthful exuberance is long past for his own bad manners.
Just sayin'
As a person who has engaged in disruptive behavior, successfully BTW, You have to pick your moments. You need to be prepared, have a goal and accomplish something. It needs to be a temporary thing not a permanent condition. Revolution for the hell of it doesn't work. At some point you have to work constructively with people or you become a gadfly.
Also, you need to be prepared for the fact that your behavior will damage relationships with people you may need in the future. It is not risk free and should not be done in a thoughtless manner.
That is if you really want to accomplish something.
As a 66 year old woman who was taught if you can't say anything nice then don't say anything at all in this age of discourse I feel the world has passed me by. In the name of free speech we have become a bunch of A-holes.
RE: #1
The staff and students at Stanford apparently never heard that old bit of folk wisdom that says if you get into a pissin' contest with a skunk, everybody ends up smellin' bad. But the skunk doesn't mind smelling bad, so the skunk wins.
Judge Duncan came to Stanford to do what skunks do. I think the staff and students in this instance would have done better to let him plant his legs and lift his tail, and then deodorize the place with their intellects and the skills of argument and speech that their 'higher education' at an elite school is supposedly providing them with. I'm not saying they had to be gracious or respectful or even particularly polite while employing those skills but employ them they should have done, rather than simply adding to the odor.
However, it would appear they don't seem to mind smelling bad themselves. More likely, they simply have a selective sense of smell. If this is how they plan to argue court cases, I hope their future clients don't have too much riding on the outcomes.
Black and white stripe awards all around on this one.