Qwertz

Oh sweet chastity they did it. Keanu Reeves? Keanu Reeves?! *sigh* ~Q

Which is funny, because even though Splenda is made from sugar so it tastes like sugar, Merisant (makers of Equal, made from Aspartame) sued McNeil (makers of Splenda, made from Sucralose) for false advertising under the Lanham Act for using the phrase, "Made from sugar, so it tastes like sugar" in Splenda marketing. Merisant argued that McNeil misled customers, and demanded a share of McNeil's profits from Splenda and punitive damages. McNeil eventually settled for an undisclosed amount. ~Q

Metaphysics IV, part 3: Still scouring for the others... ~Q

And ITOE. Don't forget ITOE. It is the most neglected (esp. by academia) and the most crucial. The Instructor is trying to compartmentalize and perform "logic" in an epistemological vacuum. Only by doing this is s/he able to assert that an argument containing a major premise that is flatly contradicted by self-evident facts is nonetheless "logical." Logic is the art of non-contradictory identification. It presupposes a non-contradictory reality, and a human consciousness capable of identifying it. It is one thing to state as a premise a proposition that may or may not be true. It is quite another to state as a premise a proposition that, if true, would make such identification impossible. ~Q PS: More questions: Is this an associate professor, a tenured professor, a TA, a grad student, or an adjunct? (I am saving up all your answers to these questions about the class format and will have something to say about them soon.) PPS: On the "Rand lacks argumentative substance" crap, I would tell Instructor that s/he is incompetent to offer meaningful criticism of Rand unless s/he has at least read ITOE. Of course, I would not make any friends doing so, and I would not make any decent grades, either.

Häagen-Dazs® Limited Edition All Natural Green Tea Ice Cream, on the other hand... Mmmmmmm. ~Q

Unfortunately, McCain doesn't have to appoint a "conservative" justice to throw off the Establishment Clause balance. E.g., Elk Grove Unified School District v. Newdow, 542 U.S. 1, 45-46 (2004) (Thomas, J., concurring) (emphasis added): "I would take this opportunity to begin the process of rethinking the Establishment Clause. I would acknowledge that the Establishment Clause is a federalism provision, which, for this reason, resists incorporation." Id. at 49 (emphasis added): "I accept that the Free Exercise Clause . . . applies to the States through the Fourteenth Amendment. But the Establishment Clause is another matter. The text and history of the Establishment Clause strongly suggest that it is a federalism provision intended to prevent Congress from interfering with state establishments. Lee v. Weisman, 505 U.S. 577, 641 (1992) (Scalia, J., dissenting) (emphasis added): "The Establishment Clause was adopted to prohibit such an establishment of religion at the federal level (and to protect state establishments of religion from federal interference)." Id. at 646: "To deprive our society of that important unifying mechanism, [public, state-sponsored prayer,] in order to spare the nonbeliever what seems to me the minimal inconvenience of standing or even sitting in respectful nonparticipation, is as senseless in policy as it is unsupported in law."

You may have answered these elsewhere already -- What is the name of this course? Why are you taking it? (Not meant as a judgment - asking if it is required or if you had special interest in subject) What kind of course is it? That is, is there a classroom component or is it entirely on the Interwebs? ~Q

It used to be you could do all sorts of things at airport that you can't do now. Even very recently, you used to be able to get on a domestic flight without showing some form of government-issued identification. Sure you had to go through a more intense screening process if you declined to show ID at security, but they would still let you on. A few weeks ago, they did away even with that. Now you cannot board a domestic flight without government issued ID. ~Q

Who said anything about support? A vote for Obama may just as well be a vote against McCain. Obama will replace super-liberal Justice Stevens with another super-liberal. No change. McCain will replace super-liberal Justice Stevens with someone his base will approve - someone of the Scalia/Alito/Roberts/Thomas faction on abortion and the Establishment Clause. Goodbye abortion, goodbye separation of church and state (literally - state - Scalia and Thomas have both suggested disincorporating the establishment clause, thereby allowing the states to have official churches), goodbye secular laws. A Republican nominated replacement for any of the 5 liberal judges (of whom Stevens is the oldest and expected to retire before he turns 90, which he will do during the next president's first term) would have long-reaching disastrous effects. I don't like the liberal judges, but they are at least pro-secularism. ~Q

As such, no, I do not think so. ~Q

It does depend on clarifying the meaning of "homosexual." Here, you're using "sexual orientation" to mean two different things. In the first instance, you're talking about the homosexual preference. In the second, you're talking about homosexual behavior. But the origin of the preference is irrelevant. What matters is only the behavior. It doesn't matter if you're physically addicted to tobacco or only psychologically addicted. It can (but needn't necessarily) be immoral to smoke either way, e.g., if doing it will kill you. In the same way, the homosexuality question is an ethical one. If homosexual behavior is an anti-value, neither biology nor psychology can excuse it. ~Q

The film takes place in a malevolent universe. Most of Lee's work does. I'm thinking of Hulk and Crouching Tiger... specifically. All three are about regret. This film contrasts with the earlier two by being more naturalistic with a much slower pace. Lee chose to emphasize the insignificance, inanity, thinness of these men's lives over decades in order to create the sense of loss on which his theme emotionally depends. It's an extremely well-made film, but the themes are malevolent. Cf. the works of Victor Hugo. ~Q

The former. Sort of. Specifically, whether homosexual behavior is of such an anti-value that all rational men must categorically refrain from it. Like evasion. Or self-sacrifice. Whether homosexuality is of psychological or physiological origin is irrelevant, because all human behavior is volitional. Volition makes all the difference. ~Q

It is in ethics because the essential question is an ethical one, not a psychological one. The psychology isn't important - all sex is a volitional act, so any volitional man can choose whether or not to engage in homosexual behavior. It doesn't matter if the cause of the preference for same-sex romance is biological or psychological or whatever. It is all still subject to volition. The only important question is whether it is morally necessary for a homosexual to refrain from homosexual behavior. ~Q

Because all human behavior is volitional, any homosexual, given sufficient motivation and effort, can choose to abstain from engaging in homosexual behavior. That is not in dispute. The only question is whether it is morally necessary to do so. ~Q

The courthouse for E.D.Wa. is in Spokane, which is away from the coast. That's unfortunate about the storms. I love storms, like the big one last week in Key Midwestern Swing State, which may or may not be Ohio. But no state income tax sounds lovely! I do think both Washington districts will have to go on the list. ~Q

Key Midwestern Swing State is where I live right now. That's all that was about. Specifically, I'm interested in taxes, regulations, property values, cost of living, weather. That sort of thing. If there's something you particularly liked about WI, or disliked, toss it out there and I'll chuck it in the hopper. ~Q

Those are all exactly the sort of data points I'm looking for. I've got a map of the judicial districts and I'm checking and crossing out as I go. Wyoming I was thinking of keeping because it is a unique district - it is the only Federal district that covers land in more than one state. District of Wyoming includes about 50 sq mi of Idaho, courtesy of Yellowstone National Park (as well as a bigger chunk of Montana). It's next to impossible to get convicted of a felony committed in the Idaho portion of the park. It is extremely interesting. See here. But I will keep your suggestions in mind. The city suggestions are also useful, because some states have more than one district. I can eliminate districts with bad cities without eliminating the whole state. ~Q

There are something like 1,000 Federal judgeships. Not all of these are filled, but most of them are. Nearly all of them hire a clerk, and most hire more than one. I'm about to start applying to judges for a clerkship. But boy howdy are there a lot of them. I need to winnow them down, and I need some help. 1) The first way I'm going to narrow the field is by type of court. There are 94 District Courts, 13 Circuit Courts, and 1 Supreme Court. There's no way I'm getting a Supreme Court clerkship. I didn't go to Yale. So that one's out. Besides, there's no one there I'd want to work for. I'd prefer a District Court for the experience, and I think they fit better with my qualifications. I wouldn't say no to a Circuit Court clerkship, however. So really, I've only narrowed the field by one court. 2) The next way I'm going to narrow the field (and this is where I need your help!) is by location. There are District Courts in all 50 States, plus D.C., Puerto Rico, the U.S. Virgin Islands, Guam, and the Northern Mariana Islands. I've already eliminated a few States categorically, for various reasons: Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, Massachusetts, and Utah are right out. I'd love to get out of Key Midwestern Swing State, but I'm not going to give up the home field advantage that comes with applying to clerkships in the same state as my law school. So here are things I need to know: What do you like about your state? What have you heard about other states? I mean, I've heard plenty of things, but I want as much data as I can get. Where is a good place to live and work? 3) Once I get a shorter list of judges I can start narrowing by jurisprudence and other individual characteristics. But right now, all these judges are just too much to handle. ~Q

I haven't seen it since October, and I only saw it that once. If you've seen it more recently, then I'm more inclined to agree with you than with my own review. If I had written my reasons for thinking it was a sacrifice, I would be more willing to stand by my review. But I didn't. It was just a short review. I'll put it back on the Netflix list and see it again. The visuals alone are worth that much. ~Q

Here's what I wrote about it back in October 2007: Apparently I gave it 3.5/5 stars. If I hadn't written that, I would not have remembered that I didn't like the ending. Over time, I have remembered the movie more for the things you mention (e.g., the contrast) and the poetic imagery than for the call to sacrifice. It is undoubtedly an extremely well-made film, which almost makes me want to go out and see Hellboy II. Almost. ~Q

Exxon will still have to pay some in punitive damages; just not as much as before. The Court held that, under Federal maritime common law, punitive damages awards aren't allowed to exceed a 1:1 ratio with compensatory damages. The compensatory damages were $507.5M, so the Supreme Court ordered the trial court to enter a punitive damages award not exceeding the 1:1 ratio, nor no more than $507.5M. So Exxon will have to pay $507.5M in compensatory damages, $507.5M in punitive damages, and any interest and court costs assessed by law. It's better than it was, at least. ~Q

Depends on the road, who owns it, and where it gets its money. Also would depend on the state Constitution. If the roads are city-owned, then there is no way to close it off "to outsiders" under Equal Protection. The city could try a number of things, like charging a congestion fee for non-residents to drive through the town, but would have to justify it enough to pass Rational Basis (which is pretty easy, but not for arbitrary reasons like "we want to keep outsiders out"). If the city gets money from the state for roads, state laws will govern public access which would preempt local laws. State-owned routes are open to all by state law. If there is an open access provision in the state constitution, requiring all public roads in the state to be open to the public, then that would control. I think this last is the case in many states, but I'd have to do state-by-state research to confirm it. So if the roads are city- or state-owned, they cannot be closed to the public (unless they are for exclusive government use, which isn't your suggestion here). Such an ordinance would either be preempted by state statute, or void under a state constitutional provision, or void under Equal Protection: Rational Basis. But if they are privately owned, then yes - they can be closed off like that. Not by the city government, but by the original developer, or sometimes by the Homeowners' Association if the original developer set one up, through a series of reciprocal easements and other encumbrances that run with the land. In the case of North Oaks, the city is only enforcing a trespassing statute. The city didn't close the roads to outsiders, the original developer did. ~Q

Via SCOTUSBlog: I will post my analysis of the opinions on my blog later today. ~Q

Founders or Framers? You quoted from both, but they are ideologically distinct groups, with different beliefs and different intents. ~Q