SCOTUS ruling on Schools

Dear Friends,

I completely agree with Court on this one. Thomas' concurrence was spot on. This is important:

The dissent asserts that racially balanced schools improve educational outcomes
for black children. In support, the dissent unquestioningly cites certain social
science research to support propositions that are hotly disputed among social
scientists. In reality, it is far from apparent that coerced racial mixing has
any educational benefits, much less that integration is necessary to black
achievement.

Isn't this what it is all about? Arranging the schools in such a way as to achieve a maximum of educational opportunities ought to be the goal of any district. However, if the school to which a student is assigned is inconvenient or undesirable, that student is going to struggle regardless of the apparent diversity. This was the genesis of the Brown case. A student was forced to go to a school that was inconvenient because of the color of her skin. Brown said that was unconstitutional. A student in Seattle has a particular school he or she would like to attend but because of his or her skin color cannot. How is this any different?

Forced segregation is obviously an evil, but forced integration can be equally harmful, especially if it falls under "racial balancing." A preponderance of one skin type can occur coincidentally due to demographics. Schools like Treadwell for instance could not possibly be balanced without inconveniencing huge segments of the population.

True diversity will never exist in populous areas. Only in small towns where only one or two schools exist will diversity be found. Batesville was a very diverse setting because every kid in town went to that one high school. In places like Memphis, rich kids (white or black) in urban areas will go to private schools and poor kids (white or black) will go to the public schools that correspond with their neighborhoods.

I have read where Roberts was scoffed at for his comment regarding racial discrimination, but he is absolutely right. A free society is inherently just but not necessarily fair. Racial imbalance is an example of a naturally occurring phenomenon that stems from free individuals choosing to live and work and learn alongside people with similar physical and cultural features. Many people seeking to force diversity on various aspects of our society seem to find it convenient to organize people based on outward physical appearance. Regardless of how one feels about forced diversity (I am quite against it), melanin count would seem to have about as much relevance as height.

We will never overcome racism as long as society continues to consider skin color as a personality-defining trait. Allowing a governing body to make decisions based on skin color is unconstitutional, regardless of motive. I see very little room for exception.

-LCC

James Loney

Dear friends,

I got the chance to watch a Las Vegas 51's game with my father right before Loney and Kemp were called up to the Dodgers. It was a real treat. Both of these guys have real star potential and ought to be in the big leagues for years to come. Loney is currently batting .500 and has a Slugging Percentage over .900. He is being discussed quite a bit over at dodgerthoughts.com, you know, when they are not ripping on Juan Pierre.

Too often, powerful first basemen show flashes of brilliance before fizzling out. Who was that Chris guy with the Tigers last year? I hope this isn't the case with Loney. The Dodgers need to have heroes.

-LCC

Art of Rhetoric

Dear Friends,

It has been a while since I have read any Aristotle. Recently, I picked up his work Art of Rhetoric and found it to be a far more useful piece than I had assumed. That is, of course, why one ought not to assume.

Anyway, the advice I have found most compelling concerns the relationship between litigant and dicast. The dicast was a sort of judge and jury roled into one. The litigant ought to bring forward (I like the term "marshall") to the dicast all of the facts of the case in as objective a manner as possible because "it is not the business of litigants to instruct him."

There is a term used regularly in Book I, "enthymeme," that I am having some difficulty understanding. I know it is a form of syllogism but am lost from there. As best as I can tell, it is a syllogism wherein either the major or minor premise is of a speculative nature.

I am probably wrong.

-LCC

Good article

http://www.cato-unbound.org/2006/04/03/william-easterly/why-doesnt-aid-work/

I liked this and thought it ought to be advertised. Enjoy.

-LCC

P.S. I know that I am being really lazy these days. Sorry.

The Fantastic Mr. Fox

Dear Friends,

I was browsing the imdb.com site this morning to see what I could see regarding Wes Anderson's new movie "The Darjeerling Express" and happened to see that he is also working on a stop-motion "Fantastic Mr. Fox" movie. This is truly exciting. A great many of Mr. Dahl's books have been made into movies lately (Matilda, James and the Giant Peach, Witches, Charlie and the Chocolate Factory) but none have excited me as much as this one. The Fantastic Mr. Fox book ranks right up there with Danny the Champion of the World in my esteem and is a story that I will happily sit in a theater crowded with nine-year-olds to enjoy.

I enjoy duck hunting (I hesitate to dub myself "avid") and have hunted one type of animal or another for most of my life. I have no qualms with hunting animals that are born prey. Humans are as much a part of the eco-cycle as any other animal and need to understand that as we expand into suburban and rural areas, it is our duty to fill in for the predators we have driven out. The movie Bambi upsets me because it is little more than anti-hunting propaganda. How is it then that Mr. Fox is one of my favorites?

Stories like The Fox and the Hound and The Fantastic Mr. Fox are seen as anti-hunting stories and in many ways they are. The significant difference between these stories and stories like Bambi is the nature of the creature being hunted. I am one of the few people I know (Do I really know myself?) to discriminate between hunting for prey specifically and hunting in general. In many ways, I think humans relate more to predators than we do prey. There is more humanity present in a wolf or a bear for instance than in a duck or a deer. Understandably, the softer hearts among us would agree to killing an attacking bear before killing a mallard on the wing, but this is faulty logic.

I try very hard to be an environmentalist. It is difficult in this day and age to have a positive impact on the natural world. Recycling is not as convenient as it should be, I rely on ozone-depleting air-conditioning for comfort and I am not in a position to walk to work or to afford a hybrid vehicle. That said, I do what I can. I use as little water as I have to, I replace my old bulbs with CFLs and act as a predator in the place of the predators other humans have driven from their habitats by moving to newly-built homes in the suburbs rather than buying perfectly good old homes in the city.

Prey need to be killed; predators need to be protected. Predators in the wild steer clear from one another or, if they interact, know their roles and respect each other. Hunting for bears and foxes is as environmentally irresponsible as not hunting for squirrels and deer. While I hope that the children reading Fantastic Mr. Fox understand this, I fear that they will not. Ducks Unlimited and groups of its nature do what they can to educate children about the virtues of hunting, but most children have already been indoctrinated by sappy, thoughtless movies like Bambi and Open Season and will not give hunting advocates a chance to get their message across.

Here is my point: The Fantastic Mr. Fox is a wonderful book because it exhalts the humanity present in predators like the fox. Humans who understand that we are predators are generally far better stewards of the earth than those who think we are prey.

-LCC

Book list

Dear Friends,

I've never been very good at reading one book at a time. I usually have 4-5 scattered around my house and office so that I will always have something on hand. These are the books I'm working on right now and the places I am keeping them:

Bathroom:

Planet Law School - Atticus Falcon

Not a bad "pre-law school" book, it tends to be a little too cynical at times for my taste. The author, clearly using a pseudonym, did not seem to enjoy law school very much and has a lot of problems with the system. He does offer good tips on supplemental materials though.

Sitting Room:

East of Eden - John Steinbeck

I sit by a window at the front of my house and smoke my pipe (yes, I'm that kind of asshole) and read. Steinbeck is my second favorite author after Roald Dahl, but East is quickly becoming my favorite book. He is not a subtle writer, but no one can match his ability to infuse life into his setting. The land is a character in every story he writes and nowhere is its presence not felt. I love it.

Ancestral Passions - Virginia Morrell

This is a biography of the Leakey family. I have always enjoy paleo-anthropology, and while this book touches on some of the scientific aspects of their lives, it spends more time dealing with the joys and pains associated with personalities that discovery requires. Let me rephrase that, it takes a certain type of person to be a great trailblazer--Louis Leakey was that type of person. His personal life suffered dearly for the sake of his professional life, but today we reap the benefits of his work. Truly great men rarely lead happy lives because so much sacrifice is required for greatness. Aristotle argues that temperance is the virtue most required for the good life. I agree with this. I also am a fan of Hegel's theory about history being moved by the lives of great men and I cannot envision greatness and temperance going hand-in-hand.

Office:

The Glannon Guide to Civil Procedure - John Glannon

CivPro is often considered the most cryptic 1L subject. Per the advice of many, I decided to get a book on CivPro so that when I get to school I will at least understand the vocabulary if not the grammar. This is the book I chose to read after carefully considering my options. I got it used for under $15 and so far am enjoying it. Glannon is a great writer and thoughtful instructor, and I am enjoying this as much as I expect to enjoy any legal textbook.

Alexander Hamilton - Ron Chernow

By far my favorite founding father, Alexander Hamilton is an example that seconds my earlier point regarding great men. While his wife and family brought him great joy, he still had to have been pretty miserable when he was alone with his thoughts. That is probably why he wrote so darn much. General Hamilton was the quintessential workaholic (By the way, I hate this word. It ought to be "workic" insofar as one is taking the word "alcoholic" and replacing the word "alcohol" with the word "work". I understand that it loses a good deal of its charm and that the dumb masses probably wouldn't get it if that change was made, but darn it, I hate poorly made up words. Take "aerotropolis" for example. This word ought to be "aeropolis" if it is to be a word at all. Never mind.) and as a result he led one of the most productive and influential lives in American history.

I'm sure there is a lesson here somewhere.

-LCC

Health Care

Dear friends:

I pulled this off the Drudgereport:

Smokers told to Quit*

The ever-rising cost of health care is one of my biggest concerns. I hate that Americans are tied to their jobs because of the risks involved with being uninsured. I myself have been without health insurance before and it is scary. The idea of having nationalized health care appeals to me when I am feeling lazy. That said, this article revels one of the greatest dangers of relying on one's government for one's health care. One of the main differences between the public sector and the private sector is that the powers that be in the public sector like rules, whereas the privately controlled entities generally do not.

Imagine a world where the government controlled our health care. Oh wait, we don't have to imagine that, we need only to look at Great Britain. The fact that they can control citizens lives with the bridle of health care ought to disturb all but the most complacent. What this indicates is that the British Government needs only to modify their health care restrictions in order to restrict behavior in general. If they are allowed to require the folks not smoke 4 weeks prior to surgery, why would they not require that folks quit smoking all together. There would seem to be no limits to this.

One may not consume alcoholic beverages 4 weeks prior to surgery.

One may not engage in extra-marital sex 4 weeks prior to surgery.

One may not ride a bicycle without a helmet 4 weeks prior to surgery.

Why limit it to surgery? Why not no smoking 4 weeks prior to any medical procedure or consultation?

Even if we did have government-provided universal health-care, I would like to imagine that the Supremes wouldn't allow restrictions of this nature.

Here is the flip-side to all of this. As it stands, private insurance providers have restrictions and laws that are, from what I understand, much more inhibiting. Individuals trying to find coverage for themselves without the benefit of an employer can be denied coverage for almost any reason the provider wants to give.

I hate this issue. It is, by far, the most complicated and troubling problem Americans face and I see little reason for optimism.

Have a great week!

-LCC

*http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=459574&in_page_id=1770

Cardboard Gods

Dear Friends,

I have a new favorite blog: www.cardboardgods.baseballtoaster.com

The posts are less frequent than some, but it is a case of quality over quantity--a trait I admire. The blog is promoted as a baseball card discussion site, but this acts a veneer for a touching, witty, and personal set of short essays. Baseball is often a metaphor for life, but few are able to use it as subtly as Josh Wilker.

-LCC