{ 41 comments }
Burt Likko
Pseudonymous blogging strikes the right balance, for me, between the ability to project a clear and consistent identity to those interested in exchanging ideas, and buffering my sometimes unpopular ideas from meatworld decisionmakers, some of whom hold power over ways I might want to further my career, and some of whom hold power over my ability to generate income for my law firm. Pseudonymity gives me both an outlet of self-expression and the privacy to protect my livelihood, and that of about a dozen other people, all of whom depend in part on my work for their own paychecks.
Social networking, as on Facebook and Google+, offers convenience, enjoyment, and utility only to those users who operate under their real names. To use them, you must relinquish a degree of privacy — all the more so as both companies have recently relaxed their privacy policies.
I have no Facebook nor Google+ account because a dual-identity online existence would quickly crumble, whether at my hands or by the inadvertent mistake of someone else. If I want to continue to enjoy the degree of privacy that I have found comfortable to date, I must at the same time forego the pleasures and advantages of social networking. It’s one or the other. It’s not clear to me whether I’ve made the right choice.
Over the past week or so, we seem to have had a rash of misunderstandings, misread intents inferred, misread comments, and just plain misstatements and the unpleasant retractions thus obliged. There’s been a lot of flared tempers and some name-calling. Most ungentlemanly. Not everyone is guilty of it, but I offer my own mea culpa: for a lot of reasons, none of them good, I’ve commented in a less-than-gentlemanly way to a new commenter on at least one occasion, which is not conduct that I would not encourage in others and of which I disapprove in myself. I dialed it back but really that’s not the sort of thing we ought to be about.
What’s strange is that something at least in this ballpark seems to be happening to so many Leaguesters all at once. I don’t particularly understand how that can be the case, but there it is. We strive for an intellectually challenging but cordial culture, and for some reason it seems we’ve fallen short of that aspiration this week. The lesson here may be, “Yo, stop and think long enough to let the adrenaline dissapate from behind your eyeballs before you get to typing.” Granted, I’ve ignored that advice myself in the (recent) past, but seems to me that it’s good to be reminded of that from time to time.
{ 26 comments }
I was going to offer this as an update to my post from earlier this week, but the comment grew too long in the composition. As much as I enjoy the idea of authoring a post that generates hundreds of comments, this is probably weighty enough to start a new thread in the conversation. The issue remains the same, however — regardless of whether we like or dislike the idea of a Federal law mandating employers to provide insurance coverage including contraception, if that law violates the Constitution, that’s the end of the story. Earlier, I concluded that there was a serious Constitutional problem. Commenters offered a wealth of facts, research, and argument in debate. Now, I’m kind of on the fence.
What’s more, it looks like the first legal challenge offering the theories I explored in the OP as against the new “compromise” regulation proposed by the President has hit the courts. Priests for Life v. Sibelus looks like it makes a good claim to standing in its description of its entity plaintiff as sanctioned under RCC canon law, a nonprofit corporation controlled by RCC clergy, engaged in the advocacy of RCC religious teachngs. Most interestingly, it looks like the attorneys representing the plaintiff entity have anticipated the exploration of the Employment Division v. Smith case described here — the complaint goes out of its way to argue that PPACA is not a law of general application in paragraphs 17-22.
{ 25 comments }
There’s been quite a bit of discussion recently about the Obama Administration’s manner of implementing provisions of the Affordable Care Act by requiring that employer-funded healthcare plans include contraception. By now, every Reader here should be familiar with the objection: employers owned or controlled by the Roman Catholic Church and other religious entities object to the use of contraception on religious grounds, and they want an exemption to this provision of the ACA. The Administration has signalled that it is willing to allow these employers to not directly fund this, by way of instead having insurers provide the contraception, but this is obviously a tissue of cover which those religious employers see through and does not assuage their concerns.
Seems to me, though, that before we treat this as a cultural issue, we need to look at it as a legal one. If it turns out that the law, or the interpretation and implementation of that law, violates the Constitution, we need not consider further whether we think it is a good idea, a reasonable idea, or even a defensible one. Also, if we can see that the law does constitute a restriction on religion, that will educate a discussion about a purported “war on religion” advanced by the Obama Administration.
I don’t believe there is a “war on religion” underway, but at the same time, I have a strong constitutional concern about this law, so this particular issue is not strong evidence for my first thesis. More after the jump…
{ 165 comments }
Now, I know what you’re all thinking. “Why is Burt, of all people, not commenting on the Constitutional Amendment thread? He loves that sort of stuff!” And I do. But as it happened, my mother in law was in Las Vegas over the past few days, and Mrs. Likko and I decided to meet her. And as proof of my love, I made it a point to stay at the LVH hotel, where we will hold Leaguefest 2012. Why not post from there? Frankly, we were too busy doing fun stuff for me to log on pretty much at all.
- All This And More Awaits You at Leaguefest 2012!
And this is what my recent experience was, so you can get an taste of what you’re in for:
{ 5 comments }
When a big case is released, I want to read it right away. But unfortunately, courts release big cases at precisely the time lawyers are working. So it’s taken me a day to digest this latest and possibly penultimate round of litigation in Perry v. Brown, the Brown v. Board of Education of our generation. Now that I have, I can offer that digest here.
{ 9 comments }
Arrangements for Leaguefest 2012 are moving forward. Please follow the jump for information about accessing the group rate for rooms at the gabulous LVH Hotel (formerly the Las Vegas Hilton) on Memorial Day weekend, May 25-28, 2012.
[click to continue…]
{ 2 comments }
The porn industry is quick to raise the First Amendment as its primary argument against governmental intervention of any sort. And not without justification — governments from the Feds down to municipalities are notoriously hostile to pornography. Which is odd, because judging by the way the market behaves, it sure looks like pretty much everyone likes the stuff. When no one else is watching.
But the City of Los Angeles cannot help but be cognizant of the fact that a whole lot of porn gets made within its city limits and that this generates substantial tax revenue. At the same time, it has passed a municipal ordinance mandating that producers of porn require the performers to wear condoms while performing. And the idea seems to be spreading. [click to continue…]
{ 20 comments }
Burt Likko Your Cruise Director has obtained a group rate for Leaguefest 2012. Our chosen hotel is The LVH, formerly the Las Vegas Hilton, site of Elvis’ landmark concerts, and the last of the great Old Vegas hotels. The rate is $79.00 per night (after the room tax, that’s $88.48 per night).
[UPDATE] Thank you, fellow Leaguesters, for confirming that you’ll be there. The hotel is drafting a contract for my review and signature, which should be in place by Friday afternoon. When it is, I’ll make another minipost announcement, and send by e-mail to everyone who has requested the information instructions for how to get the group rate. Remainder of original post will appear after the jump.
[click to continue…]
{ 9 comments }
If you do, be sure to step out tonight, preferably in an area clear of bright city lights or other light pollution. The Earth has been hit with a large coronal mass ejection for most of the day, and chances of seeing an aurora are especially good tonight for those in northern latitudes. I’m in Southern California and will probably miss the show, but hopefully the rest of you get one. Good seeing!
{ 10 comments }
2 pages
Kimmi 
Ryan Bonneville 
Elias Isquith 
Murali 
James K 
Alan Scott 
Patrick Cahalan 
Will Truman 
Will H.