![[self-portrait]](http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_aph-FWKPAtw/Sb7dbBwgg0I/AAAAAAAAAAU/xefH94KcXQA/S220/LawShark5204a.jpg)
Scrivener's Error| null | |
|---|---|
|
Scrivener's Error |
Law and reality in publishing (seldom the same thing) from the author's side of the slush pile, with occasional forays into military affairs, censorship and the First Amendment, legal theory, and anything else that strikes me as interesting. |
10:01 [GMT-6]
Rejected by Conspiracy TheoryUnfortunately, now that they have been the party in power for a decade, the GOP is aping the Democrats of the era of Tip O'Neill, Jim Wright, and Dan Rostenkowski. Instead of insisting that their leaders hold to the highest ethical standards, the GOP is now willing to use strong arm tactics to protect their leaders. They can no longer claim the moral high ground they held in 1994; and if they resign the moral high ground to the left, what but gerrymandering can ensure their continued hold on power?
"Powerline Shorts Out" (19 Nov 04). Leaving aside the purported "moral high ground" of 1994—Newt Gingrich being a primary example—the Perfesser has accurately pointed out that we do not now, and have not for many years, had ideology-based politics in this country. Instead, we have faction-based politics. How else to explain the solidarity between Southern and Yankee Democrats? This is precisely why the founders, and Washington in particular, disdained political parties: They recognized that they would tend toward factionalism. The British experience is enlightening; the phenomenon of "Wet Tories" during Iron Maggie's reign (which I saw up close and personal, as I was stationed over there during her declining years) should be all one needs to see.
The irony that the least-stable democratic government in Europe—Italy—has the "purest" ideology-based party structure should provide more than enough grist for a mill of badly conceived articles in second-rate political science and law journals trying to measure (and then theorize based upon) some secondary effect. These might bear titles like Causative Analysis of Political Party Behavior on Environmental Legislation in Post-Cold-War Luxembourg—but they should be Of Chickens and Eggs, Part XXVII: Luxembourg and Environmental Legislation. Emmanuel Goldstein (preferred US edition) had it right:
The object of power is power.
And, at least in the opinion of those actually in power, nothing else matters. Sorry if that sounds cynical. I spent too much time inside the Beltway to be anything else.
What this really points out is that the Perfesser has conservative beliefs that are different from mine, which is something I can respect. What I cannot respect is factionalism and cronyism—whether coming from Texas Republicans or Chicago Democrats; whether based on a coherent ideological base or single-issue fanaticism; whether from the dominant party or its disloyal opposition. But then, I'm one of those weirdos who actually expects enforcement of ethical standards on those who have (or seek) power, which is also why I distrust pure-market solutions to anything. That, however, is for another time, another forum, and another 200 footnotes.
Ritual disclaimer: This blog contains legal commentary, but it is only general commentary. It does not constitute legal advice for your situation. It does not create an attorney-client relationship or any other expectation of confidentiality, nor is it an offer of representation.
All material © 2003–09 except where otherwise indicated. All rights reserved. N.B. This blawg does not use the Creative Commons License, although I'm usually pretty good-natured about permissions for attributed reuse.
I approve of no advertising appearing on or through syndication for anything other than the syndication itself; any such advertising violates the limited reuse license implied by voluntarily including syndication code on this blawg.
Current Poll
None at present.
| Archives |
|---|
Warped Weft
Now live at the new site. I have arranged some of
the more infamous threads that have appeared here
by unravelling them from the blawg tapestry (and hopefully eliminating some
of the sillier typos). Sometimes, the threads have been slightly reordered for clarity.
Links of Interest
Links open in a new window.
These may be of interest; I do not necessarily agree with opinions expressed in them, although the reasoning and writing are almost always first-rate (and represent a standard seldom, if ever, achieved in "mainstream" journalism). I'm picky, and have eclectic tastes, so don't expect a comprehensive listing.
A blawg is sort of like a blog on legal issues, but usually has a lot more links to outside resources (other than other blogs) than does a typical blog. Scrivener's Error is a blawg, not just a blog. You can find other blawgs at < ? law blogs # >.
Optimized for
at 1024x768.
