Scrivener's Error

28 August 2004

at 08:36 [UTC–8]

Today's NYT contains a fascinating review essay by Judge Posner on the 9/11 commission report. Although I don't agree with some of his conclusions, his analysis is clearly stated and internally consistent. It's definitely worth considerable thought by anyone who cares about the report, its context, or its flaws. I don't pretend that the report is perfect, by any means; it is certainly a more-honorable attempt than was the Warren Commission, though. (OK, that's not setting the bar very high, but still…)

The Fine Print

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 © 2003–24 except where otherwise indicated. All rights reserved. This blawg does not use the misnamed Creative Commons License (which is only a revocable covenant not to sue), 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, and I do not approve aggregators and syndicators whose page design reflects only an intent to use the reference(s) to this blawg without actually providing the content from this blawg.

Internet link sausages, as frequently appear here, are gathered from uninspected meaty internet products and byproducts via processes you really, really don't want to observe; spiced with my own secret, snarky, sarcastic blend; quite possibly extended with sawdust or other indigestibles; and stuffed into your monitor (instead of either real or artificial casings). They're sort of like "link salad" or "pot pourri" or "miscellaneous musings" (or, for that matter, "making law"), but far more disturbing.

I am not responsible for any changes to your lipid counts or blood pressure from consuming these sausages... nor for your monitor if you insist on covering them with mash or sauce.

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.

Other Blawgs, Blogs, and Journals

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.

How Appealing is aimed at appellate lawyers and legal news in general. If you care about the state of the law, start here — Howard's commentary is far better balanced, better informed, and better considered than any of the media outlets. To concentrate on the US Supreme Court, don't forget SCOTUSBlog.
Some academics' blawgs with a variety of political (and doctrinal) viewpoints:
- Professor Stephen Bainbridge (UCLA Law) (aka "The Perfesser")
- Professor Jack Balkin (Yale Law)
- Professor Dennis Crouch (Missouri Law) (better known as Patently-O)
- Dorf on Law is a limited-group academic blawg among Professors Michael Dorf (Cornell Law), Neil Buchanan (Florida Law, transitioning to Toronto Law), and Eric Segall (Georgia State Law)
- Professor Michael Froomkin (University of Miami Law)
- Professor Eric Goldman (Santa Clara University Law)
- Professor James Grimmelmann (Cornell Law)
- Professor Rick Hasen (UCLA)
- Professor Brian Leiter (U of Chicago Law/Philosophy)
- Professor Rebecca Tushnet (Harvard Law)
The main European IP blawg of interest remains the UK-based IPKat