Tuesday, July 31, 2007
Monday, July 30, 2007
. . . and yes, I really have just read Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone for the first time. I was highly impressed.
Saturday, July 28, 2007
Friday, July 27, 2007
I just thought you guys would like a non-immigration post. (:
Thursday, July 26, 2007
Contrary to what you may have thought, the Bible speaks out against anti-immigration laws: Exodus 22:1 and 23:9, Leviticus 19:33-34*, Deuteronomy 24:17 and 27:19, and Zechariah 7:10 all command the people of God (at that time Israel, now the Christian catholic** Church) to love foreigners/aliens/strangers and treat them as if they were natives. Sure, there are verses that tell us that, as Christians, we are to obey the law of the land . . . but only when it does not conflict with God's commands. God clearly commands that his own due process clause (Matthew 22:39: Love your neighbor as yourself, without meaningless distinctions (cf. Romans 10:12)) applies to all persons, regardless of where they were born or who they are. Again, I'm not advocating illegal immigration, but let's at least be honest in the debate and not lump illegal immigrants in the same box as rapists and murderers (whom we should love as ourselves, anyway).
All this as preface so that I can say "amen" to this Slate article: The Pardon Pander, by Bruce Fein. If the guys obstructed justice, then they need to be punished appropriately.
I'm sad to report that I cannot determine how any of my Congresspeople voted. If anybody can find a vote list, please put a link in the comments.
*This verse is my favorite one of those listed, so I'll spell it out for you here, from the NASB: "The [immigrant] who resides with you shall be to you as the native among you, and you shall love him as yourself, for you were aliens in the land of Egypt."
**The little c in catholic was intentional. Look it up, you bum.
Wednesday, July 25, 2007
Tuesday, July 24, 2007
Law schools represented:
- Baylor (1)
- U of Chicago (1)
- Hahvahd (6)
- South Texas College of Law** (1)
- St. Mary's** (1)
- Tulane (1)
- U of the Pacific (McGeorge School of Law)* (1)
- UVa (1)
- Yalie (1)
And the following undergrads represented:
- Baylor (1)
- Columbia (1)
- Florida State U (1)
- Georgetown (1)
- Michigan State (1)
- Northeast Louisiana State (1)
- Princeton (2)
- (Southwest) Texas State** (1)
- Stanford (1)
- U of Texas (1)
- Trinity in San Antonio (1)
- Washington & Lee (1)
- Yale (1)
Hmm. Out of 14 short-listed people, 6 are Hahvahd lawyers. Deep sociological question: are they nominated because they went to Hahvahd or did they go to Hahvahd because the kind of people who get nominated to the Supreme Court go to Hahvahd?
*Interestingly, this guy went to Stanford. Weird, huh?
**I know, I know. How did they get on the "short list"?
Friday, July 20, 2007
I've been running behind on my blog reading, so tonight while Mrs. Avacado does a take-home final, I'm reading all about psychology. Very interesting stuff, generally, but this article in particular struck me. In agreement with information overload theories, I've thought for awhile that we just can't consciously handle all the information we get, especially for big decisions. Example: My 18 months in family law were great, but there's a lot of emotional wear & tear from that, plus I really want to learn Spanish (which can apparently help you live longer: ¡Viva español!) and I work better in a rules-oriented environment than a personality-oriented environment, so maybe immigration law is my meal ticket, but I like to philosophize about the deeper issues and help people make really tough decisions plus I'm good with numbers, so maybe estate planning. Argh.
See? Too much information, too many factors to weigh. But apparently my subconscious doesn't care about all that. It makes a shortcut decision based on factors I may not realize I'm thinking about. Does that mean that it always gets the answer right? Not necessarily. But, as the author points out (and as some studies recently have shown*), it does about as well as thinking it through thoroughly.
So tonight, I'm going to bracketologize my life choices, flip coins, and go with my gut.
This just in: Slate published an article entitled: Should you trust your "gut feeling"? It's worth a read.
*The details are all fuzzy, but I seem to remember that they did a study recently comparing the results of an intentionally managed hedge fund with one managed based on the results of hockey games, and the hockey game fund did better. Weird, huh?
Thursday, July 19, 2007
This editorial in the Trib is one of the best essays I've seen about why building a fence along the Mexican border is just about the dumbest thing I've ever heard. I haven't been able to articulate why it's such a bad idea, but he takes some good swings at it. Let me know what you think. (It's not too long.)
Monday, July 16, 2007
Saturday, July 14, 2007
My dream West Coast Trip has the following key destinations:
- Roswell, NM
- the Grand Canyon
- the Hoover Dam
- Death Valley
- Sequoia National Park
- the Golden Gate Bridge
- the Salinas Valley (the setting for East of Eden).
Where would you go?
Thursday, July 12, 2007
"Why didn't you kill me like you did that guy back there? Billy? Or does it even make any sense to ask? Are you beyond why?"
"Oh s***, we're all beyond why, you know that."
My friend Mark tells me that economics is based on the idea that people act rationally given the information they have. I tend to agree. What do you think? Do we tend to make rational, if mis- or ill-informed, decisions? Or is it foolish even to try to explain why people act as they do?
Wednesday, July 11, 2007
* I don't have any idea whether this actually violates the First Amendment since I haven't taken Con Law or Civ Lib. I really only posted about this because I thought the T-shirt was funny.
Tuesday, July 10, 2007
But isn't the media really a business? Don't they just report on what they think (in their well-researched opinions) their clientele want to hear? What I'm saying is: the mainstream media reflects what the market wants, which is what newswatchers want.
So if the mainstream media isn't reporting on something, doesn't it suggest that the mainstream doesn't care about it?
Sunday, July 08, 2007
Friday, July 06, 2007
OK OK. The real reason I'm sticking to my genre is because a friend of mine, a link in the chain of my happiness, is marrying Hugh Grant on 7/7/7. She would rather attend four weddings and a funeral than hear about Baylor gossip, so I'll stick to my books and philosophy.
And as my nominee to fill in Swanburg's shoes: Searcey! There are two reasons I think Searcey should fill the void: (1) He's from Plano. That's really reason enough right there. (2) I can beat him at ping pong.
I think that about covers what I wanted to talk about. I'd tell you about my week at work, but I've just been dictating deposition summaries and then editing them. See? You already fell asleep.