tall grass
i envy tthe way it bends
in the wind
mid spring
just enough foilage
to pee in private
slow train
i lose count of the cars
when the woman blows a kiss
“lipsG”
memorabalia show
the old catcher’s
crooked fingers
by dagosan
sweeping
the fallen blossoms —
soon, just another tree
month’s half over —
taking the last
migraine pill
[May 16, 2005]
potluck
Earlier to day, I wrote a little satirical piece about the NY County Lawyer Assn’s
Diversity Disclosure Pact, which would allow clients to learn about the gender, race and
sexual preference of lawyers working on their cases and projects. [see no yoda quota?].
Stop me if you’ve already heard this, but I wanted to relate my first experience with diversity
disclosure:
My very first job out of law school was at a 10-lawyer firm in Washington,
D.C., which was very selective and had hired only one associate from my year,
1976. Shortly after I started, the hiring partner was filling out Harvard Law’s
new mandatory minority disclosure form, and sent it around for comment.
I was surprised to see that the firm claimed to have one Black lawyer, so
I went to ask the Partner who that was. My suspicion was confirmed when
he answered, “You.” I told Bob that all four of my Italian grandparents were
spinning in their graves (their bias, not mine). Here’s a picture of me from that
period; and here’s a current one; baby shots are here.
“dagMugS” Since I had never claimed minority status while seeking employment
with the firm, how did this mis-classification happen? First, I think the requirement
to fill out the form made the firm very much wish to have a minority person
(in addition to a female-Oriental partner). Also, like many nice Italian and
nice Jewish boys of the era, I did wear my thick, curly-brillo black hair in a
“‘fro” (which broke my mama’s heart). In addition, my major extracurricular
activity at Law School was working on the Civil Rights/Civil Liberties research
group (although my work had been in the civil liberties area). Finally, I had
once said something like this to the hiring partner, after starting to work there:
“At Georgetown and Harvard, I had very few Black classmates,
and most were from such privileged backgrounds that they
seemed no more Black than me.”
I meant culturally, of course. I added that hiring Upper Class, elite Blacks
did not seem like a good way to get different perspectives within the law firm
(except, of course, that only a Black man or woman knows what it is like to deal
with White America as a Black person).
Up until that point, I had never doubted the sincerity of the many compliments
received from the firm’s partners on my work. Suddenly, I wondered if they
meant “for a minority” you do excellent work. I wondered if I was the person
chosen after they interviewed only at Harvard and Yale, because they thought
I was Black. It was dispiriting. Luckily, the compliments continued, even after
they — and subsequent employers — discovered I couldn’t count toward any
quotas.
at Crime & Federalism last January. But, the U.S. antitrust world is buzzing over the
decision on May 5th by the Canadian Competition Tribunal in the Canadian Pipe case.
A press release from the Toronto firm of Davies Ward Phillips & Vineberg LLP, which
represented Canadian Pipe gives the salient details (May 11, 2005):
On May 4, 2005, the Tribunal ordered the Commissioner [of Competition]
to pay the costs incurred by Canada Pipe Company Ltd. (“Canada Pipe”)
in successfully defending itself against the Commissioner’s claims that it
had breached the abuse of dominance and exclusive dealing provisions in
the Competition Act. All of the Commissioner’s claims were dismissed by
the Tribunal in a unanimous decision issued on February 3, 2005.
In its decision awarding costs, the Tribunal ruled that “the novel economic
issues and the amount of work involved in the preparation and conduct of
the case, which was national in scope, warrant an upward adjustment of the
costs”. In addition, the Tribunal ordered the Commissioner to pay Canada
Pipe 150% of its tariffed fees from the date of a settlement offer made by
Canada Pipe, which would have ended the litigation but which the Commissioner
refused.
Law and Policy Primer (pdf., 27 pp) by Cardozo Law Professor Hanno F. Kaiser, and
to a post on the Goals of Antitrust on Kaiser’s Law & Society weblog. Kaiser says
he wrote the Primer to supply the “missing chapter” in most antitrust textbooks —
the one telling how antitrust fits into the broader economic process. His Goals post
concludes:
“the discussion about the goals of antitrust and economic policy would
benefit if we abandoned the ‘consumer welfare’ or ‘consumer benefit’
language for more explicit statements about how we want to make the pie
(that is, what kind of efficiencies we promote), and how we propose to
slice it (that is, what distributive mechanism and criteria we prefer).”
Distilling Supreme Court Personalities: Steve Bainbridge can move
and type fast when the topic is wine plus Supreme Court jockeying. His post about
today’s decision in the interstate wine shipment casesmay not be aged, but it is
interesting and has a good bouquet. (Todd Zywicki, who is much-involved with
21st Amendment and dormant Commerce Clause, has gathered quite a few relevant
links.) Let’s see if the states who’ve been blocking interstate direct-to-consumer wine
sales decide to open the spigot or ban intrastate sales, too.
Thomas Adcock’s 
