While I’ve been goofing off today, Yu Chang
has been down the road at Union College
doing his professor (electrical engineering)
shtick. It’s a good thing he left a bagful of
haiku for this aging slacker to share with you:
vivid dreams
the din of a garbage truck
drives you away
turning over
a dead leaf
an earthworm twitches
Flamenco dancer
the old planks
resonate
giving color
to a dry reed
blackbird
Yu Chang
from Upstate Dim Sum (2004/II)
by dagosan:
my “funeral suit”
too snug —
someday, it’ll be baggy
[Oct. 19, 2005]
potluck
skewering Harriet Miers. Meanwhile, Prof. Ann Althouse takes
the Democrats to task for going soft on Miers, saying they are
showing their disrespect for the judiciary — as Pres. Bush. has
done — by giving Miers a pass. I still don’t understand the push
for a rush to judgment.
Is Evan being too sensitive? Ted too judgmental? Evan
Schaeffer wrote this morning at Legal Underground about Ted
Frank’s Point of Law piece on Vioxx forum shopping in Illinois.
Evan is not happy about the “subtle tone of moral condemnation.”
I invite our readers to check out both pieces and let us all know
whether you think Evan is being too sensitive. Here’s the Comment
that I left at Evan’s weblog:
Evan, When I originally read Ted’s post, I thought he was
complaining about the way the system works (what it
allows) much more than about the lawyers. After reading
your post and then re-reading Ted’s I still feel that way.
. . There really is a fine line to walk, and you’re right that
it is particularly hard to do so in the context of a weblog,
where staying short and punchy and opinionated is
considered a virtue. In the context of an adversarial legal
system, I think a thick skin is important — especially when
having a thin skin makes it look like you might be trying to
win points by attacking the other person rather than addressing
the policy issues.
It’s a tightrope shaped like a vicious circle. (update: here is
Ted’s admittedly “wordy” response to Evan.)
