{"id":4047,"date":"2005-08-30T15:09:03","date_gmt":"2005-08-30T19:09:03","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/blogs.law.harvard.edu\/formerlyknownas\/2005\/08\/30\/upsetting-the-ballast-of-natu"},"modified":"2011-08-05T14:57:27","modified_gmt":"2011-08-05T18:57:27","slug":"upsetting-the-ballast-of-nature","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/archive.blogs.harvard.edu\/ethicalesq\/2005\/08\/30\/upsetting-the-ballast-of-nature\/","title":{"rendered":"upsetting the ballast of nature"},"content":{"rendered":"

<\/a><\/p>\n

\n

!!! <\/EM><\/STRONG><\/FONT> <\/FONT>Please don’t fear that yesterday’s <\/FONT><\/FONT>posts<\/FONT><\/A> <\/FONT>agreeing with Prof. Bainbridge<\/FONT><\/A> will <\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
unduly upset the balance of nature.  This morning, I quickly found something <\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
disagreeable at his website — a bit of <\/FONT>self-promotion bragging<\/FONT><\/A> that L.A. Times<\/EM> <\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
columnist <\/FONT>Tim Rutten<\/FONT><\/A> called Steve’s analysis of Catholic teachings relevant to <\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
judges <\/FONT>“precise” and “convincing”<\/FONT><\/A>.  I couldn’t resist leaving a Comment reminding <\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
Prof. B, with some quick examples from our <\/FONT>prior post<\/FONT><\/A>, that his analysis actually <\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
was incomplete and muddied waters that had been quite clear.  <\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n

\n
\"boxerSignN\"   Stay tuned!<\/EM>  An email from Steve suggests that <\/FONT><\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
he is quite upset that I would imply he’s left things <\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
purposefully muddy concerning Church teachings.<\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
update<\/FONT><\/STRONG><\/EM> (Midnite): Prof. B. and I continue the discussion<\/FONT><\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
in earnest <\/FONT>in the comments<\/FONT><\/A> to his Self-Promotion post.<\/FONT><\/DIV><\/BLOCKQUOTE>
\n
\"tiny  Wish I could be there<\/EM>:  There will be an <\/FONT><\/FONT>AEI panel discussion<\/FONT><\/A> on Sept. 7th <\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
in D.C. on the meaning of the $253 Million Vioxx Verdict.  Prospective (and <\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
contingent) Vioxx billionaire plaintiff’s lawyer <\/FONT><\/FONT>Evan Schaeffer<\/FONT><\/A> will be on <\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
the panel, along with Overlawyered’s <\/FONT>Ted Frank<\/FONT><\/A>.<\/FONT>  Evan will speak on the <\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
effects of Ernst v. Merck<\/EM> on the jury system. <\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
<\/FONT> <\/DIV>
\n
\"tiny  Today’s NYT<\/EM> <\/FONT>op-ed by John Tierney<\/FONT><\/A> is right on target: special hybrid-car lanes <\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
on  highways are likely to have the net effect of “dirtier air and more gasoline <\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
consumption.” (“The Road to Hell Is Clogged With Righteous Hybrids,” Aug. 30, <\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
2005)  High-ocupancy toll (HOT) lanes make much more sense.  See this CATO <\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
report by Poole & Orski<\/FONT><\/A>.<\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n

\n
Which reminds me:  besides Hawaii’s <\/FONT>risky<\/FONT><\/A> attempt  \"gas  <\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
to control petroleum prices (perhaps meant to be an <\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
object lesson in economics and civics for its populace),<\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
there seems to be a lot more talk of consumers holding <\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
gas boycotts.  Please see our prior post on silly one-day<\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
gas boycotts<\/FONT><\/A>.<\/FONT><\/DIV><\/BLOCKQUOTE>
\n
<\/FONT> <\/DIV>
\n

\n