{"id":4365,"date":"2006-02-07T18:38:24","date_gmt":"2006-02-07T22:38:24","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/blogs.law.harvard.edu\/formerlyknownas\/2006\/02\/07\/nice-judge-ta-position\/"},"modified":"2011-08-05T14:54:11","modified_gmt":"2011-08-05T18:54:11","slug":"nice-judge-ta-position","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/archive.blogs.harvard.edu\/ethicalesq\/2006\/02\/07\/nice-judge-ta-position\/","title":{"rendered":"nice judge-$ta-position"},"content":{"rendered":"

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

\n

Did you notice that on the very same day <\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n

\n
(1) The New York Law Journal<\/EM> announced that NYC BigLaw<\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
firm Sullivan & Cromwell Boosts Associates’ Pay<\/A><\/SPAN> to <\/SPAN><\/FONT><\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
$145,000 for first-year associates (plus<\/EM> expected year-end<\/FONT><\/SPAN><\/DIV>
\n
bonuses <\/SPAN>of $20 to $40K) (by Anthony Lin, Feb. 6, 2006, via <\/SPAN><\/FONT><\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
Common Scold<\/FONT><\/EM><\/A>)<\/SPAN><\/FONT><\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
<\/SPAN><\/FONT><\/FONT> <\/DIV>
\n
                                                                             \"MoneyBag<\/SPAN><\/FONT><\/FONT><\/DIV><\/SPAN><\/BLOCKQUOTE>
\n

\n
(2) Judith Kaye, Chief Judge of the New York State Court<\/FONT><\/SPAN><\/DIV>
\n
System, was <\/FONT>begging<\/FONT><\/A> the Legislature for a pay increase <\/FONT><\/SPAN><\/DIV>
\n
for state judges — pointing out that there have only been <\/FONT><\/SPAN><\/DIV>
\n
two raises in 18 years, and that the typical state Supreme <\/FONT><\/SPAN><\/DIV>
\n
Court judge [the highest trial court] receives $136,700<\/EM> a <\/FONT><\/SPAN><\/DIV>
\n
year.” <\/FONT>State of the Judiciary Address<\/FONT><\/A> (Feb. 6, 2006) (NYSBA <\/FONT><\/SPAN><\/DIV>
\n
agrees<\/FONT><\/A> with Judge Kaye on the need for raises.)<\/FONT><\/SPAN><\/DIV><\/BLOCKQUOTE><\/BLOCKQUOTE>
\n
potluck\/potlawk<\/FONT><\/EM><\/STRONG> <\/FONT><\/SPAN><\/DIV>
\n

\n
\"tiny I wrote to “Abnu” at <\/FONT>WordLab<\/FONT><\/EM><\/A> about his less-than-complimentary <\/FONT><\/SPAN><\/DIV>
\n
reaction to <\/FONT>anti-blawg<\/FONT><\/A> campaigners.  He responded by saying that <\/FONT><\/SPAN><\/DIV>
\n
my facts are wrong, and that there is indeed a group that has coined <\/FONT><\/SPAN><\/DIV>
\n
a special word for their category of weblogs.  He cites me to “<\/FONT>milblogs<\/FONT><\/A>,” <\/FONT><\/SPAN><\/DIV>
\n
which I learned means “military blogs.”  Frankly, I think Abnu has in fact <\/FONT><\/SPAN><\/DIV>
\n
strengthened my argument. To wit:   <\/FONT><\/SPAN><\/DIV>
\n

\n
The current and former military service-persons who come  \"bombFuse\" <\/FONT><\/SPAN><\/FONT><\/SPAN><\/DIV>
\n
under the “milblog” classification continue to call what they <\/FONT><\/SPAN><\/DIV>
\n
do “blogs.”  They have added a prefix that alerts the audience
that there may be a special focus or source (although just <\/FONT><\/SPAN><\/DIV>
\n
what it might be is surely not clear without further inquiry) <\/FONT><\/SPAN><\/DIV>
\n
for their weblogs, but there is no doubt that they are “blogs.”  <\/FONT><\/SPAN><\/DIV>
\n
This avoids the confusing nature of the term “blawg,” and does <\/FONT><\/SPAN><\/DIV>
\n
not have the trivializing look of that term. <\/FONT><\/SPAN><\/DIV><\/BLOCKQUOTE>
\n
\"juke Meanwhile, Prof. Bainbridge (our favorite Cafeteria Conservative) <\/FONT><\/SPAN><\/DIV>
\n
is <\/SPAN>like all bent out of shape because Mick Jagger and the Stones <\/SPAN><\/FONT><\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
have gone corporate<\/EM> — see <\/FONT>When did Jagger jump the shark?<\/FONT><\/A> (Feb. 6, <\/FONT><\/SPAN><\/DIV>
\n
2005).  Mick’s sin?  He let the Super Bowl tv executives lower the <\/FONT><\/SPAN><\/DIV>
\n
volume twice to cover up a couple raunchier lyrics.  As I commented <\/FONT><\/SPAN><\/DIV>
\n
at Steve’s place: “It is not the least bit ‘corporate’ to take your audience <\/FONT><\/SPAN><\/DIV>
\n
into account when singing lyrics. It shows a maturity (and self-confidence) <\/FONT><\/SPAN><\/DIV>
\n
that most 20-somethings do not have, but I would hope that those over 40 <\/FONT><\/SPAN><\/DIV>
\n
do.”<\/FONT><\/SPAN><\/DIV>
\n

\n
On the other hand, Prof. B is correct that I should not <\/FONT><\/SPAN><\/DIV>
\n
have suggested he would have called for censorship, if <\/FONT><\/SPAN><\/DIV>
\n
those very same lyrics had in fact been audible. Although <\/FONT><\/SPAN><\/DIV>
\n
I have no doubt that his “political, philosophical, and religious <\/FONT><\/SPAN><\/DIV>
\n
allies would be com<\/SPAN>plaining mightily today, if Mick had in fact <\/SPAN><\/FONT><\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
sang the more sexually-explicit lyrics in an audible manner.”<\/FONT><\/SPAN><\/DIV>
\n
and Steve often does<\/EM> complain about the low morals of the <\/FONT><\/SPAN><\/DIV>
\n
enter<\/SPAN>tainment industry, he has been consistently against <\/SPAN><\/FONT><\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
government<\/EM> censorship.<\/FONT><\/FONT><\/SPAN><\/DIV>
\n
<\/FONT><\/SPAN> <\/DIV>
\n
More important, Steve is also right that I should not have <\/FONT><\/SPAN><\/DIV>
\n
used the terms “blowhard” or <\/SPAN>“blowhole” to describe his <\/SPAN><\/FONT><\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
venting.  My sincere apologies, Prof. B, if you were insulted. <\/FONT><\/SPAN><\/DIV>
\n
<\/FONT><\/SPAN> <\/DIV>
\n
update<\/FONT><\/STRONG><\/EM> (11 PM):  Today, on behalf of the band, spokeswoman Fran <\/FONT><\/SPAN><\/DIV>
\n
Curtis complained <\/FONT><\/A><\/FONT><\/SPAN>about the NFL’s censorship<\/FONT><\/A> of their lyrics — with <\/FONT><\/SPAN><\/DIV>
\n
the lame statement, according to CNN, that “the band may have known <\/FONT><\/FONT><\/FONT><\/SPAN><\/DIV>
\n
about it, but that <\/FONT><\/FONT><\/FONT><\/SPAN>doesn’t mean they liked it . . . Jagger sang the full lyrics <\/FONT><\/FONT><\/FONT><\/SPAN><\/DIV>
\n
during his performance.” (CNN.com, “Stones: NFL censorship ‘ridicu-<\/A><\/FONT><\/FONT><\/FONT><\/SPAN><\/DIV>
\n
lous<\/A>‘,” Feb. 7, 2006)  Nothing like living according to your principles, <\/FONT><\/FONT><\/FONT><\/SPAN><\/DIV>
\n
Mick. <\/FONT><\/SPAN><\/DIV><\/BLOCKQUOTE>
\n
\"tiny Finally, let’s welcome the new group weblog <\/FONT>Antitrust Review<\/FONT><\/EM><\/A> <\/FONT><\/SPAN><\/DIV>
\n
to the law-oriented sector of the internet.  It promises news and <\/FONT><\/SPAN><\/DIV>
\n
commentary on recent developments in antitrust, along with dis-<\/FONT><\/SPAN><\/DIV>
\n
cussions of classic cases and economic theory.    David Fisher, <\/FONT><\/SPAN><\/DIV>
\n
Hanno Kaiser, Manfred Gabriel and Dan Crane are the co-conspirators.<\/FONT><\/SPAN><\/DIV>
\n
<\/FONT><\/SPAN> <\/DIV>
\n

\n
smitten lawyer –<\/FONT><\/SPAN><\/FONT><\/SPAN><\/DIV>
\n
can Her Honor<\/FONT><\/SPAN><\/DIV>
\n
read his mind? <\/FONT><\/SPAN><\/DIV>
\n
<\/FONT><\/SPAN> <\/DIV>
\n
<\/FONT><\/SPAN> <\/DIV>
\n
<\/FONT><\/SPAN> <\/DIV>
\n
<\/FONT><\/SPAN> <\/DIV>
\n

\n

\n
underpaid judges –<\/FONT><\/SPAN><\/DIV>
\n
Prof. B <\/FONT><\/SPAN><\/DIV>
\n
suggests a tip jar<\/FONT><\/A><\/FONT><\/SPAN><\/DIV>
\n
<\/FONT><\/SPAN> <\/DIV><\/BLOCKQUOTE><\/BLOCKQUOTE><\/BLOCKQUOTE><\/BLOCKQUOTE>
\n
  ___ dagosan’s arcdagosan<\/FONT>ve<\/FONT><\/FONT><\/STRONG><\/A><\/SPAN><\/DIV>
\n
<\/SPAN> <\/DIV>
\n
<\/SPAN> <\/DIV>
\n
<\/SPAN> <\/DIV>
\n

\n
“tinyredcheck”  Let’s end with some class — two poems selected <\/SPAN><\/DIV>
\n
for inside the mirror<\/FONT><\/EM><\/A>: <\/FONT>Red Moon Anthology<\/EM><\/FONT><\/A> 2005<\/EM>, from<\/FONT><\/FONT> <\/SPAN><\/DIV>
\n
Andrew Riutta:<\/SPAN><\/DIV>
\n
<\/SPAN> <\/DIV>
\n

\n

\n

\n
quiet hillside<\/FONT> <\/FONT><\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
children climb one another <\/FONT><\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
into the trees   <\/FONT><\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
<\/FONT> <\/DIV>
\n
<\/FONT> <\/DIV>
\n
<\/FONT> <\/DIV>
\n
<\/FONT><\/FONT> <\/DIV>
\n

\n
<\/FONT> <\/DIV>
\n
 <\/DIV>
\n
 <\/DIV>
\n

\n

\n

\n

\n

\n

apple wine<\/FONT><\/P><\/DIV>
\n


\n

his story better<\/FONT><\/P><\/DIV>
\n

the second time<\/FONT><\/P><\/BLOCKQUOTE><\/BLOCKQUOTE><\/BLOCKQUOTE>
\n

 <\/P>
\n

<\/FONT>
\n

<\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n

<\/P><\/DIV><\/FONT><\/FONT>
\n

Andrew Riutta<\/FONT><\/A> inside the mirror<\/FONT><\/EM><\/A>: <\/FONT>Red Moon Anthology<\/EM><\/FONT><\/A> 2005<\/EM><\/FONT><\/FONT><\/FONT><\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
“apple wine” – <\/FONT>Roadrunner Haiku Journal<\/FONT><\/EM><\/A> V: 4 (Nov. 2005)<\/FONT>  <\/DIV>
\n
“quiet hillside” – The Heron’s Nest<\/EM> (<\/FONT>Sept. 2005<\/FONT><\/A>)<\/FONT> <\/FONT> <\/FONT><\/FONT><\/DIV><\/DIV><\/SPAN><\/DIV><\/BLOCKQUOTE><\/BLOCKQUOTE>
\n
<\/FONT><\/SPAN> <\/DIV>
\n
<\/FONT><\/SPAN> <\/DIV>
\n
                                                                                                                  \"bombFuseN\"<\/FONT><\/SPAN><\/DIV>
\n
<\/SPAN> <\/DIV><\/FONT><\/SPAN><\/BLOCKQUOTE><\/FONT><\/SPAN><\/SPAN><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Did you notice that on the very same day (1) The New York Law Journal announced that NYC BigLaw firm Sullivan & Cromwell Boosts Associates’ Pay to $145,000 for first-year associates (plus expected year-end bonuses of $20 to $40K) (by Anthony Lin, Feb. 6, 2006, via Common Scold)                                                                                (2) Judith Kaye, Chief Judge […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":94,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_jetpack_newsletter_access":"","_jetpack_dont_email_post_to_subs":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_tier_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paywalled_content":false,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":"","jetpack_publicize_message":"","jetpack_publicize_feature_enabled":true,"jetpack_social_post_already_shared":false,"jetpack_social_options":{"image_generator_settings":{"template":"highway","default_image_id":0,"font":"","enabled":false},"version":2},"jetpack_post_was_ever_published":false},"categories":[2926],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-4365","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-pre-06-2006"],"jetpack_publicize_connections":[],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_shortlink":"https:\/\/wp.me\/p6kP1R-18p","_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/archive.blogs.harvard.edu\/ethicalesq\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4365","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/archive.blogs.harvard.edu\/ethicalesq\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/archive.blogs.harvard.edu\/ethicalesq\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/archive.blogs.harvard.edu\/ethicalesq\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/94"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/archive.blogs.harvard.edu\/ethicalesq\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=4365"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/archive.blogs.harvard.edu\/ethicalesq\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4365\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":12790,"href":"https:\/\/archive.blogs.harvard.edu\/ethicalesq\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4365\/revisions\/12790"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/archive.blogs.harvard.edu\/ethicalesq\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=4365"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/archive.blogs.harvard.edu\/ethicalesq\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=4365"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/archive.blogs.harvard.edu\/ethicalesq\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=4365"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}