!!! Please don’t fear that yesterday’s posts agreeing with Prof. Bainbridge will
unduly upset the balance of nature. This morning, I quickly found something
disagreeable at his website — a bit of self-promotion bragging that L.A. Times
columnist Tim Rutten called Steve’s analysis of Catholic teachings relevant to
judges “precise” and “convincing”. I couldn’t resist leaving a Comment reminding
Prof. B, with some quick examples from our prior post, that his analysis actually
was incomplete and muddied waters that had been quite clear.
Stay tuned! An email from Steve suggests that
he is quite upset that I would imply he’s left things
purposefully muddy concerning Church teachings.
update (Midnite): Prof. B. and I continue the discussion
in earnest in the comments to his Self-Promotion post.
Wish I could be there: There will be an AEI panel discussion on Sept. 7th
in D.C. on the meaning of the $253 Million Vioxx Verdict. Prospective (and
contingent) Vioxx billionaire plaintiff’s lawyer Evan Schaeffer will be on
the panel, along with Overlawyered’s Ted Frank. Evan will speak on the
effects of Ernst v. Merck on the jury system.
on highways are likely to have the net effect of “dirtier air and more gasoline
consumption.” (“The Road to Hell Is Clogged With Righteous Hybrids,” Aug. 30,
2005) High-ocupancy toll (HOT) lanes make much more sense. See this CATO
Which reminds me: besides Hawaii’s risky attempt
to control petroleum prices (perhaps meant to be an
object lesson in economics and civics for its populace),
there seems to be a lot more talk of consumers holding
gas boycotts. Please see our prior post on silly one-day
by dagosan
sticky sunrise —
waking to an empty
ice cream carton
[Aug. 30, 2005]
August 30, 2005
upsetting the ballast of nature
Comments Off on upsetting the ballast of nature
No Comments
No comments yet.
RSS feed for comments on this post.
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.