pageok
pageok
pageok
The Convention's Over:

Now back to our regularly scheduled programming.

J. Aldridge:
Until Palin once again sinks her claws into Obama's side and draws blood....
9.5.2008 10:14am
rbj:
So can we look forward to more oranges vs. apples posts?
Are vegetables going to be mentioned as well?

Can't wait for the inevitable comment about how racist and divisive labeling some things as "fruits" and others as "vegetables"

Let's not lose our sense of humor over the next couple of months.
9.5.2008 10:23am
theobromophile (www):
...and in less than two months, Election 2008, which has been going on for two freakin years, will be over. What will "regularly scheduled programming" even look like?!
9.5.2008 10:23am
rarango (mail):
Regretably the campaign now starts in earnest--I fear the regularly scheduled programing will continue to suffer for at least two more months.
9.5.2008 10:28am
DiverDan (mail):
Don't worry, theobromophile, we'll never have to see "regularly scheduled programming" again. The media will spend 6 months doing the post-game analysis after the 2008 Election, then right on time, the battles for Congress and the Senate and the overwhelming (or underwhelming, if you are actually looking for substance and policy, as opposed to symbolism and personality) media analysis will begin in June 2009 in preparation for the 2010 Midterm Election. From here on out, to the end of all our lives, it will be nothing but politics, all the time.
9.5.2008 10:33am
ChrisIowa (mail):

...and in less than two months, Election 2008, which has been going on for two freakin years, will be over. What will "regularly scheduled programming" even look like?!


not two, four years. The Election 2012 cycle will start in December 2008, if it hasn't started already. This is the regularly scheduled programming.
9.5.2008 10:49am
JK:
Well if Obama is elected we can expect at least a few debates on substantive policy such has heath care, leaving Iraq, national service, etc. McCain will pobably have something he'll want to get done also, atlhough I can't think of any major reforms he's proposed off the top of my head.
9.5.2008 10:56am
Curt Fischer:

From here on out, to the end of all our lives, it will be nothing but politics, all the time.


This seems like a good time to introduce the idea for "continuous demoncracy". What with the internets and all, I'm curious to see how a "continuous election" would work.

That is, each citizen gets one vote that they can change at any time, presumably by logging onto some government web site. The rules would be that to gain office, a candidate needs some fairly high majority, say 55% or 60%, and to get kicked out, votes in his favor would need to decline to a lower value, say 40% or so.
9.5.2008 10:57am
Hoosier:
'Regularly Scheduled Programing' would be debates about the religious and sexual significance of fruit.

(Just a reminder for those who have forgotten.)
9.5.2008 10:58am
PhanTom:
Dear God, Curt, I can't even imagine a more paralyzing system of government. It would be like Italian politics, but worse!

--PtM
9.5.2008 11:00am
Happyshooter:
Perhaps a discussion of Mayor Kilpatrick's legal ability to run for congress while still under felony parole is in order?
9.5.2008 11:00am
Hoosier:
Curt Fischer

The name sounds familiar. Isn't that the name of the guy who devised the system of no-confidence votes for Weimar?
9.5.2008 11:12am
Glenn W. Bowen (mail):
how 'bout them Giants, m'effers?
9.5.2008 11:22am
great unknown (mail):
Off topic, but maybe not. Heart sent a cease and desist letter to the RNC prohibiting the use of their song "Barracuda." Given the IP rights and FA experts on this site, would someone please comment on the legal ramifications, given RIAA royalty rules, etc?
9.5.2008 11:22am
Sarcastro (www):
I request a discussion of Dick Cheney's character. What's that guy's deal, anyhow?
9.5.2008 11:23am
Suzy (mail):
I'd welcome it. I thought this was basically a legal blog with libertarian leanings, but a diverse bunch of viewpoints. Lately it has been completely partisan GOP, in such an unfair way that it discredits the usual high level of discourse. If I were on the other side, I doubt I'd want to even bother reading. Even being in the middle I find that the partisanship has become overwhelming.
9.5.2008 11:36am
great unknown (mail):
Funny, I always thought of it as a libertarian blog from a legal persperctive. Would the principals please advise?
9.5.2008 11:39am
The Unbeliever:
Regular programming??? I thought this was a libertarian blog!
9.5.2008 12:01pm
Hoosier:
great unknown

No. It's mostly about fruit.
9.5.2008 12:01pm
J. Aldridge:
Sarcastro said: "I request a discussion of Dick Cheney's character. What's that guy's deal, anyhow?"

Dunno, think it is irrelevant since he is on the way out.

Instead, lets discuss Obama's insistence he is a "Professor of Law" - he did draw attention again to being a professor of law yesterday after Palin hurt his feelings.
9.5.2008 12:03pm
Houston Lawyer:
I anticipated the letter from Heart as soon as I heard the song last night. I'd also like to know the ramifications of the McCain campaign continuing to play the song at rallies notwithstanding the cease and desist letter. Would a fine apply? How much would it be? Would it apply for each airing? Enquiring minds want to know.
9.5.2008 12:04pm
martinned (mail) (www):
I'd like to second (or third) Suzy's comment: Can we please go back to talking about the law?

It's not just that, from my European perspective, it's an election between a right wing bible thumper and McCain, i.e. right wing and very right wing. Obviously a US based blog is going to see that differently. But I read this blog to read about the law, or, better still, about metajuridica (law &economics, legal history, etc.) So I hope that "regularly scheduled programming" = all that and then some.
9.5.2008 12:10pm
barney the liberal purple dinosaur:
what will Lindgren do now?
9.5.2008 12:14pm
great unknown (mail):
Hoosier:
Would that be the forbidden fruit of the creationist story?
9.5.2008 12:16pm
great unknown (mail):
martinned:
Do Europeans have any concept of libertarianism in their philosophical Weltanshauung? Obviously, this question calls for generalization; I'm asking for a digest of your personal experience.
9.5.2008 12:22pm
Curt Fischer:
On the idea of continuous democracy, PhanTom said:

Dear God, Curt, I can't even imagine a more paralyzing system of government.


Why do you think it'd be so paralyzing? And, even if it was, so what? Couldn't that be a good thing?
9.5.2008 12:31pm
Hoosier:
great unknown

Go to the homepage and scroll down to the One Act Play. All is revealed therein.
9.5.2008 12:34pm
martinned (mail) (www):
@great unknown: I do, but then I read blogs like this one. (For the record: what creeps me out about US politics is not that they're too libertarian, on the contrary.)

In Europe, generally, there are liberal parties in most countries. (Here is a list of the national parties that make up ALDE, the liberal group in the European Parliament. And remember, liberal = working for liberty. AFAIK, the word libertarian was invented in the US when liberal was given another meaning.)

However, while they are more libertarian than the rest of the political spectrum, and are indeed the alternative to the two other major groups of Christian-Democrats/Conservatives and Socialists, they could hardly be described as libertarian in any real sense. The variation goes from the LibDems in the UK, who are, to put it nicely, somewhere half way between the Tories and Labour, to the FDP in Germany, who are about as close as you're going to get, on a good day. (I would like to offer nice words for the VLD in Belgium as well, but their problem is that they were created as a merger between many different parties not too long ago, and that shows.)

At the moment, in most countries the discourse is very much conservative vs. progressive, focusing on issues that don't fit very well in a libertarian Weltanschauung, such as immigration and questions of national identity. On such questions, liberal parties tend to side with the conservatives, i.e. anti-immigration and arguing in favour of a strong concept of national identity, which immigrants would be expected to adopt to some extent. (I know, don't even get me started.)
9.5.2008 12:37pm
great unknown (mail):
Thank you, martinned.
9.5.2008 12:50pm
Steve P. (mail):
I know that Prof. Bernstein can go back to the constant injustices heaped on Israel, but I have to second "barney" — what is Prof. Lindgren supposed to post on now?
9.5.2008 1:35pm
lucia (mail) (www):
The possible copyright issues related to the song "Barracuda" are being bandied about various blogs. Here's a comment from hot air which suggests the copyright issue is not crystal clear. (The GOP has paid the licensing fee. It's not clear if artists can revoke permission on a case by case basis.)

We'll see what happens if the artists sue.

I'd guess McCain will stop using the song rather than fight a suit. Fighting suits is distracting during a campaign. The illwill isn't worth it either.

Maybe they can find a pitbull with lipstick song?
9.5.2008 2:20pm
tarheel:
For what it's worth, none of Prof. Adler's so-Conspirators appear to agree with him. Unfortunately.
9.5.2008 2:51pm
great unknown (mail):
Actually, since the candidates themselves would not be partners in the suit, it would not be distracting. On the other hand, the publicity for the GOP might be very useful: witness how the pre-speech attacks on Palin contributed to her success.
9.5.2008 2:59pm
Hoosier:
I would like to see them adopt Liz Phair's "Supernova" as the campaign theme song. Leaving out the line "And you f*** like a volcano". (Or maybe leaving it in. I don't do this kind of thing for a living.)
9.5.2008 3:33pm
theobromophile (www):
I'm far from a copyright expert, but a few thoughts:

The United States, unlike Europe, does not recognise a moral component of copyright. Europeans are able to control not just the dissemination of their works, but the alteration and uses to which they are put. The U.S. is much more free-wheeling: generally, if you pay the licensing fee (or fall under the broader fair use exceptions), you may use the music.

As mentioned in the Hot Air thread, if the artists sold some of their copyright rights to a third party, who sells the licenses, then there is almost no way that Heart can stop the RNC from using this.
9.5.2008 3:51pm
great unknown (mail):
I wonder if they would try some kind of libel or defamation approach: associating us with those GOP neanderthals ruins our reputation.
9.5.2008 4:01pm
Hoosier:
great unknown :
I wonder if they would try some kind of libel or defamation approach: associating us with those GOP neanderthals ruins our reputation.


Nancy?!!

Why does every have to pick on the Neanderthals? What was so bad about being a Neanderthal?

Talk about racism!
9.5.2008 4:11pm