David Hoffman at Concurring Opinions ponders why so many law professors (particularly those of us who blog) assume that they (we?) have the ability to offer interesting and worthwhile political commentary. Among other things, he thinks law professor bloggers have drawn "the wrong lesson from their students' willingness to write down every word they say." He adds:
Not everything a professor says is interesting. When 40, 60, 100, or more students laugh at your jokes, I guess it becomes easy to forget. Generally, people add value by writing and talking about things they know something about. . . . Most law professors have no personal experience with the innards of a modern political campaign (serving as an consultant on a committee about a substantive legal issue isn't the same at all). We aren't well positioned to know what commercial will appeal to lower-middle-class voters, or what song will inspire youth turnout. But we've blogged about it anyway.
But of course, it's your blog, not mine.
"There's very little I say in class that's important." -- Prof. Achtenberg.
Yet here we are.
Post away, guys... the whiners in your comment sections just show you're still relevant enough to draw drive-bys from Kos during election season.
Of course law and politics often overlap, but over the past few months VC has veered into analysis of purely electoral politics and even worse, the soundbite-of-the-day. There are plenty of people running around the Internet doing that. There's a lot less people out there doing what VC is really good at- picking apart legal questions and opining on things like Constitutional law.
Well to be fair, there are all kinds of people in numerous professions who have a similar lack of insight, and yet they blog anyway. I suppose what Hoffman is really saying is the credibility or purpose of your blog is premised on your status as a law professor, you should probably stick to things you know something about (like the law) and not damage that credibility by weighing in on matters like whether Obama is wearing an ear piece during a debate or the extent to which Obama is personally responsible for the actions of Bill Ayers. Really though, I don't see why law professors shouldn't be allowed to make fools out of themselves to any lesser extent than the rest of us do by putting our opinions in such a public format.
If you repeat this lie one more time it will perpetuate, and you'll be made a Glorious Hero of the Soviet Union. We're all pulling for you.
*cough cough* Carpenter *cough cough* Adler
did you pick up the line about Africa at Kos? or do you think it may be fake but sounds accurate?
It was reported on Fox, and I don't read Kos... of course it may be fake, but what makes me think it's true is that a lot of the other things they reported her not knowing about were rather unremarkable. For instance, she was completely unaware, they say, of the concept of American exceptionalism. Now, you wouldn't make that up, because it's not that shocking. So it makes me think there's a greater chance that the rest of it is true.
Heh!
I can imagine the socialist-realist propaganda posted as we speak.
Asher
"of course it may be fake, but what makes me think it's true is that a lot of the other things they reported her not knowing about "
"she was completely unaware, they say, "
"Now, you wouldn't make that up, because it's not that shocking. "
So . . .
You tend to believe a rumor about Palin's ignorance, based on the experience of . . . hearing other rumors about Palin's ignorance. And you tend to believe THOSE rumors because of reports that she didn't know something that you would not expect her to know.
OK. Good.
"For instance, she was completely unaware, they say, of the concept of American exceptionalism. Now, you wouldn't make that up, because it's not that shocking."
It would be for the target audience of the leak*. It was an attempt to make sure she stays dead. My guess is that she is regardless, but it is clear that certain people perceived it to be in their, or the country's, interest that there be no doubt.
* - This guy, too, knows how important it is:
"And to all those who have wondered if America's beacon still burns as bright --tonight we proved once more that the true strength of our nation comes not from our the might of our arms or the scale of our wealth, but from the enduring power of our ideals: democracy, liberty, opportunity, and unyielding hope."
Close enough for libertarian work.
Mitt picked up the sleaziest GOP operatives (think McCain and the "black baby" calls from 2000). There's a reason that most of the rest of the GOP primary field couldn't stand him.
Nick
Sarah Palin does not know that Africa is a continent. She thinks that it is a country.
Where's my Glorious Hero medal?
"You saw the Couric interview, right? If she's actually this reasonably well-informed person, why couldn't she name Boumediene or Kennedy v. Louisiana or Kelo when she was asked what decisions other than Roe she disagreed with?"
Because she was unfamiliar with the political implications of those decisions (remember, there were several levels to keep in mind: her own position, McCain's position, the position of target voters, et. al.) and she was trying too hard to avoid gaffes. She misjudged the extent to which "no comment" itself would give her opponents' fodder to feed the prejudice against her.
Her job (as the campaign perceived it, and so she carried it out) was to attack Obama and she actually carried that off with some aplomb. Obama was just too good to make himself vulnerable to her attacks.
If she wanted a future in national politics, however, she needed to more competently articulate a positive vision or better exhibit her mastery of topics she knew well. This she failed to do.
Because she was unfamiliar with the political implications of those decisions (remember, there were several levels to keep in mind: her own position, McCain's position, the position of target voters, et. al.) and she was trying too hard to avoid gaffes. She misjudged the extent to which "no comment" itself would give her opponents' fodder to feed the prejudice against her.
Now that's a ridiculous excuse. You honestly believe she had Kennedy v. Louisiana in mind, but decided not to mention it because of the position of target voters, or McCain's position? Gee, what might these positions be? Even Obama denounced the decision. I wonder how target voters feel about it. I wonder how target voters feel about governments snatching up their property for use in a redevelopment plan. What could their position be? What could McCain's position be? What's the chance that he actually defended the Court on that one? One in a million?