Category: Law and Humanities

9

What’s in a Language?

spanish.jpgOver at the Glom, I posted on the possible acquisition of Univision Communications, which owns Univision, the Spanish-language channel. This topic got me thinking about the relative utility of learning various foreign languages. Being from Houston, I would have to say that the single most important language in the U.S. is Spanish. (For example, in the market for childcare, non-Spanish speaking buyers are at a definite disadvantage. I’m not saying this to be silly or rude. I’m saying it because it’s true.) I never understood why Texas public schools do not require the teaching of Spanish from first grade forward. I know, people in the U.S. tend to think that English is the only necessary language, unlike natives of other countries who learn multiple languages. However, even when Americans believe in learning languages, we tend not to be very practical.

Our public elementary school in Whitefish Bay teaches a foreign language beginning in first grade. I think this is wonderful. However, the language is French. I know, I know, a lot of people have learned French in school. But, other than maybe conversing with someone on your one trip to Paris and learning to speak in “this outrageous accent” a la Monty Python, what good is it doing you now? If we were staying here, we would be making a very big push to change this to Spanish or something else useful. We are now looking at two elementary schools in Champaign. They both teach Spanish and Chinese. These choices seem very smart to me. I took Latin in school, and even though I’ve never been able to use it in conversation, I think it was helpful as a building block language. The whole SAT thing and all. But I can’t vote for French. Hebrew, Sanskrit, any of these are fine. But not French.

So, what language do Co-op readers think should be taught in elementary schools (if any)?

12

Green Bag Honors Good Legal Writing from Past Year

The Green Bag has published its first ever “Almanac of Useful and Entertaining Tidbits for Lawyers & Reader of Good Legal Writing from the Past Year: Selected by the Legal Luminaries and Sages on our Board of Advisors.” (whew!–it’s a lawyerly mouthful; too bad the editors couldn’t practice what they’re preaching).

The top vote-getters in each category:

1. OPINIONS AND ORDERS

Honorable Paul H. Cassell, U.S. v. Angelos, 345 F. Supp.2d 1227 (D. Utah 2004)

Honorable Alex Kozinski, In re Complaint of Judicial Misconduct, 425 F.3d 1179 (9th Cir. 2005) (dissenting)

Honorable Mark P. Painter, Kohlbrand v. Ranieri, 823 N.E.2d 76 (Ohio Ct. App. 2005)

Honorable James M. Rosenbaum,Rohwer v. Federal Cartridge Co. 2004 U.S. Dist. Lexis 23744 (D. Minn.)

Honorable Antonin Scalia, Roper v. Simmons, 543 U.S. 551 (2005) (dissenting)

Honorable Diane P. Wood, Gore v. Ind. Univ., 416 F.3d 590 (7th Cir. 2005)

2. BOOKS

David Currie, The Constitution in Congress: Democrats and Whigs, 1829-1861 (Chicago Univ. Press 2005)

Linda Greenhouse, Becoming Justice Blackmun: Harry Blackmun’s Supreme Court Journey (Henry Holt 2005)

Sadakat Kadri, The Trial: A History, From Socrates to O.J. Simpson (Random House 2005)

Read More

5

Why Blawging is Bad For Law

Hello Folks.

I’ve joined Co-Op today from Prawfsblawg. This is by my count the fifth time I’ve introduced myself at a new blog-home. That makes me a bit of an itinerant blogger. It is also pretty ironic, because I generally think that the institution of blogging/blawging threatens to fundamentally disrupt some very valuable aspects of how law is currently organized, administered and transmitted.

To take an example I posted on recently on Prawfs, consider what happens to the common law when the primary sources which form its skeleton — judicial opinions – become the fodder for the entertainment of an audience of millions of eager web-surfers. Yes, I’m talking about you, Howard. It isn’t that How Appealing, and like blawgs, are bad. Indeed, I visit Howard’s blawg every day, and it is an invaluable resource. It is that Howard’s popularity, and the increasing linking of opinions by the MSM-online, provides incentives for judges to write witty, funny, entertaining, short, glib opinions, instead of careful, boring, technically precise ones. That is, to the extent that lower-court judges want to be noticed and profiled by (kind of silly) websites like these, it makes sense to be more like Scalia and Douglas than Souter and Rutledge.

Some might protest: surely federal judges don’t care much about having their opinions widely publicized? They have life tenure, and they care only about not being reversed. But the motivations of federal judges seem to me to be an open question, and I think that if I could somehow chart the growth of funny and media friendly opinions, we’d see a small bump beginning with the introduction of WL and a huge increase in the last five years.

So, why is this bad?

To find out, you’ll have to visit here again, as I will be retuning to this topic soon.

4

Why Orwell’s 1984 Is So Bleak

orwell3a.jpgAccording to this article, the drab and dismal world portrayed in George Orwell’s 1984 was in part influenced by his bouts with illness:

The new study, by John Ross of Caritas St. Elizabeth’s Medical Center in Boston, recounts Orwell’s sickly life. . . .

Orwell was born in India in 1903 as Eric Blair. He suffered multiple bouts of bronchitis and other respiratory ailments, Ross writes. As a young man, Orwell had several episodes of bacterial pneumonia, and also contracted dengue fever while in Burma. He was a heavy smoker, and he suffered fits of coughing from a condition called bronchiectasis. . . .

[D]epressed by his wife’s death, Orwell moved to a windy and damp Scottish island. His health worsened significantly just as he was working on the first draft of “1984,” Ross reports. Fever, weight loss, and night sweats sent him to the hospital, where he underwent “collapse therapy,” a treatment designed to close the dangerous cavities that form in the chests of tuberculosis patients. . . .

“Orwell himself told his friends that 1984 would have been less gloomy had he not been so ill—it was a very dark, disturbing, and pessimistic work,” Ross said. Orwell’s illnesses “made him a better and more empathetic writer, in that his sense of human suffering made his writing more universal.”

I wonder what a less gloomy 1984 would have read like — Brave New World perhaps?