Colbert and the difference between smugness and comedy.

I love the Colbert Report! I can't say why. I am however absolutely certain that I "get the joke" in a way that its non-self-reflective, partisan fans do not.

Colbert is "playing a character," a supposedly non-partisan, independent-minded, hard-hitting pundit gasbag who without a trace of self-consciousness spouts the most inane GOP talking points as if they were nuggets of hard-won personal wisdom achieved through genuine intellectual struggle. He pompously delivers preposterous, shallow, ill-informed judgements about popular culture, and pretends that he has made some sort of deep and penetrating analysis when all he has done is pose inane questions and made himself look foolish. The "Colbert character" is smugly dismissive of anyone who disagrees, especially when they present "facts," which he holds in round contempt when the argument does not go his way. He is mean-spirited, arrogant, preening, and not half as bright as he thinks, and apparently totally unaware of how thoroughly shot through with hidebound ideology his allegedly "no-spin" persona really is.

What a hoot! The obvious target of "Steve" Colbert's satire?

Liberals.

Why can't they see themselves in the mirror?

(Note: I can call him "Steve" because I am so deeply in tune with the true meaning of the show, unlike his silly, deluded studio audiences.)

UPDATE: Once more we see how the ideologues of the Left and Right are saying the same things! They are so partisan and vicious. This comes from Kos:

i'm pissed. ...everyone of those dems who voted for cloture should be brought down

And then this from the Free Republic, about the American journalist Jill Carroll currently held hostage in Iraq:

My daughter would have more brains than this women shows....isn't it funny how a pro terrorist journalist can get herself into this trouble..with the very animals she has supported - then we are supposed to feel sorry for her because "what if it was my daughter" well it's not...why should I have any sympathy for a person who gives aid and comfort to the very people who have sworn to kill everyone or enslave I love

Only the most demented partisan could fail to see the exact moral equivalence here.

That is why I am a non-partisan. It could not be more clear that I am on the side of the angels.

Jonah likes to wear skirts.

This is exciting! Jonah Goldberg is coming to the Midwest for an interesting and thoroughly nonpartisan speaking tour. What fun. I hope he wears his skirt.



Note: I am still mad at the assistant vice principal in Junior High School who did not want me to wear short skirts. That was so partisan! I kept wearing them as a matter of principle. But it is certainly fair and indeed a moral obligation to make fun of this young man. The cases are completely different. I do not like Metallica, even though they may indeed be nonpartisan.

UPDATE: John Kerry should wear a skirt! He is very silly for being in Switzerland while calling for a filibuster. If he were serious about the filibuster, he would not have had this trip on his agenda months ago but would have scheduled it with more honest self-reflection.

John Kerry wants the Supreme Court to be "political." That is absurd! If the membership of the Supreme Court were supposed to be "political," then the objectivity of the judges and their totally impartial qualifications would not be so crucial when the president selects them. And, obviously, these nonpartisan qualities are what primarily recommends them. The Supreme Court is no place for politics! Only an utterly objective adherence to the law matters.

UPDATE: If the Democrats want to pick the members of the Supreme Court, they should win in the political arena. Only a political victory enables you to choose who will be on the highest court in the land. Bush won politically, and his politics can guide his choice of Justices, and it is silly to object. The partisan Democrats do not understand politics. And nonpartisanship.

UPDATE: Does anyone have an Advil?

Pajamas media is run by waffles.

Many people have asked why I did not join Pajamas Media. The reason is clear. They are extremely partisan.

And they didn't ask. Because of their partisanship.

UPDATE: Why do waffle irons make squares? Could someone design a waffle iron that would make waffles with a triangle pattern? Why do partisans stymie new technology?

The great because non-partisan white North?

Like most other Americans I do not know very much at all about Canada, except that I do not like it. Canada is such a partisan country! They are always sneering at us by being "different" and not "the same" and acting "independent." However, now that they have elected a powerful Conservative government, they have taken a giant step towards being non-partisan. They will not be so arrogant and superior! Those are attitudes I myself cannot stand. I am glad that Canada has finally undergone a process of sincere self-reflection.

UPDATE: I never, ever read partisan blogs. They are too partisan. However, this goes too far. Is there no end to the hatred and the filth spewed by liberal partisans?

Is this supposed to be "ironic"? It is not ironic! It is anti-ironic.

Aside from the sexual crudity, the "Attaturk" woman uses a handle which is offensive to Turks. But it also invokes one of history's greatest monsters, the notorious Islamicist "Attaturk." When we are engaged in a fight to the death against unhinged religious fanatics, to take the name of one famous Muslim anti-secularist is appalling. And this "Watertiger" man... I am a long-time animal rights activist and feminist, and I see this reference to deliberately drowning kittens as a purposeful slur against women of my generation.

If anyone would like to know why I will never vote for a Democrat, this is exactly why.

UPDATE: Some commenters have asked exactly what I am so upset about. It is this description of me:

law professor and conservative -- Attaturk

I have explained numerous times that I am not a conservative. I am a NON-PARTISAN. I am sorry for shouting, but some people "do not get it." Long-time readers will know that I am above partisan politics, blissfully so. That is why unlike the two uneducated, ignorant, vicious, cowardly savages who run this "After Dark" site, I am never reduced to crude insults, but always maintain a tone of serene serenity.

Law review articles: make them bloggier.

Law review articles are notoriously bad. They are self-indulgent and pompous. Authors usually go on and on about their private obsessions, and do not ever seem to acknowledge other points of view. They can be so silly!

The problem is not caused by the student editors. No, it is caused by pretentious lawprofs who refuse to engage with pertinent legal issues and instead go on and on about trivialities. And they are so sneering and condescending to their critics! They absolutley will not do what they most need to do, and that is explain complex legal issues in clear, down-to-earth language.

Law review articles should be more like blogs. None of these defects appear in blog writing! Look at my site, for instance. Would that all lawprof law review writers could be as honestly self-reflective as this blog.

UPDATE: Here is a funny picture of the American Idol judges! Simon has tape over his mouth. That is good, because he is as mean as Ted Kennedy. I love this picture. What a hoot!


UPDATE: I wish some of the more obnoxious commenters would stop posting nonsense about how I will not discuss the FICA statute. I have explained several times that it is very complex. Only partisans are saying that anything might be wrong with the NSA spying program. The Justice Department has persuasively argued that the president could not follow FICA because if he did, the program would have been unconstitutional. That is common practice and very logical. The matter is closed.

I am more than willing to listen to criticism. All of it will, however, be deleted.

UPDATE: I am thinking of doing a 365-minute podcast on the color orange. Why orange? Because yellow is too partisan. That is clear.

America's Top Supreme Court model.

Sam Alito would look very nice in an outfit like Shandi's from "America's Top Model."

Also, Kelly Clarkson has changed her mind.

"Former "American Idol" winner Kelly Clarkson, subject to a scolding from judge Simon Cowell for not letting her songs be used by new contestants on the show, has agreed to do so, a spokesman said Wednesday.

Roger Widynowski, from Clarkson's Sony BMG record label, said Clarkson's management was negotiating with the show over which songs will be used.

Simon Cowell is mean and partisan, just like Ted Kennedy.

I think television sets should come in different scents. When "American Idol" comes on, I would like my television to smell like apples.

Ryan Seacrest should be on the Supreme Court.

American Idol is back! Am I blogging it? Of course! What else would I have to do? I am sure I can finish this semester's syllabi and grade last semester's exams by April at the very least. Starbuck's is open late!

I broke down in tears when a cowboy named Garet Johnson, who has never been on an airplane or had any singing lessons, explained how he sings Elton John songs to his turkeys "because there is no people to sing to." He lives in a town where people do not like to hear cowboy turkey love songs. They are so partisan! The most touching moment came when he explained how he once told one of his turkeys, "I don't know how to quit you!" To quit singing Elton John songs to the bird, of course. I wept.

American Idol this season is like the Alito hearings. Samuel Alito is like a cowboy, singing his nonpartisan songs of Elton John to the Democratic "turkeys." But his songs of law need to be sung on the airplane of the highest court in all the land! And no "Senator Simon Kennedy" should stop him. I am weeping as I type this.

Did I mention I was a lawprof? Here is a picture of the Alito Cowboy. He is singing "Crocodile Rock." But he is a turkey and not a crocodile! What a hoot.


UPDATE: As a lawprof, I have to say that I have no sympathy at all for so-called "parody blogs." They are partisan snares! This person is in serious legal hot water. As a lawprof, I think he is in big trouble. And rightly so. What a partisan!

Did you ever wonder if "tungsten" would be a good name for a flavor of ice cream?

Fighting the partisan disease.

There was some interesting discussion in the comments to this post. My point was the most interesting:

Irony is a partisan disease, like botulism, mononucleosis, or empiricism. It should be stamped out, with a very big stamper.

Liberals like to attack people under the cover of "irony." That is so absurd! It is also extremely sexist. David Ogden Altmouse Stiers agrees:

My mom is right. Irony sucks!

UPDATE: In the comments, David Ogden Altmouse Steirs adds, "Peanut butter and jelly!" That is largely correct. What a big boy!

Blogconlawprof.

Bloggers who are lawyers and are always blogging about the law are so pretentious. It seems they need to establish their credentials by showing off their "expertise" and "experience" and "research." That obsession strikes me as very lacking in self-knowledge. They must be very insecure. If they were really as accomplished legal thinkers as they pretend, they would talk about interesting things like staples, speed-listening, nostrils, and lint. They would also explain why movies they haven't seen are silly and fake. Another good idea would be for them to start constantly pointing out how their grown-up son thinks his lawprof mommy is the World's Smartest Lawprof and is ever so insightful and clever. Because that isn't creepy or weird at all.

Those pretentious lawbloggers should stop discussing the "law" and instead start endlessly referring to themselves as a "lawprof." They should say things like "lawprofs never listen to other lawprofs about the law" or "lawprofs like to eat baloney sandwiches."

Of course, not all of these lawbloggers are lawprofs. They should merely then find a syllable of their speciality which can be attached to the word "law." As in, "crimlaws think biopics are silly," or "corplaws wonder: do cats in Paris sneeze in French?," or "envirolaws are against their own partisanship." That would be the best thing to do.

My son thinks this is a great idea!

UPDATE: One movie I do like is the original documentary version of "The Manchurian Candidate." It always amazed me, though, how partisans attacked Angela Lansbury's character in that film. Her politics were no good, of course, but her maternal instincts were perfectly admirable. Only partisans would disagree.

"Who Cares What You Think?"

Did anyone watch the end of the Alito hearings? They were so dorky. The Democrats are such lame-o uncool-heads! What geeks! They lack seriousness and gravity.

Also there were a lot of "lawprofs" at the hearings. You might think a "lawprof" like me would therefore be interested in the proceeedings. But I already know what I think! Thus, I already know what I will think about what will be said that I won't hear. Obviously.

By far the most absurd performance was turned in by Laurence Tribe:

Tribe: I'm not here to oppose his nomination, as I did several months before that time with Robert Bork. And I'm not here to lecture the committee on its responsibilities or its role. I don't think that's my role.

[Criticisms of Alito omitted. They were so partisan! Specific criticisms of things are dorky.]

SPECTER: Professor Tribe, did you say you were not testifying against Judge Alito?

TRIBE: I am not recommending any action. I'm recommending that everyone -- because I think it's foolish. Nobody really cares what I think.

SPECTER: Aside from your recommendation, are you saying you're not testifying against Judge Alito?

TRIBE: I'm not testifying for or against Judge Alito. I'm explaining why I am very troubled by his views. Obviously, it follows from that that I would be hard pressed to recommend his confirmation.

That is so silly!

Can you imagine how ridiculous it is to go before a Senate committee and not give a straight answer to a simple question? Why can't Tribe say clearly what he wants to do about Alito, given what Alito has very clearly totally avoided saying about his nomination? What hypocrisy.

Also, Tribe is clearly taking on the persona of a "humble law professor character." I think that is outrageous. He is speaking as though he is a simple, nonpartisan law professor, but he obviously has an agenda. That is utterly disgusting. I think anyone who would pretend to not have a political agenda by hiding under the "nonpartisan law professor" disguise is simply nauseating.

But what is especially outrageous here is Tribe's utter lack of self-awareness about what he is doing. That is shocking. It must be truly horrible to go through life while laboring under such preposterous delusions.

UPDATE: The number seven partisans are at it again! All seventh comments are disgracefully partisan.

I'm actually finally going...

To see a movie. I like movies! More later.

UPDATE: I went to Starbucks instead and looked at blue books (I'm catching up on my 2004 grading). I also read a third of a law review article and thought about lint. Lint, lint, lint. Where does it all come from? What does it mean? Is it partisan?

The movie was terrible! It was all fake and pretend. I hate movies where pretentious actors make things up that are not real.

Democrats say they'd "hit it."

Or that is the message I get from this column by E. J. Dionne:

Democrats seem to be wary of mounting a filibuster. What they should insist upon, to use a euphemism Alito might appreciate, is an extended debate in which his evasions will be made perfectly clear to the public. If moderate senators want to vote for a justice highly likely to move the Supreme Court to the right, they can. But their electorates should know that's exactly what they're doing.

Define "what their electorates should know." Doesn't everybody know that Alito is a well-qualified judge who was nominated by the president? And they also know that he likes baseball.

Saying flat out that he will shift the Court in a hard right direction would be ridiculous. Just because he will severely weaken womens' rights to their own bodies is no reason to say so out loud. That would be crass.

Liberals may be driven by their or their own sense of right and wrong, but they make the grave error of saying so openly.

Conservatives are more mature. Even if they are driven by a genuine dislike of abortion, they realize it is morally correct to pretend that this goal does not exist. Stating such a goal openly would merely open the door to unfair partisan attacks that they are against women's rights simply because they want to take away a particular right now held by women.

And really, when you come right down to it the very worst reason to oppose a Supreme Court nominee is that he will make decisions you find morally reprehensible and harmful to real human beings. That is partisanship of the most shocking sort. It merely injects politics into what should be a totally non-political space, like the United States Senate.

UPDATE: Bowling balls have clearly developed an unhealthy obsession towards me. I will say no more about this.

Sexist bowling balls.

This is an extremely sexist bowling ball. I find such sexist sporting equipment a terrible insult to women of my generation.

UPDATE: Ouch! While I was deleting posts last night I accidentally deleted my big toe. That smarts!

Liveblogging the Alito hearings, in between naps.

I will be liveblogging the Alito hearings, but I also have to catch up on some episodes of America's Top Model I missed while I was travelling. Also I am tired and will nap. Be assured though I will be doing all of these things from the perspective of a constitutional law scholar.

This was a snappy comeback Alito gave to some partisan quesions from Senator Feinstein:

FEINSTEIN: And I'm just asking you would you have sustained the law...

ALITO: I don't think that I can give you a definitive answer to the question because that involves a case that's different from the case that came before me.

Talk to the hand, girlfriend! That will teach partisans to ask questions that touch on issues like a woman's right to her body! Women's bodies are very partisan.

Who do you think will win in America's Top Model? April? Jenascia? Heather? I think it will be Yonnana, because she is like Alito -- nonpartisan and possessing too much integrity to answer any questions that anyone actually cares about the answers to. She and Alito also have very nice hair.

UPDATE: I never read partisan blogs. I do not want to waste my time! But this blogger is shockingly partisan. She seems to assume that Alito will overturn Roe! But we do not know that. He will not say so, so how could we know? Every reasonable person agrees with that.

Of course we do not know how a Supreme Court Justice will rule on a particular issue, nor shouldwe. This is why it would be unwise to place a bet on how, say, Antonin Scalia would rule on an issue related to abortion.

This "Hecate" person seems to know a lot about "goth" but very little about the law, or Top Models.

The Alito hearings: "It is as the voice of Angels"

I saw Alito's opening remarks at his confirmation hearing. They were brilliant and insightful.

It was a time of turmoil at colleges and universities. And I saw some very smart people and very privileged people behaving irresponsibly. And I couldn’t help making a contrast between some of the worst of what I saw on the campus and the good sense and the decency of the people back in my own community.

Indeed! He joined the most interesting clubs in college because he was so oppressed there.

His native community clearly had the good sense and he decency not to allow women or black people into it. Or partisans and hippies! He is a second or possibly third generation immigrant misogynist law-monk who does not like people who disagree with the government. How pleasing!

He goes on to make a fascinating comment about what happened when he became a judge:

When I became a judge, I stopped being a practicing attorney. And that was a big change in role.

What a penetrating insight! This is evidence of a keen mind at work. Few people would ever realize that attorneys and judges play different roles. For instance, judges bang hammers (called "gavels") on things in order to make a loud noise. Attorneys do not. The man is a born storyteller! And this "judges and attorneys are different" line is an important theory about the law which will underlie all his testimony. I also anticipate him arguing that baseball is different from sandwiches. Take that, partisans!

Good judges are always open to the possibility of changing their minds based on the next brief that they read, or the next argument that’s made by an attorney who’s appearing before them, or a comment that is made by a colleague during the conference on the case when the judges privately discuss the case.

Good judges, you see, do not have any opinions on anything, nor do they have philosophies or indeed read books or have political affiliations or beliefs. They are like angels of nonpartisanship. Their personal backgrounds and anything they ever said or thought or wrote in the past is irrelevant. Nobody ever asked Gabriel what he thought about the law during his Archangel confirmation hearings. And that is appropriate.

Neither would it be fair of him to say how he would have decided any particular case, about, say, abortion. That might make him say something that everybody knows, but that he cannot admit because that would be actually saying what everyone knows. Such as that he does not like abortion. We must all have the maturity not to ever talk about the question everyone in the country knows is the real issue.

But this is where Alito truly shines:

The judge’s only obligation -- and it’s a solemn obligation -- is to the rule of law. And what that means is that in every single case, the judge has to do what the law requires.

This is not a banal truism at all! All this is quite sound and you would have to be lacking sense to disagree.

Partisans may argue here that if a judge's only purpose is to do what they are told by the law, they could just as easily be replaced by giant law compuers. But such partisans do not understand the simple truth that machines can never do what judges can do. Until someone invents an "angel machine," anyway.

Partisanship is everywhere, including breakfast and snacktime.

To be a truly honest thinker one can never be a partisan. Partisans are always unfair to me, because they percieve me, falsely, as a partisan of the other side! That is why I do not have conversations with such people. It is not a real conversation!

But partisanship is everywhere. I am often bothered by the partisan behavior of those who prefer non-dairy creamer to milk when they offer me coffee. Observe the clear differences:



Non-dairy creamer is obviously partisan. Just look at it! How can you even have a conversation with non-dairy creamer? It is impossible!



But on the other hand, milk comes from cows. What is more independent and non-partisan than cows? Cows do not involve themselves in the crudities of partisan politics!

Kos is by his own admission an "asshole." But have you ever heard anyone call a cow an "asshole"? Cows also support the American dairy industry as well as the American meat industry. And cows would clearly want Sam Alito confirmed to the Supreme Court, because they see that he is very competent. This is all very clear.

I find it a very valuable use of my time to decide what things are partisan and what things are independent. Toenail clippers are very partisan. Ironically, toenails themselves are not. Toast is extremely partisan! Toast with jelly however is objective and interesting. I could talk with a piece of toast with jelly for hours, and often have. I asked my wheat toast with strawberry jam this morning what Alito should say if he is asked about the "Star Trek" episode "Mirror Mirror." What a hoot!

What sorts of things do you think are partisan? Is grass partisan? Ping-pong balls? "Dora the Explorer"? Philips-head screwdrivers? Martinis? Salad dressing?

You are the real hypocrite, and no backsies.

I am a hypocrite...

But you are the real hypocrite...

But I am rubber, and you are glue -- and the charge of hypocrisy does not stick to me! It sticks to you!

The subject: the absurd demand of partisans that I explain what I mean when I say something, and the bizarre insistence that I must "explain" how what I say in one instance is coherent with other things I say in other instances. That is absurd!

As far as the Plame situation goes, I have NEVER offered an opinion about it at all. Why? Because it is complicated. It involves legal questions. And I know so very much about the law that I know that I do not understand it in this case. That is why I blog: to not explain issues in my particular professional field, a field in which I am not especially interested. Why is this so surprising?

I do not understand the issues involved in the Plame leak or the domestic surveillance issue, as I have repeatedly stated. All I know is that the Plame case is difficult, but that the leak there is not important. Likewise, the spying revelations are a mystery to me, but it is clear that that the leaker in this case is a traitor who should be shot for compromising national security in a way which is impossible to actually describe intelligibly, but which is nevertheless very real. American jurisprudence is very advanced. That is why it is so hard to explain.

But it is the leaker of the domestic spying program information who must be judged the most harshly. How is it this person's prerogative to determine the morality or legality of what she or he was asked to do? That is outrageous! In our system of democracy, we do not want individuals who believe that they have been ordered to do something illegal to speak out.

What could be more un-American than for a person in the government who believes that she or he has been told to violate the law to say so to a member of the press? That is just sick! If the president has made a judgement about what is legal and what is right, who is some "government employee" to contradict him? Who does this government worker serve, anyway, the president or the "nation"?

If we have reached a point in which individual members of the government are so debased as to risk their careers and lives simply because they think the Constitution is being violated, I must weep for America. Blithe yammering about how it didn't really hurt just makes them look all the more partisan.

Setting that old Oscar tone.

It is very, very interesting that Jon Stewart has been chosen as the next host of the Oscars:

Oscar's desperate search for relevancy continues. With the choice of Comedy Central's Jon Stewart as the next Oscar host, the film academy has apparently opted for the host most like the films that presumably will be nominated for the award itself — small, literate, political-ish, gems like "Brokeback Mountain," "Good Night, and Good Luck" and "Capote."

But those "small, literate, political-ish, gems like 'Brokeback Mountain,' 'Good Night, and Good Luck' and 'Capote'" do want to be taken seriously at a serious event like the Oscars, even though they are pompous. That is because the Oscars are supposed to be serious even though they are not serious and also pompous, although yet not pompous nor serious. Perhaps the small and literate politcal-ish Jon Stewart can span the serious gap and be funny but not pompous, and serious at the same time.

That is clear.

UPDATE: This post has already attracted some unfair and bitter comments. Here is my reply:

it is quite presumptuous of you to be critical of this post, as if you understood it. Reading it over, even I don't understand it! It is immature to harshly judge something you don't understand. Given that my post is incomprehensible, I am afraid that you are now shown in a very bad light indeed. You are very judgemental.

You need to engage in a process of sincere self-reflection in order to grasp why you are so childishly dismissive of what neither you nor anyone else can possibly appreciate, simply because it is not very coherent.

Let that be an end to it.

Alito and the Supreme Court.

It is very important news that the ABA has declared that Samuel Alito is competent.

Why? Because now there is no reason on earth for pompous, pretentious senators to ask him any questions whatsoever during his confirmation hearings. The President of the United States nominated him. As the Constitution states, once a president makes a nomination, senators need to agree with him. That is well known.

The ONLY issue is "competence." Ideology and the real-world results of the judge's likely decisions are out-of-bounds, and only ignorant partisans would claim otherwise.

After all, the real issue is not whether this judge is likely to make decisions that will significantly limit the rights of American citizens to their bodies, or whether this judge will dangerously concentrate power in the Executive branch to the detriment of the Constitution and traditional American democracy.

No. The only issue is whether or not he will restrict individual rights competently.

Why can't Democratic partisans understand this simple truth?

That partisan post office.

I tried to buy stamps this morning. But they were very partisan! Why does the government put pictures of things on stamps? Why are they not exactly square? And why are stamps so sticky? And why do post office employees object to such interesting questions when they are asked politely, if insistently? There is certainly a troubling lack of civility in our nation today, which I find alarming.

Answering questions from partisans.

In a desperate attempt to puff up his traffic, Atrios has once more unleashed his savage commenters. This time this blog is the target. Why does Atrios not distance himself from his despicable "community"? I am not an eighth of the way through the comments and already I am appalled by the sexist crap:

Never attribute to stupidity what can be attributed to sycophancy.

Save us, Altmouse!

Indeed. And surprised with the blogger quoted that Plamegate isn't being mentioned more in this context.

(.)(.)

That last comes from a commenter named "Woot." "Woot" is an inherently sexist term. How shocking. But it is the raw and unpleasant sexism of the third commenter that I find most outrageous. I suppose Atrios will call this kind of joking "ironic." The Democratic party has a long, long way to go to convince me they are in favor of women, led as they are by such anti-female figures as Atrios and Hillary Clinton.

But it is this comment from Atrios that is the most frightening:

Magic 8 ball sez on prospect of Althouse providing a satisfactory answer to Ted's question: all signs point to no.

"Magic 8 Ball"? I cannot tell if that refers to how much Atrios hates women or how much he hates America.

I believe that my analysis of this issue should answer "Ted's" question to the satisfaction of everyone, except partisans.

UPDATE: Atrios's "real" name is supposedly "Duncan Black." I find it appalling that a prominent liberal blogger has adopted such a racist surname.

I feel very itchy.

Do you ever feel itchy? Sometimes I am itchy. When that happens, I like to scratch the itch. Sometimes I use my fingernails, or sometimes even a hairbrush. I never bought one of those fancy backscratchers, though. Those are so absurd!

UPDATE: It occurs to me that itchiness can sometimes be caused by dry skin. In this case, I recommend moisturizer.

Movies of the year.

I have not seen any movies this year. They are all terrible!

The thing I do not like about movies is that they are filled with pretentious actors. These actors are never real -- they are always pretending! Lots of people consider "Patton" a great movie, for example. And, I admit, for years I loved it. I thought it was a very stirring film about how it is good when America fights in wars. But then I found out through research that George Patton was not in the movie at all! Instead, it was all phony. "Patton" was really a man named John S. Scott pretending to be the legendary general! I wrote an angry letter to the Pentagon demanding that they arrest the Scott imposter for impersonating a military officer. Yet they did nothing. Of course that was during the Clinton administration, which was extremely partisan.

So it may shock you to find out that this year's hit biopic "King Kong" does not feature a real giant killer gorilla at all. Instead, the beast is "faked" using "special effects." Who wants to see pretend giant gorillas? That is absurd!

But there is one movie that came out this year that I can recommend wholeheartedly:



Order it here today. It is a terrific documentary about the lives and loves of young people trying to make a go of it in the music biz. A must see, and extremely nonpartisan.

The law is very complex.

I was looking at one of those partisan blogs run by a lawyer. This lawyer is so insecure about his knowledge of the law that he sometimes actually discusses legal issues. How silly!

I do not like to use my position as a law professor to make pronouncements about what the law means because the law is very complicated. Why should I make a judgement about whether or not the president violated the FISA statute, for instance? It is much more responsible to allow my commenters to make such judgements, for obvious reasons I think it would be irresponsible to explain. Only partisans want such "explanations" in order to twist them to serve their own partisan agenda.

Clearly, it would be absurd for a law professor on a blog about constitutional law to actually look at the relevant statute. What if the only conclusion that could emerge from such an exercise is that the president has broken the law? That would be a partisan conclusion. And I am above such cheap political point-scoring. I am sure you agree.