The New York Times Magazine has an interesting article on Justice John Paul Stevens written by Jeffrey Rosen. Stevens, who was interviewed for the article, actually said a few things of substance, which makes this the first article from a sitting Supreme Court justice in recent memory that can boast such a claim. I particularly enjoyed when Justice Stevens described Congress's ban on late-term abortions as a "silly statute." I wish more Americans realized how much of what ends up on the Supreme Court's docket is a result of silly and (largely) symbolic legislation. (Too often, the biggest fights in American politics is akin to counting cats in Zanzibar.) Several things I found fascinating (if not altogether surprising):
1. Stevens openly questions the value of unanimity on the Court.
2. Stevens questions whether Brennan's style of lobbying was effective or whether he benefited from four other like-minded justices. (This speaks to the question of how fixed justices are in their preferences.)
3. Stevens fancies himself a conservative despite the degree to which the political spectrum has shifted.
4. Stevens emphasizes how vital the writing process is to parsing difficult questions/problems. Maybe he should try blogging...
5. Stevens believed that some of the most important decisions he makes are with regard to assigning opinions--not writing them.
6. Stevens calls out Blackmun's opinion in Roe v. Wade and states that the doctrine doesn't make sense.
7. Stevens lays out an interesting argument about how to use history in constitutional interpretation. I'm unclear on how taking all of American history into account could be used with much rigor but it is interesting distinction from his originalist colleagues.
8. Finally, Stevens explains why he ruled the way he did in Bush v. Gore (or at least a major influence on his decision) and he points to good old fashion rule of law considerations.
Sunday, September 23, 2007
Thursday, September 20, 2007
The Senate, Article V Amendment, and Entrenchment
On Monday, Sandy Levinson gave a fine Constitution Day lecture before an audience of roughly 150 people on the UNLV campus. Prof. Levinson presented a streamlined, if slightly refined version, of his most recent book: Our Undemocratic Constitution. Many of my students were in attendance and have subsequently wanted to know more about the possibility of altering our constitutional system and the appropriate mechanisms for doing so. In particular, many of my students are quite sympathetic to Levinson's critique of the Senate. (I find their support particularly notable since they reside in a state that would certainly receive less federal monies under a system that based its upper house on proportional representation.) Yet, from a rule of law standpoint, altering the Senate is the most constitutionally troubling of Levinson's proposals.
The last sentence of Article V states, "and that no state, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate." To decrease the democratic deficit, the Senate would need to be reapportioned in such a way as to reflect population. The first provisions of Article V provides that supermajorities can impose their constitutional will on the rest of the country so reapportioning the Senate would seem possible. However, under my reading of the final sentence of Article V, the Senate is exempted and protected. The language seemingly requires each and every state to consent to a change to the Senate. I find it highly unlikely that North Dakota, Wyoming, and, even, Nevada will consent to losing their equal representation. (The entrenchment provision is likely yet another vestige of the original compromise between free and slave states. Mark Graber's Dred Scott and the Problem of Constitutional Evil is a must read!)
Unanimity clauses are not new in American constitutional history. The Articles of Confederation required all states to consent to amendments (see Article XIII) and the Constitution of 1787 was ratified despite this provision (although they avoided the issue when the Constitution was ultimately ratified by every state). Yet, Levinson seems to be trying to work within the strictures of Article V. Unfortunately, I did not ask Prof. Levinson how reformers get around Article V's entrenchment provision but it strikes me as highly problematic for the effort.
The last sentence of Article V states, "and that no state, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate." To decrease the democratic deficit, the Senate would need to be reapportioned in such a way as to reflect population. The first provisions of Article V provides that supermajorities can impose their constitutional will on the rest of the country so reapportioning the Senate would seem possible. However, under my reading of the final sentence of Article V, the Senate is exempted and protected. The language seemingly requires each and every state to consent to a change to the Senate. I find it highly unlikely that North Dakota, Wyoming, and, even, Nevada will consent to losing their equal representation. (The entrenchment provision is likely yet another vestige of the original compromise between free and slave states. Mark Graber's Dred Scott and the Problem of Constitutional Evil is a must read!)
Unanimity clauses are not new in American constitutional history. The Articles of Confederation required all states to consent to amendments (see Article XIII) and the Constitution of 1787 was ratified despite this provision (although they avoided the issue when the Constitution was ultimately ratified by every state). Yet, Levinson seems to be trying to work within the strictures of Article V. Unfortunately, I did not ask Prof. Levinson how reformers get around Article V's entrenchment provision but it strikes me as highly problematic for the effort.
Wednesday, September 19, 2007
Variance or Suckitude?
The Red Sox have managed to lose enough recently such that their lead in the AL East is now 2 1/2 games over the surging Yankees. All Red Sox fans are now remembering 1978 and every other collapse in the long history of Red Sox Nation. During times when the Nation stands on the precipice wondering whether to jump or not, it is worth trying to gain some perspective (perspective on baseball--none of that "it's just a game crap," anyone who says that doesn't understand the nature of identity). So, here's a thought:
Baseball is a game of percentages, variance, and distribution. Smart general managers can predict with high levels of confidence approximately how many wins their team will have at the end of the year. However, this tells general managers (and, more importantly for this post, fans) the nature of how those wins will be distributed throughout a season. If a team is likely to win 91-94 games (at, say, a 95% confidence interval) and manages to win 53 during the first half of the season, the second half is going to be a let down. At one point in the first half, the Sox were on pace to win 105 wins. On the flip side, the Yankees were on pace to win about 83. I knew both of these were absurd but, as a fan, I still wanted both to happen. Baseball is self correcting and, while painful to watch sometimes, tends to end up pretty much where you thought it would. Which is to say, that Sox fans shouldn't be surprised that they are running neck and neck with the Spanks at the end of the year.
Of course, none of this explains why Francona didn't have Papelbon up in the eighth inning given that Eric Gagne gives up runs like a pitcher in a t-ball game. But, that's why Sox fans have Sons of Sam Horn: To call for Francona's (proverbial, I hope) head on a platter.
Baseball is a game of percentages, variance, and distribution. Smart general managers can predict with high levels of confidence approximately how many wins their team will have at the end of the year. However, this tells general managers (and, more importantly for this post, fans) the nature of how those wins will be distributed throughout a season. If a team is likely to win 91-94 games (at, say, a 95% confidence interval) and manages to win 53 during the first half of the season, the second half is going to be a let down. At one point in the first half, the Sox were on pace to win 105 wins. On the flip side, the Yankees were on pace to win about 83. I knew both of these were absurd but, as a fan, I still wanted both to happen. Baseball is self correcting and, while painful to watch sometimes, tends to end up pretty much where you thought it would. Which is to say, that Sox fans shouldn't be surprised that they are running neck and neck with the Spanks at the end of the year.
Of course, none of this explains why Francona didn't have Papelbon up in the eighth inning given that Eric Gagne gives up runs like a pitcher in a t-ball game. But, that's why Sox fans have Sons of Sam Horn: To call for Francona's (proverbial, I hope) head on a platter.
Tuesday, September 18, 2007
The New York Times Finally Gets it Right
The New York Times announced that it will abandon the subscription program it began a little over two years ago. The Times gave free access to its news stories but charged for its op-ed page, blogs, and subscriptions. But the Times was finally smart enough to realize that you can make more money off of advertising than subscription fees. I, for one, welcome the change. After all, if the New York Times wants to continue to be the "paper of record" for the nation, it is preferable if the nation has access to all its content.
Monday, September 17, 2007
Happy Constitution Day
For those of you not paying attention to the calendar, today is Constitution Day! Sanford Levinson gives the annual Constitution Day Lecture at UNLV tonight at 7:30 PM in the Barrack Auditorium. (Admission is free.) Please join us as Prof. Levinson's talk promises to be both provocative and entertaining! Besides lecturing on the Constitution and attending Levinson's lecture, I plan to fix myself the most American of celebratory beverages: Bourbon. (I think I'll go with Blanton's.)
A Few Thoughts on the Weekend Series
I'm an optimist despite being a Red Sox fan. I tend to focus on the positive and assess from there. Despite dropping the weekend series to the Yankees, Sox fans have much to be optimistic about come the post-season and a potential clash with the team from The Borough that Also Ran.
1. The Sox crushed Pettitte and Wang who are likely the numbers 1 and 2 starters for the Yanks.
2. The Sox got to Chamberlain. There is no mystification in this rivalry.
3. The Sox are still get to Mariano Rivera.
4. The Sox rookies showed they can play in tight situations. Jacoby Ellsbury is a must for the post-season roster...he's unflappable...Pedroia was once again solid in the clutch. Matsuzaka pitched well on Friday night. (Just need to straighten out Okajima by getting him some rest down the stretch.)
5. 2007 Beckett looks like 2003 Beckett, except better.
Finally, I should note that I'll watch Eric Hinske crush Jorge Posada about 100 times this off-season. (Nice job to hang on to the ball but, man, does Posada get absolutely devastated. It obviously had an effect, too, since he utterly failed to tag Ellsbury during another play at the plate later in the game.)
Not what I wanted out of the series but, on the whole, I'll take it as a positive. The Magic Number for the Sox is 9.
1. The Sox crushed Pettitte and Wang who are likely the numbers 1 and 2 starters for the Yanks.
2. The Sox got to Chamberlain. There is no mystification in this rivalry.
3. The Sox are still get to Mariano Rivera.
4. The Sox rookies showed they can play in tight situations. Jacoby Ellsbury is a must for the post-season roster...he's unflappable...Pedroia was once again solid in the clutch. Matsuzaka pitched well on Friday night. (Just need to straighten out Okajima by getting him some rest down the stretch.)
5. 2007 Beckett looks like 2003 Beckett, except better.
Finally, I should note that I'll watch Eric Hinske crush Jorge Posada about 100 times this off-season. (Nice job to hang on to the ball but, man, does Posada get absolutely devastated. It obviously had an effect, too, since he utterly failed to tag Ellsbury during another play at the plate later in the game.)
Not what I wanted out of the series but, on the whole, I'll take it as a positive. The Magic Number for the Sox is 9.
Wednesday, September 12, 2007
Teaching Civil Liberties: Cases without Proper Context
Every political science department in the country offers some variety of courses on constitutional law and civil liberties. Sophisticated undergraduate students often raise a complaint about these courses, they are taught that constitutional doctrine changes but they aren't terribly clear on why the change occurs. Of course, this is an area in which political scientists speak with some authority and I try to work in discussions of constitutional development and theories of judicial decision-making. However, in courses such as constitutional law and civil liberties, the curricular demands of covering several hundred cases make significant tangents difficult, even tangents that are vital to contextualizing doctrinal change. Worse, by abridging some of these narratives and theories, students may get more of a caricature than "thick description."
The question is why do political scientists still offer case-intensive courses rather than those that focus on their expertise (i.e. theories of judicial decision-making or constitutional development). Undergraduate demand may be another explanation. Constitutional law courses are wellsprings for FTEs and therefore can generate significant resources for a political science department (depending on any given college's method for allocating resources). Political scientists may also enjoy playing junior law professors. After all, case law is fun to teach and the constitutional canon of cases is interesting, sexy, and, often, topical. Finally (without prejudice to other explanations), there is likely some degree of path dependence here. When political science formed as a discipline, it was closely tied to constitutionalism. As we progressed through the twentieth century, issues of constitutionalism (rightly or wrongly) were tied ever more closely to the courts. Thus, constitutionalism became conflated with constitutional law and political science followed suit (or, perhaps, played a co-developmental role--see the works of Edward S. Corwin).
For those seeking more perspective and context to understand constitutional development and change, both through judicial decree and outside of it, read Mark Tushnet's latest paper on The Rights Revolution in the Twentieth Century.
The question is why do political scientists still offer case-intensive courses rather than those that focus on their expertise (i.e. theories of judicial decision-making or constitutional development). Undergraduate demand may be another explanation. Constitutional law courses are wellsprings for FTEs and therefore can generate significant resources for a political science department (depending on any given college's method for allocating resources). Political scientists may also enjoy playing junior law professors. After all, case law is fun to teach and the constitutional canon of cases is interesting, sexy, and, often, topical. Finally (without prejudice to other explanations), there is likely some degree of path dependence here. When political science formed as a discipline, it was closely tied to constitutionalism. As we progressed through the twentieth century, issues of constitutionalism (rightly or wrongly) were tied ever more closely to the courts. Thus, constitutionalism became conflated with constitutional law and political science followed suit (or, perhaps, played a co-developmental role--see the works of Edward S. Corwin).
For those seeking more perspective and context to understand constitutional development and change, both through judicial decree and outside of it, read Mark Tushnet's latest paper on The Rights Revolution in the Twentieth Century.
Monday, September 10, 2007
Farm Country: Year End Awards
Since the regular season of minor league baseball is officially over (at least until the start of the Arizona Fall League), I thought I would break out the end of season awards. Coming from me, these are essentially meaningless but I like to fancy myself knowledgeable enough to bestow name-only-awards to minor league players in the Sox system.
First, an ad hoc rule. I eliminated any farmhand who spent time with the big league club. This is wholly unfair and largely unwarranted but just about every baseball fan knows who Clay Buchholz is and most have heard of Jacoby Ellsbury AND since each player could easily have won awards, I thought I'd just exclude them and give accolades to other deserving, less well know players.
Offensive Player of the Year:
Josh Reddick--Reddick had a monster year for Greenville. He posted .306/.352/.531 with 18 HRs and 72 RBIs. At 20 years of age, Reddick looks like a player that could rise to AA next year and reach the bigs by 23.
Honorable Mention: Jed Lowrie, Lars Anderson, Bubba Bell, Oscar Tejeda, Ryan Kalish (pre-injury), Aaron Bates, Jon Still, Zack Daeges
Marginal to Mainline:
Jed Lowrie---Last year, Lowrie was a bust. This year, Lowrie arguably had the best offensive season of any minor league shortstop. Lowrie hit .298 and slugged .501 with AA Portland and hit .300 and slugged .506 with AAA Pawtucket. Lowrie may have made the decision regarding a utility man next year much more difficult given Cora's woeful production this year. If the Sox choose to go another route, Lowrie will likely be good trade fodder since he is blocked by Pedroia and Lugo.
Honorable Mention: Bubba Bell, Brandon Moss (yes, including Moss violates my rule but since he didn't actually win, I;m making an exception)
Starting Pitcher of the Year:
Justin Masterson---Masterson went from a promising prospect to a legitimate contender for the 2009 Sox starting rotation. (Beckett, Matsuzaka, Buchholz, Lester, and either Bowden or Masterson). He has a lethal combination of a heavy sinking fastball and the ability to miss bats. He will likely start at Portland next season but, hopefully, be promoted to Pawtucket within two months.
Honorable Mention: Michael Bowden, Dustin Richardson, Nick Hagadone
Relief Pitcher of the Year:
Hunter Jones---An position that was once a wellspring of talent for the organization appeared much thinner this year. Bryce Cox regressed and Craig Hansen only found his stride toward the end of the season. Edgar Martinez was OK. And, on the upside, Manny Delcarmen graduated to become a go-to guy in the Sox pen. But, Hunter Jones showed a good deal this past year, particularly after he was promoted to AA Portland. He posted a 2.69 K/BB and posted a respectable 1.21 WHIP. He could become a serviceable reliever if he continues to build off what he started this season.
Honorable Mention: Mike James
First, an ad hoc rule. I eliminated any farmhand who spent time with the big league club. This is wholly unfair and largely unwarranted but just about every baseball fan knows who Clay Buchholz is and most have heard of Jacoby Ellsbury AND since each player could easily have won awards, I thought I'd just exclude them and give accolades to other deserving, less well know players.
Offensive Player of the Year:
Josh Reddick--Reddick had a monster year for Greenville. He posted .306/.352/.531 with 18 HRs and 72 RBIs. At 20 years of age, Reddick looks like a player that could rise to AA next year and reach the bigs by 23.
Honorable Mention: Jed Lowrie, Lars Anderson, Bubba Bell, Oscar Tejeda, Ryan Kalish (pre-injury), Aaron Bates, Jon Still, Zack Daeges
Marginal to Mainline:
Jed Lowrie---Last year, Lowrie was a bust. This year, Lowrie arguably had the best offensive season of any minor league shortstop. Lowrie hit .298 and slugged .501 with AA Portland and hit .300 and slugged .506 with AAA Pawtucket. Lowrie may have made the decision regarding a utility man next year much more difficult given Cora's woeful production this year. If the Sox choose to go another route, Lowrie will likely be good trade fodder since he is blocked by Pedroia and Lugo.
Honorable Mention: Bubba Bell, Brandon Moss (yes, including Moss violates my rule but since he didn't actually win, I;m making an exception)
Starting Pitcher of the Year:
Justin Masterson---Masterson went from a promising prospect to a legitimate contender for the 2009 Sox starting rotation. (Beckett, Matsuzaka, Buchholz, Lester, and either Bowden or Masterson). He has a lethal combination of a heavy sinking fastball and the ability to miss bats. He will likely start at Portland next season but, hopefully, be promoted to Pawtucket within two months.
Honorable Mention: Michael Bowden, Dustin Richardson, Nick Hagadone
Relief Pitcher of the Year:
Hunter Jones---An position that was once a wellspring of talent for the organization appeared much thinner this year. Bryce Cox regressed and Craig Hansen only found his stride toward the end of the season. Edgar Martinez was OK. And, on the upside, Manny Delcarmen graduated to become a go-to guy in the Sox pen. But, Hunter Jones showed a good deal this past year, particularly after he was promoted to AA Portland. He posted a 2.69 K/BB and posted a respectable 1.21 WHIP. He could become a serviceable reliever if he continues to build off what he started this season.
Honorable Mention: Mike James
Player I'm most excited to watch next year:
Oscar Tejeda---OK, this isn't really an award but Tejeda exploded on the scene as a 17 year old. His numbers in the Gulf Coast League and brief stint with the Lowell Spinners make comparisons to Hanley Ramirez easy. He's a five tool player who seemed to improve as he moved from the GCL to the New York-Penn League. It will be interesting to see where the organization starts Tejeda next year but I'd guess he'll play for the Drive.Sunday, September 9, 2007
Vegas Style Victory and the Flutie Factor
Just wanted to pass along congrats to the UNLV football team that came within 2 minutes of defeating the #5 ranked Wisconsin Badgers last night. (Story here.) They ended up losing on a 29 yard touchdown scramble by Badgers quarterback Tyler Donovan. Now, it may seem odd to congratulate the losers but the sports books gave UNLV four touchdowns, which is a massive spread. UNLV did more than cover. They established themselves as a team to pay attention to. The squad looked excellent with an impressive defense and a spread offense that moved the ball well. UNLV's football program has been terrible over the last several years but, if this game is any measure, the squad looks like it will shake up the Mountain West this year.
Beyond being happy for the kids on the football team, I have a vested interest in the team doing well. The publicity generated by a successful sports team (specifically football or basketball) is virtually unmatched. Many schools have experienced increases in applications and enrollment in years following a successful football or basketball season. (This is referred to as the "Flutie Factor" after Doug Flutie who led Boston College to a miracle victory over the University of Miami.) The Flutie Factor may not justify the millions spent on having sports programs that can compete at the national level but, as Stephen Elkin once told me, so long as the sports teams are improving at the same rate as the academic standards and reputation of the institution, it's all good. UNLV, despite its occasional struggles, is heading upward academically and athletically and it's all good.
Beyond being happy for the kids on the football team, I have a vested interest in the team doing well. The publicity generated by a successful sports team (specifically football or basketball) is virtually unmatched. Many schools have experienced increases in applications and enrollment in years following a successful football or basketball season. (This is referred to as the "Flutie Factor" after Doug Flutie who led Boston College to a miracle victory over the University of Miami.) The Flutie Factor may not justify the millions spent on having sports programs that can compete at the national level but, as Stephen Elkin once told me, so long as the sports teams are improving at the same rate as the academic standards and reputation of the institution, it's all good. UNLV, despite its occasional struggles, is heading upward academically and athletically and it's all good.
Saturday, September 8, 2007
Quote of the Day
Baseball players regularly give inane answers to inane questions. Bull Durham sardonically highlighted the "just here to help the team win" answer. But, every now and then, there is a player who actually tells you what they think. Dustin Pedroia, the Red Sox rookie second baseman and my choice for the AL Rookie of the Year (although Brian Bannister should also get careful consideration), called out Daniel Cabrera after Cabrera threw a pitch at his head. Said Pedroia, "The guy's an idiot...I was upset they took him out of the game. He's good to hit. He's 9-15. The guy [stinks]." Not exactly playing it close to the vest. Pedroia should provide great press for years to come.
Friday, September 7, 2007
Drinking the Koolaid: Buchholz With Three Appearances and Three Wins
Clay Buchholz, in his third official appearance in a Red Sox uni, picked up his third win last night. Momentarily, he showed that he is, indeed, human when he gave up two walks and a hit to load the bases with no outs against the Baltimore We-Wish-We-Were-As-Good-As-the-Black-Sox Orioles. But Buchholz found another notch. He got Miguel Tejada to bounce into a 5-2-3 double play and struck out Kevin Millar to end the inning.
What is particularly notable is that Buchholz has limited experience in relief. Unlike Jonathan Papelbon who closed in college, Buchholz has been a starter throughout his amateur and professional career. Yet, Buchholz seems to have the mental make-up (no questions on the physical) to handle a stint in the pen. The real question is how good will Buchholz be down the stretch? Will the Sox get a lift similar to the one they received from Papelbon in 2005 or similar to the one the Cardinals received from Adam Wainwright last year? Fortunately for the Sox, their bullpen is already the best in baseball so they may not need Buchholz all that much down the stretch or in the playoffs. But, what was already a stocked pen just got better and that could be trouble for opposing teams in October.
Oh, and if you think I'm the only one drinking the Koolaid, The Yawkey Way store already is selling Buchholz jersey shirts despite knowing that Buchholz will likely change his number next spring when he enters the Red Sox rotation. (Maybe he won't since #61 must bring some good luck but picking a lower number is a long tradition in professional baseball.) Buchholz is clearly in demand. The question for me is how long I'll hold out before buying one to go with my Ortiz and Papelbon jerseys. And should I really buy a Buchholz jersey before a Pedroia? Tough call.
What is particularly notable is that Buchholz has limited experience in relief. Unlike Jonathan Papelbon who closed in college, Buchholz has been a starter throughout his amateur and professional career. Yet, Buchholz seems to have the mental make-up (no questions on the physical) to handle a stint in the pen. The real question is how good will Buchholz be down the stretch? Will the Sox get a lift similar to the one they received from Papelbon in 2005 or similar to the one the Cardinals received from Adam Wainwright last year? Fortunately for the Sox, their bullpen is already the best in baseball so they may not need Buchholz all that much down the stretch or in the playoffs. But, what was already a stocked pen just got better and that could be trouble for opposing teams in October.
Oh, and if you think I'm the only one drinking the Koolaid, The Yawkey Way store already is selling Buchholz jersey shirts despite knowing that Buchholz will likely change his number next spring when he enters the Red Sox rotation. (Maybe he won't since #61 must bring some good luck but picking a lower number is a long tradition in professional baseball.) Buchholz is clearly in demand. The question for me is how long I'll hold out before buying one to go with my Ortiz and Papelbon jerseys. And should I really buy a Buchholz jersey before a Pedroia? Tough call.
Thursday, September 6, 2007
Positive Development--Darfur Peace Talks
Rebel leaders in Darfur will hold UN-backed peace talks. The New York Times story is here. Between peacekeeping forces being sent to the Sudan and now peace talks among rebel leaders, perhaps there is finally reason to hope that positive change is occurring.
What Does Blogging Tell Us About Academic Departments?
As a nascent--and not terribly good--blogger, I've noticed that there are a lot of really interesting and active blogs by legal academics but very few from political scientists. In fact, there are so many law-themed blogs that I find it rather difficult to keep up with them. I check in on four or five regularly (Balkinization, Volokh Conspiracy, Legal Theory Blog, Sports Law Blog, and Concurring Opinons) but there must be thirty or so that I don't bother to read because of their specific areas of focus (e.g. health law). If one searches for a political science blog to compare to, say, Balkinization, one is likely to encounter a good deal of frustration. PolySigh is a blog that hosts an outstanding cast of contributors (e.g. Paul Frymer, Philip Klinkner, Jacob Hacker, etc.) but the mosts there are very infrequent and tend to be short without much analyses. Stephen Taylor does a nice job at Poliblog. But Poliblog is a one-person show so it lacks some of the flavor that is gained by many voices posting to one blog. (Of course, this holds true of The Foul Pole, too.)
So why are blogs run by academic lawyers so much more successful than blogs run by political scientists? A few thoughts:
1. The Community: It may be the legal academy was/is quicker to embrace new technologies and new mediums for communication. Blogs are not journals so their value must be measured in ways different than citations counts, impact scores, etc., which is the way political scientists usually demonstrate their scholarly prowess.
2. Institutional Incentives: Being a good institutionalist, I tend to seek answers in the institution. There has long been an adage that while it is difficult to break into the legal academy, once in, tenure is relatively easy to get. I am not claiming that this is actually true--I have no idea what the tenure standards are in law schools around the country and, as with political science, I'm quite certain there is significant variance from school to school. However, the journals are, largely, not peer reviewed making publication much easier. (And, since I've published in a law review I feel qualified to say that my experience publishing there in was much easier than publishing in a reputable political science journal.) Additionally, the teaching load at your average law school seems to be quite managable. Two/two loads seem commonplace--although this observation is entirely anecdotal. Managable teaching loads mean more time for research and writing and, therefore, more time for posting to a blog.
3. Finally, I should note that political scientists have done a poor job of engaging the community. Legal academics are much closer to the public sphere than political scientists. When law professors speak, members of the public (i.e. practicioners, media, etc.) may actually be listening. When political scientists talk, to often we speak only to our students and peers. Thus, blogging may naturally seem quite foreign to a political scientist who could realistically wonder if anyone will read their posts.
Whatever the case, political scientists may yet find that blogging has something to offer. Our academic brethren in the law schools have turned blogging into an fascinating forum for the exchange and development of new ideas. We would be well served to follow their path.
The ability to publish articles more quickly and secure tenure more readily
So why are blogs run by academic lawyers so much more successful than blogs run by political scientists? A few thoughts:
1. The Community: It may be the legal academy was/is quicker to embrace new technologies and new mediums for communication. Blogs are not journals so their value must be measured in ways different than citations counts, impact scores, etc., which is the way political scientists usually demonstrate their scholarly prowess.
2. Institutional Incentives: Being a good institutionalist, I tend to seek answers in the institution. There has long been an adage that while it is difficult to break into the legal academy, once in, tenure is relatively easy to get. I am not claiming that this is actually true--I have no idea what the tenure standards are in law schools around the country and, as with political science, I'm quite certain there is significant variance from school to school. However, the journals are, largely, not peer reviewed making publication much easier. (And, since I've published in a law review I feel qualified to say that my experience publishing there in was much easier than publishing in a reputable political science journal.) Additionally, the teaching load at your average law school seems to be quite managable. Two/two loads seem commonplace--although this observation is entirely anecdotal. Managable teaching loads mean more time for research and writing and, therefore, more time for posting to a blog.
3. Finally, I should note that political scientists have done a poor job of engaging the community. Legal academics are much closer to the public sphere than political scientists. When law professors speak, members of the public (i.e. practicioners, media, etc.) may actually be listening. When political scientists talk, to often we speak only to our students and peers. Thus, blogging may naturally seem quite foreign to a political scientist who could realistically wonder if anyone will read their posts.
Whatever the case, political scientists may yet find that blogging has something to offer. Our academic brethren in the law schools have turned blogging into an fascinating forum for the exchange and development of new ideas. We would be well served to follow their path.
The ability to publish articles more quickly and secure tenure more readily
The Advent of "Law Talk"
A new Podcast is up and available on the Concurring Opinions blog. Nate Oman will be hosting Law Talk: The Legal Scholarship Podcast. As a good academician, I welcome the addition of any podcast that seeks to host scholars!
Tuesday, September 4, 2007
Baseball and Religion
Bradford Pilcher has a rather amusing take on why American Jews should love the Red Sox and hate the Yankees. The piece is a bit old but I just ran across it. It's rather amusing and shows the degree to which Red Sox fans are nuts. (Thanks to Ilyn Somin for originally posting the link at the Volokh Conspiracy.)
Monday, September 3, 2007
New Troubles in Darfur
Jeffrey Gettleman of the New York Times reports a new and troubling development in Darfur. Despite the UN's authorization of peacekeeping forces, Darfur continues to experience significant violence and chaos. One wonders the extent to which the continued strife in Darfur is an example of institutional failure--both domestically and internationally.
Preview of Levinson's Constitution Day Lecture
Sandy Levinson, the W. St. John Garwood and W. St. John Garwood Jr. Centennial Chair Professor of Government at the University of Texas School of Law, will be giving the annual Constitution Day Lectureship at the University of Nevada Las Vegas on September 17. He offers a preview today on Balkinization. I share Prof. Levinson's concerns regarding "veneration" of our Constitution but hold more hope for the impact, if any, of Constitution Day. The Byrd Amendment essentially empowered academic constitutionalists to express our understanding and reservations regarding the Constitution and its modern operation. Many of us hold deep reservations about certain aspects of the U.S. Constitution. Thus, while Byrd may have visualized a form of celebratory teaching, we have the freedom to teach skepticism about the institutions and framework crafted in Philadelphia in 1787. And now, thanks to Senator Byrd, we have the means of securing funding so that Prof. Levinson can explain why he despairs about our constitutional fate.
Sunday, September 2, 2007
Thoughts on Former Sox: Gabbard and Pena
As I watch the Rangers-Angels game on ESPN, Kason Gabbard is pitching pretty well once again. For those of you unfamiliar with Gabbard, he is a former Red Sox prospect who made his MLB debute last year and worked his way into the Sox rotation in 2007. The Red Sox traded him (along with David Murphy and Engel Beltre) to the Rangers for Eric Gagne. Likely, the Sox won't know if this trade was a success until the playoffs but it is clear that the Rangers picked up a quality starting pitcher. Gabbard is what has become known as a "soft tossing lefty" and was likely undervalued by the fact that he doesn't throw above 91 MPH. However, Gabbard just keeps winning by pounding the strike zone, keeping his pitches down, and changing speeds effectively--particularly his off-speed stuff.
So this begs the question, since in my last post I emphasized how young pitching may be the new key to success in MLB, did the Sox fail to truly appreciate how good Gabbard was/could be? It's likely too early to tell but since that isn't an interesting answer, I'll try to dissect things further. The Sox have (at least) five starting pitchers for the 2008 starting rotation: Beckett, Matsuzaka, Wakefield, Lester, and Buchholz. They also have Justin Masterson and Michael Bowden waiting in the wings (much as with Papelbon in 2005, Lester in 2006, and Buchholz in 2007). However, should one of the "slated" starting five go down early in the season, the Sox could be short handed and Sox fans likely don't want to see another version of Julian Tavarez in the rotation for more than a start or two. Gabbard certainly could have made for a nice safety net in the 2008 season. However, to answer my own question, the Sox were right to trade Gabbard. The goal of any MLB club is to win a championship and Theo Epstein made a reasonable assertion that Gagne would help the Sox achieve that end. (Gagne's performance to date makes this less than certain but it is difficult to fault him for not being able to predict Gagne's massive regression to date.) Gabbard was not in the long term plan for the Sox because they have better arms both in the rotation and in the system. Thus, I'll maintain that trading Gabbard was for the best despite Gabbard's continued success. And, I'll continue to cheer for Gabbard except when he is pitching against the Sox.
I also wanted to call attention to the season that Carlos Pena is having for the D-Rays. (Pena played briefly for the Sox in 2006 and continues to help the Sox by utterly destroying the Yankees today.) If he played for a team that was remotely close to a .500 winning percentage, then he would probably get more attention for the AL MVP. To me, he seems like a lock for the AL Comeback Player of the Year. And, most importantly, Pena is a fellow Huskie and I love seeing a fellow alumnus represent NU so well in The Show.
So this begs the question, since in my last post I emphasized how young pitching may be the new key to success in MLB, did the Sox fail to truly appreciate how good Gabbard was/could be? It's likely too early to tell but since that isn't an interesting answer, I'll try to dissect things further. The Sox have (at least) five starting pitchers for the 2008 starting rotation: Beckett, Matsuzaka, Wakefield, Lester, and Buchholz. They also have Justin Masterson and Michael Bowden waiting in the wings (much as with Papelbon in 2005, Lester in 2006, and Buchholz in 2007). However, should one of the "slated" starting five go down early in the season, the Sox could be short handed and Sox fans likely don't want to see another version of Julian Tavarez in the rotation for more than a start or two. Gabbard certainly could have made for a nice safety net in the 2008 season. However, to answer my own question, the Sox were right to trade Gabbard. The goal of any MLB club is to win a championship and Theo Epstein made a reasonable assertion that Gagne would help the Sox achieve that end. (Gagne's performance to date makes this less than certain but it is difficult to fault him for not being able to predict Gagne's massive regression to date.) Gabbard was not in the long term plan for the Sox because they have better arms both in the rotation and in the system. Thus, I'll maintain that trading Gabbard was for the best despite Gabbard's continued success. And, I'll continue to cheer for Gabbard except when he is pitching against the Sox.
I also wanted to call attention to the season that Carlos Pena is having for the D-Rays. (Pena played briefly for the Sox in 2006 and continues to help the Sox by utterly destroying the Yankees today.) If he played for a team that was remotely close to a .500 winning percentage, then he would probably get more attention for the AL MVP. To me, he seems like a lock for the AL Comeback Player of the Year. And, most importantly, Pena is a fellow Huskie and I love seeing a fellow alumnus represent NU so well in The Show.
Craig's Interrogation and the On-going Problem of Racism
Over on the Volokh Conspiracy, Dale Carpenter makes an important observation about Senator Craig's interrogation and police tactics that raise serious questions about institutionalized racism. The police officer who interviewed Craig, attempts to persuade Craig to admit wrong doing by associating Craig's obstructive behavior with people "from the hood" (i.e. young, black males). Carpenter notes that the officer is attempting to shame Craig by casting his actions as those consistent with the actions of the other. Carpenter is extremely informative here and I can add nothing nearly as insightful as he.
Instead, I wonder about the state of racial politics in the country. Other than Carpenter's post, I have seen nothing on the police officer's comments. Neither Democrats nor Republicans have voiced much on such a widely publicized event. Both have significant incentives to do so. Democrats can play to their base. Republicans could do a good deal to bolster Craig's position that he did nothing wrong by casting the investigation in less than favorable terms. However, the disincentives, provided by the state of contemporary politics, appears to be too be too great. Democrats seem unwilling to take provocative stances that might jeopardize their standing as the party-less-hated and Republicans long ago sold out on questionable interrogation techniques. Any change in that policy now would look absurd.
Of course, what all this means is that real conversations about race and power in the United States is not currently possible--at least in political circles. Perhaps the rest of us can carry on the conversation whilst our leaders continue to watch Rome burn.
Instead, I wonder about the state of racial politics in the country. Other than Carpenter's post, I have seen nothing on the police officer's comments. Neither Democrats nor Republicans have voiced much on such a widely publicized event. Both have significant incentives to do so. Democrats can play to their base. Republicans could do a good deal to bolster Craig's position that he did nothing wrong by casting the investigation in less than favorable terms. However, the disincentives, provided by the state of contemporary politics, appears to be too be too great. Democrats seem unwilling to take provocative stances that might jeopardize their standing as the party-less-hated and Republicans long ago sold out on questionable interrogation techniques. Any change in that policy now would look absurd.
Of course, what all this means is that real conversations about race and power in the United States is not currently possible--at least in political circles. Perhaps the rest of us can carry on the conversation whilst our leaders continue to watch Rome burn.
Clay--mation
The no-hitter thrown by Clay Buchholz is, in many ways, the best way to begin my blogging. There is something particularly special about a no-hitter that isn't matched by any other event in baseball. Walkoffs are tremendous but they are solely at the end of the game. From about the fourth inning on, a no-hitter works its way through the crowd. By the sixth inning, everyone knows what NOT to talk about. By the seventh, the crowd applauds too long and too loud for even the most routine out. When a pitcher throws a no-hitter, it is perfectly acceptable to hope that the pitcher's offense doesn't do anything so that the pitcher doesn't have to sit too long. As a fan, you refuse to change anything so that you don't jinx the no-no. (I refused to move from the middle cushion on my couch as, if I did, there's no way Dustin Pedroia makes THAT play.) And, when Clay stuck out Nick Markakis--a very good young hitter--to end the game, I jumped around my living room like a little kid as Sox fan across the Nation did the same.
While it is easy for Sox fans to boast all about the present and future of Buchholz, there is something even more interesting about what Clay symbolizes about MLB and its future. Not that long ago, teams with means spent too little time developing talent within their organization. Instead, they relied on the market to score much of their talent. However, smart GMs have realized that good pitching simply costs too much. MONEYBALL tell us that smart general managers will exploit market inefficiencies to their advantage. (If you haven't read Moneyball and you are a baseball fan, do yourself a favor and read it. There is so much more to the book than the characture presented by baseball's talking heads.) As more and more GMs recognized the value of certain stats (e.g. OBP, OPS, TB, etc.), the drive to find cheap talent turned away from free agents and toward internal development. Of course, this is one of the oldest strategies in baseball but it is also the wave of the future. Teams are now holding on to their pitching prospects like they are made of gold. And, these prospects are having a major impact. Sox fans saw this in 2005 and 2006 with the rise of Jonathan Papelbon. The Yankees are having their own success with reliever (for now) Joba Chamberlain and, if less so this year, starters Phil Hughes and Ian Kennedy. Joel Zumaya was absolutely dominant for the Tigers last year. The Twins' Scott Baker came close to throwing a perfect game on Friday night. The list is quite long and it goes to show that teams are both developing young pitching talent and willing to throw them out in the middle of a pennant race.
In short, what Buchholz did was truly special but it may be emblematic of a new paradigm in baseball. Free agents may matter less (although they will still matter) as teams move more aggressively in the amateur draft and international free-agent markets. I think this could be a very good thing for baseball. There is something special about having one of "your guys" take to the mound and throw a no hitter or make a game saving defensive play. Yankee fans have embraced Chamberlain in a way that most free agent signees never experience. After years of being forced to "rooting for the laundry" perhaps the youth movement in MLB echoes back to a day when a given player wore the same laundry for the most important years of their career. I hope this is true but, for today, I don't really care. Clay Buchholz threw a no-hitter and I got to dance around my living room like I was a kid again.
While it is easy for Sox fans to boast all about the present and future of Buchholz, there is something even more interesting about what Clay symbolizes about MLB and its future. Not that long ago, teams with means spent too little time developing talent within their organization. Instead, they relied on the market to score much of their talent. However, smart GMs have realized that good pitching simply costs too much. MONEYBALL tell us that smart general managers will exploit market inefficiencies to their advantage. (If you haven't read Moneyball and you are a baseball fan, do yourself a favor and read it. There is so much more to the book than the characture presented by baseball's talking heads.) As more and more GMs recognized the value of certain stats (e.g. OBP, OPS, TB, etc.), the drive to find cheap talent turned away from free agents and toward internal development. Of course, this is one of the oldest strategies in baseball but it is also the wave of the future. Teams are now holding on to their pitching prospects like they are made of gold. And, these prospects are having a major impact. Sox fans saw this in 2005 and 2006 with the rise of Jonathan Papelbon. The Yankees are having their own success with reliever (for now) Joba Chamberlain and, if less so this year, starters Phil Hughes and Ian Kennedy. Joel Zumaya was absolutely dominant for the Tigers last year. The Twins' Scott Baker came close to throwing a perfect game on Friday night. The list is quite long and it goes to show that teams are both developing young pitching talent and willing to throw them out in the middle of a pennant race.
In short, what Buchholz did was truly special but it may be emblematic of a new paradigm in baseball. Free agents may matter less (although they will still matter) as teams move more aggressively in the amateur draft and international free-agent markets. I think this could be a very good thing for baseball. There is something special about having one of "your guys" take to the mound and throw a no hitter or make a game saving defensive play. Yankee fans have embraced Chamberlain in a way that most free agent signees never experience. After years of being forced to "rooting for the laundry" perhaps the youth movement in MLB echoes back to a day when a given player wore the same laundry for the most important years of their career. I hope this is true but, for today, I don't really care. Clay Buchholz threw a no-hitter and I got to dance around my living room like I was a kid again.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)