It's been so long since I've done anything with this blog, I'm not sure whether anyone reads it anymore. But, just in case someone out there is interested, here we go:
First up in exciting news, an essay that I wrote on the Supreme Court's recent decision in J.D.B. v. North Carolina (a case about Miranda rights) was published by MLR's First Impressions (check it out here). The case itself is pretty interesting, but I focused on tackling what I think is the Court's misguided analysis of the "reasonable person test," something that comes up over and over in all kinds of different areas in law. If you (whoever you are) ever get a chance to read it, I'd love to hear feedback.
I also accepted a publication offer for the full-length article I was working on during my 3L year, which will be published some time in 2012. That one revolves around the use of the moral luck objection by law & economists against more traditional theories of tort law. It incorporates some of what I did for my senior thesis at Princeton, and can be found here. It's a little nuts thinking that I'm going to be on the other side of the process now, but I'm super thrilled that something I wrote is going to be published as a real-life, big-kid article.
In other news, I graduated from Michigan in May and have settled into Richmond for my clerkship, which I started a few weeks ago. The job is wonderful: I'm doing exactly what I like doing, and everyone in chambers is awesome. Jennifer, who's been hanging out with me here since we got back from France with my family, just started her firm job in DC. That means lots of commuting back and forth for a while, but I can handle it.
That about covers it, I think. I'll try to post more updates? We'll see how it goes.
Tuesday, September 13, 2011
Wednesday, March 16, 2011
Articles That Make Me Want to Tear My Hair Out
Here's one, from the New York Times, entitled "No Face, but Plants Like Life Too," which argues that "formulating a truly rational rationale for not eating animals, at least while consuming all sorts of other organisms, [is] difficult, maybe even impossible." The idea is that plants engage in similar-looking defense mechanisms as animals when attacked, and so the difference between eating the two isn't really all that great:
The most obvious response to Yoon's assertion is to have her read Peter Singer. The difference between plants and (some) animals is that (some) animals feel pain--they're able to suffer. There's a subjective experience brought about when you stab a pig that doesn't occur when you cut into an asparagus. Yoon, perhaps not surprisingly, is aware of this argument: "The differences that do seem to matter are things like the fact that plants don’t have nerves or brains. They cannot, we therefore conclude, feel pain." But she goes on to reject the idea that subjective suffering can serve as a basis for morally distinguishing eating animals from eating plants because "[s]lavery and genocide have been justified by the assertion that some kinds of people do not feel pain, do not feel love — are not truly human — in the same way as others."
I'm not totally sure how to respond to such a ridiculous argument, but here's my best shot: neither slavery nor genocide were based on the argument that particular groups of people don't feel pain. I don't have a history Ph.D., but somehow I don't see slave owners saying to themselves, "It's a good thing our slaves don't have any subjective experiences. They're, neurologically speaking, exactly the same as inanimate objects." But let's pretend that somehow, somewhere in the world, there was a person who justified slavery or genocide on these grounds. What could we say to them? How about, "Dear crazy person, please read a high school biology textbook. You have a view about neuroscience that is utterly, hopelessly wrong." To say we should reject a moral theory because some people don't understand basic science and therefore apply the theory incorrectly is just ridiculous.
This isn't to say that I think Singer's argument is right: I don't believe that moral obligations derive solely from the existence of subjective suffering. But it certainly isn't an irrational view.
But just like a chicken running around without its head, the body of a corn plant torn from the soil or sliced into pieces struggles to save itself, just as vigorously and just as uselessly, if much less obviously[,] to the human ear and eye.I eat meat (and should probably get one of these), so it's not like I have a dog in this fight. But Yoon's argument is, well, totally nuts.
The most obvious response to Yoon's assertion is to have her read Peter Singer. The difference between plants and (some) animals is that (some) animals feel pain--they're able to suffer. There's a subjective experience brought about when you stab a pig that doesn't occur when you cut into an asparagus. Yoon, perhaps not surprisingly, is aware of this argument: "The differences that do seem to matter are things like the fact that plants don’t have nerves or brains. They cannot, we therefore conclude, feel pain." But she goes on to reject the idea that subjective suffering can serve as a basis for morally distinguishing eating animals from eating plants because "[s]lavery and genocide have been justified by the assertion that some kinds of people do not feel pain, do not feel love — are not truly human — in the same way as others."
I'm not totally sure how to respond to such a ridiculous argument, but here's my best shot: neither slavery nor genocide were based on the argument that particular groups of people don't feel pain. I don't have a history Ph.D., but somehow I don't see slave owners saying to themselves, "It's a good thing our slaves don't have any subjective experiences. They're, neurologically speaking, exactly the same as inanimate objects." But let's pretend that somehow, somewhere in the world, there was a person who justified slavery or genocide on these grounds. What could we say to them? How about, "Dear crazy person, please read a high school biology textbook. You have a view about neuroscience that is utterly, hopelessly wrong." To say we should reject a moral theory because some people don't understand basic science and therefore apply the theory incorrectly is just ridiculous.
This isn't to say that I think Singer's argument is right: I don't believe that moral obligations derive solely from the existence of subjective suffering. But it certainly isn't an irrational view.
Saturday, January 29, 2011
I Don't Want to Read Crim Pro/Triumphant Return?
I randomly clicked on the link to this blog today and realized that it's been over a year since I've posted--that's more than a little sad. I could say that I'll be writing here more frequently, but I've made similar promises before. Still, since I'm trying to avoid my reading again, how about an update?
* I'm graduating in May! And while law school has been fun, I can't say I'm sorry to be leaving. The seminars were great, as was the independent work that I did, but lecture classes are tough: reading every day for the seemingly sole purpose of memorizing facts and having no opportunity to do any in-depth analysis=lame.
* I got published! It's on a very esoteric topic, but it was still pretty neat to see my name in print. I've been working on a second piece that's nearly complete, but we'll see whether I actually submit it for publication or have it accepted anywhere. Will I ever fully give up on the idea of becoming an academic?
* I'm almost done being editor-in-chief of the law review! The last year has been quite an adventure, and I'm very, very glad to have had the experience, but at the same time it's great to know I'll soon be finished. We'll be picking the new editorial board Superbowl weekend (bad timing, I know), so T-minus 8 days and counting.
* MLR has been running smoothly. Thanks to a really great group of editors, we've published each of our issues several weeks early (#5, the March issue, will be out shortly) and are hopefully leaving the journal in the same great shape we found it in last year.
* I'm moving to Virginia, then going to DC. I'll be clerking for a year and then will make the permanent (or at least semi-permanent) move to the District in 2012.
That covers the highlights, I think. Now we'll see if I can keep it up.
* I'm graduating in May! And while law school has been fun, I can't say I'm sorry to be leaving. The seminars were great, as was the independent work that I did, but lecture classes are tough: reading every day for the seemingly sole purpose of memorizing facts and having no opportunity to do any in-depth analysis=lame.
* I got published! It's on a very esoteric topic, but it was still pretty neat to see my name in print. I've been working on a second piece that's nearly complete, but we'll see whether I actually submit it for publication or have it accepted anywhere. Will I ever fully give up on the idea of becoming an academic?
* I'm almost done being editor-in-chief of the law review! The last year has been quite an adventure, and I'm very, very glad to have had the experience, but at the same time it's great to know I'll soon be finished. We'll be picking the new editorial board Superbowl weekend (bad timing, I know), so T-minus 8 days and counting.
* MLR has been running smoothly. Thanks to a really great group of editors, we've published each of our issues several weeks early (#5, the March issue, will be out shortly) and are hopefully leaving the journal in the same great shape we found it in last year.
* I'm moving to Virginia, then going to DC. I'll be clerking for a year and then will make the permanent (or at least semi-permanent) move to the District in 2012.
That covers the highlights, I think. Now we'll see if I can keep it up.
Saturday, August 29, 2009
I Don't Want to Read Jurisdiction
Since I'm trying to avoid doing my class reading and I finally have a little free time after a very hectic week and a half, I thought it would be a good time to post. Updates on life:
* Successfully visited Nashville, Indianapolis, Plymouth and Ann Arbor & got both Jennifer and my things moved in.
* OCI week came & went, which was a whole lot more stressful than I thought it would be. 20 interviews over the course of 4 days is very tiring. Still, I think it went well overall. A number of firms are still deciding on who they're going to offer callbacks to, so for now I'm still waiting to see how the whole thing went.
* MLR orientation ended yesterday. I'm still really looking forward to working on a journal, but the 3L's certainly weren't kidding when they said it was a major time commitment: 5-10 hour weekly assignments + writing a publishable note this year + committee work + administrative duties (though I'm told that's only a couple of times a semester) on top of my regular class work and Campbell (which I'm separately really excited about) means this year will be keeping me busy.
* I'm getting particularly excited about researching & writing my note topic. For anyone who might be interested, I'm planning to write on whether a district court has the authority (and if it does, whether it should ever exercise that authority) to compel the attendance of a corporate defendant at an 11(b) plea colloquy even though Fed. R. Crim. Pro. 43 says that organizational defendants "need not be present" at any hearing or trial if represented by counsel. OK, it sounds esoteric and boring, but I think a lot of the discussion will revolve around the justifications of prosecuting corporations and whether the reasons why we choose to do that tells us anything about how corporations should plead guilty to crimes. White collar crime is kind of cool, right?
I think that touches all the highlights. Time to get back to that reading.
* Successfully visited Nashville, Indianapolis, Plymouth and Ann Arbor & got both Jennifer and my things moved in.
* OCI week came & went, which was a whole lot more stressful than I thought it would be. 20 interviews over the course of 4 days is very tiring. Still, I think it went well overall. A number of firms are still deciding on who they're going to offer callbacks to, so for now I'm still waiting to see how the whole thing went.
* MLR orientation ended yesterday. I'm still really looking forward to working on a journal, but the 3L's certainly weren't kidding when they said it was a major time commitment: 5-10 hour weekly assignments + writing a publishable note this year + committee work + administrative duties (though I'm told that's only a couple of times a semester) on top of my regular class work and Campbell (which I'm separately really excited about) means this year will be keeping me busy.
* I'm getting particularly excited about researching & writing my note topic. For anyone who might be interested, I'm planning to write on whether a district court has the authority (and if it does, whether it should ever exercise that authority) to compel the attendance of a corporate defendant at an 11(b) plea colloquy even though Fed. R. Crim. Pro. 43 says that organizational defendants "need not be present" at any hearing or trial if represented by counsel. OK, it sounds esoteric and boring, but I think a lot of the discussion will revolve around the justifications of prosecuting corporations and whether the reasons why we choose to do that tells us anything about how corporations should plead guilty to crimes. White collar crime is kind of cool, right?
I think that touches all the highlights. Time to get back to that reading.
Friday, August 7, 2009
Almost Time to Move Again
In less than a week I'll be heading back up to Michigan via Nashville (Jennifer has assured me I'm not going to turn into slack-jawed yokel by stepping foot in The South) to start my second year of law school. That of course means that the next few days will inevitably be filled with my procrastinating, followed by panic that I'm actually going to have to leave DC and somehow get all of my things back to Ann Arbor. That, coupled with the substantial amount of preparation needed for OCI, means fun times for me. Before classes actually start, I also have the week of on-campus interviewing and then another week of journal orientation. Life will probably be busy over the next month or so.
Other than that, very little is new. I'm finishing up work at the DoJ, so it's been pretty slow in the office. Tonight it's out with friends to spend our winnings from trivia, a $50 gift certificate to a bar. Other than that...nothing. Let's be honest: I'm pretty much posting for the sake of posting. But at least I've got something new on the blog.
Other than that, very little is new. I'm finishing up work at the DoJ, so it's been pretty slow in the office. Tonight it's out with friends to spend our winnings from trivia, a $50 gift certificate to a bar. Other than that...nothing. Let's be honest: I'm pretty much posting for the sake of posting. But at least I've got something new on the blog.
Thursday, July 23, 2009
I'm Posting??
Hey, it's only been 7 months since I last posted something here. But given my level of boredom this week, I figured writing a few entries would kill at least 20 minutes. And changing the name, font and style? That's at least another 10.
Updates
Surprisingly little is new (or at least surprisingly little that I'm going to talk about in a public forum with OCI coming up (please hire me, DC law firms!)), but some highlights:
* I finished my first year of law school! Yes, I made it out alive, so I am officially 1/3 of the way to being able to pretend I know enough law to give legal advice. Scary thought.
* I'm interning this summer at the Department of Justice in the Environmental Crimes Section. Yes, environmental crimes are real; no, not everyone who works here is a granola-crunching hippie. Turns out dumping tons of putrid, hazardous chemicals into the main water source of a small town is a big no-no. So far I've been pretty lucky in getting assignments which are challenging and interesting. It's also even further solidified my love for litigation: spend the next two weeks reading over this brief, doing research and writing out an argument demonstrating opposing counsel is wrong? Sign me up. I'm here through mid-August, too, so if anyone in the DC/Northern Virginia area is interested in getting together before then, let me know.
* OCI is coming up. For those of you less familiar with the process of finding legal employment, OCI is the On Campus Interviewing program that Michigan and a good many other schools do. Employers come to the campus to interview prospective employees for next summer (only 9 months away!), and each student goes through dozens of interviews over a 4 or 5 day period. The important part is that the large majority of students will end up working for the firm, organization or agency they intern for during their 2L summer after they graduate, meaning this process pretty much determines where I'll be going with my pretty new J.D. in 2011. I really want to return to the District once I graduate, so we'll hope the process goes well.
I'm going to try to revive my blog and post here at least semi-regularly, so here's hoping I stick to it.
Updates
Surprisingly little is new (or at least surprisingly little that I'm going to talk about in a public forum with OCI coming up (please hire me, DC law firms!)), but some highlights:
* I finished my first year of law school! Yes, I made it out alive, so I am officially 1/3 of the way to being able to pretend I know enough law to give legal advice. Scary thought.
* I'm interning this summer at the Department of Justice in the Environmental Crimes Section. Yes, environmental crimes are real; no, not everyone who works here is a granola-crunching hippie. Turns out dumping tons of putrid, hazardous chemicals into the main water source of a small town is a big no-no. So far I've been pretty lucky in getting assignments which are challenging and interesting. It's also even further solidified my love for litigation: spend the next two weeks reading over this brief, doing research and writing out an argument demonstrating opposing counsel is wrong? Sign me up. I'm here through mid-August, too, so if anyone in the DC/Northern Virginia area is interested in getting together before then, let me know.
* OCI is coming up. For those of you less familiar with the process of finding legal employment, OCI is the On Campus Interviewing program that Michigan and a good many other schools do. Employers come to the campus to interview prospective employees for next summer (only 9 months away!), and each student goes through dozens of interviews over a 4 or 5 day period. The important part is that the large majority of students will end up working for the firm, organization or agency they intern for during their 2L summer after they graduate, meaning this process pretty much determines where I'll be going with my pretty new J.D. in 2011. I really want to return to the District once I graduate, so we'll hope the process goes well.
I'm going to try to revive my blog and post here at least semi-regularly, so here's hoping I stick to it.
Friday, November 14, 2008
Question
How many of my law school friends have checked this since Laura told you all about it last Saturday?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)