Haven't we heard this one before?

"If [the documents] are genuine (which can never be proven conclusively), it might cause some of us to keep a wary eye on world affairs. We neither support nor deny its message. We simply make it available for those who wish a copy."

Of course you're thinking this is a quote from Dan Rather on the Killian memos, right? But you'd be wrong. This one comes from the world's leading retailer Wal-Mart, who has for sale on its website The Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion. (via CNN)

Four classic quotes from the Simpsons to ease you into the weekend:

(1) Lisa: You mean the country's broke? How did that happen?
Millhouse: Well, remember when the last administration decided to invest in our nation's children? Big mistake.

(2) Bill Clinton: Thank you, Lisa, for teaching kids everywhere a valuable lesson: If things don't go your way, just keep complaining until your dreams come true.
Marge: That's a pretty lousy lesson.
Bill Clinton: Hey, I'm a pretty lousy president.

(3) Chief Wiggum: Now don't try anything funny this time, Bob. I'm going to be on you like red beans on.. hey.. hey don't walk so fast! Hey no fair, you got long legs, I got these little bitty hooves. Bob!

(4) Burns: Nonsense! Dogs are idiots. Think about it, Smithers, if I came into your house and started sniffing at your crotch and slobbering all over your face. What would you say?
Smithers: Hmm...if you did it, sir?

I saw a post at the Legal Underground and one at Jeremy's blog that led to one at Waddling Thunder about law school course selection. I'm sure a lot of our law student readers are thinking about this, because even if the current semester's list is now set, there's always another one coming up soon. It got me thinking about some of the classes I took, especially WT's note that he didn't care to take Evidence, which was one of my favorite classes. (Almost everyone else in that class hated it, though.) Anyway, as a way to generate some new content, and to make it clear that you can make some pretty odd choices and still turn out ok, I decided to list the courses I took in law school. I had to check my transcript, because I had forgotten about one or two, and misremembered what semester I took a couple others, if that gives you any indication of the long-term consequences of this stuff. I've altered the names of a few to conform with what I think is the norm for courses that cover the same ground. Also, all our 1L classes were required, with no options to change sections. Our first-year writing program was built into one of the courses, though not the same one for everybody. As for upper-level classes, Con Law was a required third-semester class for us, and we didn't get to pick the section there either. Otherwise, the only requirement was a credit in professional responsibility of some kind.

1L
Fall: Torts (plus writing), Contracts, Criminal Law, Civil Procedure I
Spring: Civil Procedure II, Criminal Procedure, Property (with writing), Administrative Law

2L
Fall: Constitutional Law, Conflicts of Laws, Business Associations, Employment Discrimination, Law Review
Spring: Professional Responsibility, Evidence, Constitutional Criminal Procedure, Wills and Trusts, Law Review

3L
Fall: Federal Income Tax, Federal Courts, Family Law, First Amendment Seminar, Supreme Court Practice Seminar, Law Review
Spring: Communications Law, Death Penalty Seminar, Legal Ethics Seminar, Independent Study (on class actions), [State] Law & Procedure, Law Review

A few thoughts. The 1L Crim Pro was very analogous to Civ Pro, in that it was based on the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. We also discussed some things like Brady and double jeopardy. Con Crim Pro was 4th, 5th, and 6th Amendment stuff, essentially searches, confessions, and the right to counsel. The Legal Ethics Seminar was almost more of a philosophy of ethics as applied to the law class, and was team-taught by a law professor and an undergrad philosophy professor. If the standard PR course was more about what lawyers can get away with, Legal Ethics was more about how they ought to behave. As for Law Review, we got a few credits, but no grades. Note, too, that not all of these classes were my first choices. Some were dictated by availability, scheduling conflicts, how far down the registration list I was, etc. But I felt pretty happy with them. I was miserable in a few because of the professor, but I hardly ever disliked the material. By and large, I don't have regrets. There are a couple of classes I didn't take because of the professor, and sometimes I wonder if I should have gutted those out. If I had more time, I would have taken some additional classes, but the window is small.

Note also that there are very few business-type classes. No corporate tax, no publicly-held corporations, no bankruptcy, no UCC, no antitrust, etc. I knew pretty early on that I have no interest or acumen for that stuff. I did okay in Tax and the business associations course (agency, partnerships, LLC's, close corporations), but that was due much more to two wonderful professors than any genius on my part. The funny thing is that my worst grades were in Crim Law and Con Crim Pro, and that's a huge chunk of what I've been doing ever since law school.

The only class I took because it was on the Bar Exam was the state law course. One reason for that is that I didn't have a lot of other options that semester (I think it came down to this or Indian Law). Another is that the state law had some quirks that made it different from federal law in important ways, so it would have been unwise to fake it on the bar by applying the federal rule. Also, I didn't take any of the legal practice courses, such as Trail Advocacy or Pre-Trial Ad or the like. So, I could also justify this selection by noting that it had a lot of practical advice information how trials work in the real world. I think that Family Law is the course most often mentioned as one that you can pick up the essentials of in a bar review course. But I was interested in the material, and unlike most of my classmates, I liked the professor, and as it turned out, they didn't test it on my Bar Exam. Conflicts of Laws is another course that can be learned in a bar review, but I wanted to dig into the nuances of it, and I found it to be one of the most intellectually challenging classes I took.

I can remember a presentation for our 1L class about the time we started picking our 2L classes. It was a group of faculty members discussing what the courses were all about, and how and when to take the courses in certain "tracks" if people wanted to specialize. Nearly all of them had a list of essential courses, and if we had tried to take them all, law school would have to be about five years longer than it is. But I think there is something to the idea of a "basic legal literacy," the notion that you can't really say you have a full legal education unless you have taken some certain fundamental courses. I'm not saying I think there ought to be a standard law school curriculum for all three years -- I thought that even ten required classes was a lot. And I'm not sure what would be included in this core curriculum, although your thoughts are welcome. I think a lot of this comes from my attempt to treat law school less like a vocational school than as a way to get the equivalent of a broad-based liberal arts education in the law. I probably wasn't terrifically successful in this, although I did suck it up and take Tax and Business Associations.

I really believe in the old line that "the law is a seamless web." I think it's important to branch out from one's comfort zones and be a bit of a generalist. (Again, I've probably failed at that, generally speaking.) When I look back at my transcript, I'm glad I filled a hole with, say, Tax, instead of, say, Elder Law or Radical Legal Thought. I think I had a better all-around legal education because of it, although note that a good legal education doesn't always go hand-in-hand with being a good lawyer.

I think it's good to generalize because I think it's important to see the big picture. It's like taking Gross Anatomy or Macroeconomics or World History. If you need a practical justification, it's that one day you'll be explaining to a client or boss or judge that what you're trying to do fits in the grand scheme of things and doesn't conflict with the rest of a body of law. It's irresponsible to have tunnel vision. Also, I think it's easier to move from a set of general knowledge to a discrete issue than vice versa. It's like taking Civ Pro and then a course on federal court jurisdiction and then studying class actions. It's difficult to even imagine trying to do the opposite -- trying to understand Rule 23's requirements before understanding the concept of diversity jurisdiction or the civil rules more generally. There's a good reason so many law school classes have prerequisites.

So, my advice is, when in doubt, take a more general course over a more specialized course.

Now, a lingering question: Is Evidence part of my idealized basic legal curriculum? I'm torn, but ultimately I think it is. One of the commenters at WT suggested that Evidence would be helpful to have for the Bar, and I do agree that it would be tough to pick up for the first time in a review session. Another took particular offense that WT would try to graduate from law school without taking it, and I think that's a little much. But I think it's an important class to have. It's obvious to me that it's vital for litigators to understand evidence law, and even transactional attorneys ought to understand that, say, business records are admissible as an exception to the hearsay rule. To me, though, the most fascinating thing about Evidence was not the "what" part (what's admissible, what's inadmissible) but the "why" part, trying to understand why we think certain kinds of evidence are more reliable or more probative than others, and why even when some evidence is reliable and probative, it's still not admitted (seamless web time: a good example is the exclusionary rule in criminal cases). I think the answers to those questions tell us a lot about the values that are important to us in an adversary system, and what processes and procedures we think are fair when adjudicating liability. (Note that the federal rules of evidence don't apply at criminal sentencing, which raises interesting fairness issues.) Moreover, the rules of evidence apply to both civil and criminal cases, and I think it's a valuable lens through which to view the differences and similarities between the two. Yes, you can call yourself a lawyer without taking Evidence, and you can sit through the class seeing it as nothing more than a list of rules to memorize. But I think the class is a lot more fun and interesting if you look at it as the study of how lawyers impart information to fact-finders. I think Evidence is important enough to enough other areas of the law that I would recommend every law student take the course.

1. Every time I hear the Rolling Stones' "Gimme Shelter," I think it might be the perfect rock and roll song.

2. A really nice dig I got this weekend: I was hanging out with some friends the night before Sebastian's wedding. I'm not sure how, but the conversation turned to bad drinking experiences the guys had had. One mentioned a trip on a hovercraft across the English Channel that was particularly unpleasant. Another guy said, "I saw this documentary on the Discovery Channel about how the built the Chunnel. They had these two giant boring machines..." Me, cutting in: "You mean kind of like you right now?" Total showstopper. I was pretty proud of that one.

3. Belated congratulations: To Mr. Poon, for landing a clerkship. To Mr. Fun Ball, for passing the bar. And to Scheherazade for her one-year blogiversary. I'm sure I've missed something else I need to commend someone on, but that will have to wait for the belated congrats section of a future post.

4. I'm sick as a dog. I slept all day yesterday, and today have been through about a whole box of tissues. So for all you pretty ladies, the make-out session has been postponed. But feel free to practice with each other until I'm back to full strength.

[Post in progress, awaiting more thoughts.]

This past weekend, I attended the wedding of my friend, and frequent BTQ commenter and guest-blogger "Sebastian Haff." Seb is my good true friend, and I couldn't be happier for him, or more honored to have been there for him.

The wedding itself was nice. It seemed really suited to Seb and the Mrs., in that it was short and not too elaborate and seemed to honor friends and family as much as the two principals. Let me share a few thoughts about Seb, whom I've known for ten years -- his freshman dorm room was next to mine, and we roomed together sophomore year.

Seb is from Montana, and was an almost iconic figure at Duke. You know, men wanted to be him, women wanted to be with him, that whole thing. I can't imagine the culture shock for him. It was bad enough for me, coming from a small town in the boonies. But for Seb, his whole class in high school had been about eleven people. He told me that he lived closer to nuclear missiles than to other people. I know that when he showed up at freshman orientation was the first time he had been on the east coast. But still, he never seemed ill-at-ease. He was like a cross between John Wayne and Steve McQueen.

Seb was instantly recognizable on campus, because he was so different. So when he wanted to go across campus unmolested, he simply took off his cowboy hat and boots, put on a pair of sneakers, and became invisible. Another funny thing: while many of our dorm-mates put up posters of half-naked models, Seb's desk held two framed pictures, of Reba McIntire and Tonya Harding.

I think the thing that people admired so much about Seb, that instinctively drew them to him, was that he was the most self-assured person we knew. At a time in our lives when we were out on our own for the first time, trying to reinvent ourselves from high school nerd to college BMOC, Seb was just...together. He knew who he was and didn't care to change, and didn't care what you thought. I think we could attribute a lot of this to his upbringing, but I know a lot of people whose parents were as decent and modest and hardworking as Seb's and turned out to be jerks. Seb just had a self-confidence and comfort in his own skin that's rare anywhere, but especially so among a bunch of cooler-than-thou young people.

And as solid and dependable as he was (and is), Seb wasn't predictable. Well, maybe it was a little predictable that his favorite move was Red Dawn. But I don't think any of us foresaw Seb living in one of the biggest cities in America and doing software consulting. And we probably didn't see Seb as being a world traveller, although we probably would have guessed that he would enjoy seeing Scotland and Amsterdam as much as he did. A lot of our friends also thought that he wouldn't settle down, because we wondered if there existed a woman to suit him. But when I met the Mrs., I realized that she is as self-assured and self-confident as he is. She's bold and brassy and outspoken and opinionated, and she doesn't take crap from anyone. She's his equal in so many ways that when a friend asked me what she was like, I said, "She's the female [Seb]." Okay, she's lively and he's laconic, but that difference works well for them. Seb couldn't have been with a shrinking violet who worried about what others thought of her. He needed someone as solid as him, and he found her.

After a reception at one of the swankiest places in town, the couple took a carriage ride...to their neighborhood bar. Naturally, they seemed right at home in both places.

No, Prof. Smith, it's not just you.

The best (or worst, depending on you look at it) part of Andrew Sullivan's blog is the contortionist act he is currently engaged in. He has recently explained that the reasons he is voting for Kerry are the war in Iraq and the economy. Those explanations ring hollow for anyone who has read Sullivan for any period of time. If you have, then you know exactly why he no longer supports President Bush: the President's support for the FMA. It has been amusing, in a way, to watch Sullivan confirm all predictions that he would, when it came down to it, vote his single issue over this election's most important issue.

Milbarge can devote his time to the serious posts on this blog. Meanwhile, I have a real situation on my hands. I need to update my work wardrobe. Specifically, I need to buy 2-3 more suits. As far as my work attire is concerned, I'm partial to Brooks Brothers. I'm looking for classic tailoring (read: not something from Deion Sanders' closet) and good quality (read: not Men's Warehouse). Any suggestions?

I need to get a lanyard for my i.d. badge, so I went to the Duke University home page to check the online store. At the home page, I noticed a link to a recent article about Duke's new President Dick Broadhead. Specifically, the article notes that Broadhead renewed his predecessor's stance that Duke will not divest itself from "companies with military ties to Israel." (I'm not sure what the exact parameters of "military ties" are, especially in this day of private military contracting.)

The article notes that Duke did divest from South Africa during the apartheid era there. But the school's position is that (a) divestment is a "blunt intsrument" and (b) there isn't a consensus, like there was in South Africa, about where all the fault lies in the ongoing Israeli-Palestinian conflicts.

This makes sense to me. I think Duke would be clearly morally wrong to invest in, say, Nigerian Slavery Futures, Inc. or something. I don't think Duke has a moral obligation to invest only in the "best" or "most noble" enterprises, though. I think it can decide that, while a certain company might not be a perfect operation, it's not outright evil and the return on the investment benefits the greater good (not to mention the influence on corporate governance that a major shareholder like a university endowment might exert). For instance, the Duke Endowment was for years the majority shareholder of Duke Power. And although the Endowment sold off a lot of that stock (probably in contravention of James Duke's trust indenture), Duke Energy stock is still the Endowment's biggest asset. Anyway, my point is just that even if Duke Energy isn't the world's greatest corporate citizen, it's not inherently evil such that Duke should feel complicit in any of its misdeeds. (Note also I'm just using this as an example; I don't have any evidence of any misdeeds by Duke Energy at all. And remember of course that Duke got its name, and a pile of money, from the Dukes of the American Tobacco Company fortune. I wonder if the creation of a "Marlboro University" today would be greeted with much acclaim.)

I think the situation in Israel is comparable, although on a much more tragic scale. While I unequivocally and unhesitatingly denounce suicide bombings and other forms of terrorism, I don't think the Israeli government has been completely blameless. (I'm not an expert on the conflict, and I don't want to get into it here. I don't think there's any point in trying to argue with someone who thinks that either side is 100% pure or 100% to blame in this. It can't be that simple.) So, even though I think Duke could have chosen to take sides in this problem, I think doing so would have been a bad idea. For one thing, some Palestinians are doing bad things, and I would hate for Duke's choice to be seen as a reward for these actions. Second, divestment wouldn't solve anything, and probably wouldn't even be noticed. On the other hand, maintaining stock in these companies allows Duke to at least have a voice at the shareholders' meeting, if nothing else. In the event that a company does something particularly bad, Duke could use the threat of divestment as a means of urging the company to change its policies. (There's some game theory here, though, because the company could call Duke's hand, and once divested, Duke loses all power over the company.)

I'm way off-topic and have rambled far too much. All I really wanted to say is that I think Duke did the right thing by refusing to divest here.

There's an interesting postscript to this story. President Broadhead also announced that he was allowing the Palestinian Solidarity Movement to hold a conference at Duke "despite objections from some Jewish groups who say PSM endorses terrorism and the elimination of Israel." PSM denies those charges, by the way.

Broadhead said that the decision was "easy," because he feels the school should be promoting the free exchange of ideas rather than suppressing them. An objector said that the PSM's presence could lead to anti-Semitic acts, but Broadhead refused to allow a heckler's veto. (See more here.) I'm sure the school will respond to any anti-Semitic acts that do occur, but it won't impose a prior restraint.

This is notable because Duke is a private university to which the First Amendment doesn't apply. But the news article says that last year's PSM conference was scheduled at Rutgers, the state university of New Jersey. (Please, no jokes about Duke being the University of New Jersey at Durham; it's tired.) Rutgers, though, cancelled the event. I don't know if the PSM folks or Rutgers students brought any First Amendment challenges to this action. But I'm glad to see Duke standing up for principles of free speech even when it doesn't have to.

As of today, this little corner of the web has been viewed over 30,000 times since its inception around Thanksgiving 2003, about ten months ago.

Thirty thousand is a lot of page views, but we'd trade it all for a few more. (Monty Burns reference)

This weekend, I had a discussion with a friend about how meaningless it was to celebrate Barry Bonds's 700th home run, because it's just an arbitrary number and doesn't set any records. It's nice and round, but not especially different from 699, and not as grand as 701, which of course elicited much less hoopla.

But with blogs, I think the case is a little different. We're not chasing records; we're in this for longevity and endurance (of our fingers and your eyeballs). I think noting the achievement of round numbers is similar to putting mile-markers up on the interstate, so you can know how far you've come. As I see it, we've only passed a few mile-markers, but as the song goes, the road goes on forever and the party never ends.

So thanks for hanging in there in those moments when the party wasn't too hopping, and we look forward to more round numbers with you.

Dear ABC Sports:

Has it escaped your attention that Terry Bowden is the worst color commentator in sports broadcasting? It is extraordinary, don't you think, for a former coach and player to have so little knowledge, understanding or insight to pass along to the TV audience. It's almost as if he has no football training at all. I lost count of the number of times he had to be corrected by his co-hosts on simple aspects of the Oklahoma - Oregon game. His commentary was a distraction from an otherwise entertaining afternoon of college football. Please get rid of him.

Sincerely,

Fitz-Hume