When I was young, teaching, like nursing, was still largely a women’s job. It was one of the jobs where women were predominate, and so smart, capable women went into it for lack of alternatives where they would be accepted. But since women were rarely the primary breadwinners, and their incomes were secondary to the family, their pay was decent, but not great. After all, these were women, so whatever money they brought home was atop their husband’s. It was gravy, if you will.
Simultaneously, teachers were respected because education was respected. It was the way children could succeed in life, to do better than their parents and climb the ladder to success. Teachers were the conduit to this future and were appreciated and feared because of it. If a teacher told a parent that little Johnny was misbehaving, little Johnny could well expect to pay a price for his
My old friend, Ken, announced that he was leaving twitter yesterday. His reasoning was fair and internally consistent with his oft-repeated position on free speech.
This is exactly how it’s supposed to work, as I’ve been arguing for years. Twitter — or whoever runs it — has rights. I have rights. If one of us disagrees with the other’s exercise of rights, we can part company. That, not government regulation, is the way to do it. I’m repulsed by the flood of triumphant bigotry and trolling, and by Musk’s sad-lonely-boy leaning into the arms of freaks who embrace him in his fruitless quest for love. But I’d never ask the government to stop it. I’m voting with my feet, exactly the way I’ve been telling people to do for years.
A number of other people have similarly expressed the view that they do not choose to be part of the
The crux of the Bulwark post was that limiting abortion to women who were raped raises a serious, and underappreciated problem: It puts the burden on women to prove they were raped to avail themselves of the exception, and police have not always been been accommodating of women who complain that they’ve been raped. Of course, there is the possibility that someone will falsely claim to be a rape victim to get an exemption from an abortion ban, leaving the question whether to favor false positives or negatives. This is more a political issue than anything else.
But buried within the post was this assertion.
According to U.S. Justice Department data crunched by the Race, Abuse and Incest National Network, more than two-thirds of all sexual assaults go unreported.
Two-thirds is certainly a lot, but there’s a definitional problem here. If they’re unreported, then they’re an unknown and can’t be
As it turned out, a bad stock market and rocky economy is just as bad for pension fund investments as it is for everyone else’s. It sucks, of course, but it’s not as if this comes as a surprise. Unless you’re a Teamster. And unless your president really loves unions and wants your love in return.
President Biden announced Thursday that he was investing $36 billion in federal funds to save the pensions of more than 350,000 union workers and retirees, a demonstration of commitment to labor just a week after a rupture over an imposed settlement of a threatened rail strike.
After using Congress to quash a railway labor strike, the president needed some big show of union love to prove his bona fides as the president everyone needed in 1934. What better show could there be than taking taxpayer money and giving it to a private
Most of you might have heard of ChatGPT these days. It’s an AI chatbot that can do an amazing number of things from selling sprockets to writing episodes of “Friends.”
Because I am busy this week I’ve outsourced the Friday Funny to ChatGPT.
I blame the robots for taking my job.
Tell a humorous story about cash bail.
One humorous story about cash bail involves a man who was arrested for a minor offense and taken to the local jail. When it came time to pay his bail, the man realized that he had left his wallet at home and didn’t have any cash on him. He asked the jailer if he could pay his bail with a credit card, but the jailer said that was not allowed.
The man then remembered that he had a gift card for a popular fast food restaurant in his pocket. He offered to
When a trademark holder’s rights are infringed, which is to say, when a Junior trademark proprietor sells a product or service under the banner of a trademark excessively similar to the trademark of a Senior holder (who sells similar goods/services), the Senior may be eligible to recover damages under the Lanham Act. The Trademark Act of 1946, or the Lanham Act, is the Federal trademark statute which governs trademark law in the United States. The purpose of filing a trademark infringement lawsuit under the Lanham Act is to stop the infringer from continuing the infringing activity (“Injunctive Relief”) and hopefully, recover monetary damages for the harm caused by the infringement.
While injunctive relief is undoubtedly the most common category of “relief”, Monetary relief (damages), while less common, is equally if not more desirable than injunctive relief. There are several different types of monetary damages that
In 2012, at the request of the ABA Journal, Dan Hull and I wrote an article about the importance of mentoring, both as a duty of experienced lawyers to give back and a duty of new lawyers to get up to speed as quickly and effectively as possible for the sake of clients. Despite their having asked for the article, and our having put in the time to write it, the ABA Journal decided not to publish it because they felt our expectations of young lawyers to be good mentees was too hard and might hurt their feelings.
But mentoring has been a very important part of my career, and I’ve mentored many law students and young lawyers over the years. Some have been white. Some black and brown. Some male. Some female. None told me they were of another orientation, but that doesn’t mean they weren’t. With a couple
A few years back, I queried whether David Cole, the legal director of the organization that uses the legacy name American Civil Liberties Union, could save the ACLU from becoming the apologist for the termination of civil liberties and the enforcer of the woke brand of political correctness. Experience since suggests that he won’t be its savior.
Cole has now pounded the final nail in his coffin in what may be one of the most shamefully unprincipled arguments ever proffered to eradicate constitutional rights and subjugate people to the will of the woke.
Can an artist be compelled to create a website for an event she does not condone? That’s the question the Supreme Court has said it will take up on Monday, when it hears oral arguments in 303 Creative v. Elenis. The answer would seem to be obviously “no.”
Not that it applies here, as SJ does not exist for “profit-making purposes,”* but the New York lege enacted a new law that would require any website that allows users to post public comments to become the hate speech police by calling it “hateful conduct” rather than hate speech, which is fully protected by the First Amendment and for which liability is precluded by Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act. Not that New York cared.
The law forces internet platforms of all stripes to publish a policy explaining how they will respond to online expression that could “vilify, humiliate, or incite violence” based on a protected class, like religion, gender, or race. The law also requires the platforms to create a way for visitors to complain about “hateful” content or comments, and mandates that they answer complaints with a direct response. Refusal to comply could mean investigations from
It’s not the Onion. It’s not even surprising. It is, however, nuts.
To what does the absurd delusion relate? Twitter. Or to be more precise, Twitter’s decision to eliminate all mention of the New York Post’s story about Hunter Biden’s laptop. Matt Taibbi tells the story in a twitstream of how internal Twitter emails show that it was a deliberate, unprincipled, choice by Twitter to eradicate this story from its site. This might have been at the behest of the Biden campaign, but the choice belonged entirely to Twitter. And Twitter had the right to do so.
This was no mystery, even at the time it happened. The Post, a conservative tabloid that tended to go off the edge of reason and reality on occasion, was nonetheless a longstanding newspaper and wrote about something it deemed newsworthy. That the story couldn’t be posted on Twitter did not somehow magically escape
