Yesterday, I pointed out silliness of Mark Bechtel's blog-complaint about fencing, where he wrote:

Speaking of aesthetically unpleasing sport, is there a worse event to watch on TV than fencing? The combatants dress up in shiny silver suits that light up when they're struck, making the fencers look like Eugene Levy during the Nothing Ever Happens on Mars number in Waiting For Guffman. Now, you'd think if they can make a suit illuminate, they could rig it so only the first one hit lights up. But no. So what you have is about a second and a half of action, during which both fencers smack each other (think Jim Carrey and Jeff Daniels in Dumb and Dumber) and both suits light up. Then each fencer pumps a fist as if to say, "I got him!" while looking at the judge, who then apparently decides the winner of the point by flipping a coin, because it seemed like half the calls in the sabre finals match I watched were wrong. What's the point of having the suit light up if it doesn't tell you who hit who first? And fellas, swashbuckle a little, will ya?

Speaking of aesthetically unpleasing sport, is there a worse event to watch on TV than fencing? The combatants dress up in shiny silver suits that light up when they're struck, making the fencers look like Eugene Levy during the Nothing Ever Happens on Mars number in Waiting For Guffman. ... And fellas, swashbuckle a little, will ya?

Tender-footed co-bloggers may be interested to read about the plight of designing comfortable high heels. (Via Virginia Postrel).

Writes Steve Dillard at Southern Appeal:

I agree that congressmen "have an obligation to assess the constitutionality of federal acts." I am not so sure, however, that this duty requires a congressman "to vote against such legislation, even if he believes the law would withstand a challenge in court." Indeed, it seems to me that Members of Congress should take into consideration any restrictions or expansions placed on their Article I powers by the Supremes when voting for or against a particular piece of legislation.

Look, no one appreciates an originalist interpretation of the Constitution more than I do; but you and I both know that only a handful of Republican congressmen (and perhaps one oddball dem) will abide by the rule of honor you propose. Thus, as much as I would love to see congressmen take on a Clarence Thomas mentality with respect to each and every piece of legislation they consider, I simply cannot support a practice that will amount to unilateral disarmament on the part of conservatives.

Moreover, "inferior" federal court judges also swear "true faith and allegiance" to the Constitution of the United States, Will. Should they ignore Supreme Court precedent as well? That, of course, is hardly a pefect analogy, but if one if going to rest his argument on an oath then how far does that logic extend?

In sum, I don't think Will's comparison of legislators to judges works. Is he really suggesting that a congressman should not take into account long established Supreme Court rulings when deciding whether proposed legislation is constitutional?

This may be somewhat tardy, but my ability to read blogs is severely hampered by a lack of constant high speed internet access, so I only read Jeremy's posts on law firm/summer associate life yesterday. The one that leapt out at me, though, was the email exchange that partially explained the appeal of Biglaw by separating people into those who value people and those who value things. My traveling experiences make it very clear that I'm a "thing person." I typically travel alone, as I am now. This is because I value what I am doing a great deal - I would rather have the perfect solo experience than an imperfect one with someone else, especially if it's something I am unlikely to get a chance to repeat. I am not interested in making new friends when I travel, although I am friendly when approached (to a point - a woman traveling alone can only be so receptive).

When traveling, and, to a lesser extent, when having experiences at home, I seek to maximize my enjoyment. Sometimes that requires the presence of friends or the people I love, but if I am trying to derive utility from some other means (either because human companionship is not available, as it is with some hard working lawyers, or because the experience itself is an important and unique source of knowledge or enjoyment), people don't matter as much.

Maybe this makes me a deficient human being, and perhaps it explains some of the appeal of law firms to people like me (I have an offer also, and it's appealing in many ways, although it might not be so to everyone).

I meant this to be some defense of "thing people," but I've probably frightened away all the fence sitters wih my cold inclusion of human companionship into some sort of utility calculus. Suffice to say no one is a thing person through and through - I think that anyone would pick the utility maximizing thing/experience coupled with utility maximizing companionship. There's no value to be found in purity of experiencing things over people, at the extremes. But some experiences are valuable, and to the extent that their value is not dependent (and even might be diluted or undermined) by the presence of other people, revelling in things is defensible.