Reader David Schraub points out that while the article by Professor Stuntz I mentioned is not available on the Harvard Law Review's website, a relatively recent draft is up at SSRN.

Meanwhile, reader Brett Bellmore suggests that I might solve the problem of my too-small and therefore-uneven oven by putting a layer of bricks in the top of the oven to retain heat-- a tactic I may try as soon as I find a convenient source of clean patio bricks and a bit of spare time.

But for now, back to reading The Origins of Adversary Criminal Trial.

Jim Thompson, a law student at Denver and one of my IJ co-workers this summer, writes in to share a fight he recently had with Professor J. Brown about the FDA, fish, mercury, and freedom (a subject co-blogger Raffi has posted about here and here).

Jim writes:

If you had any doubt that liberalism (and not of the classical sort) reigns in law schools all across the country and not only in the hallowed halls of Yale, put them to rest.

The first assignment for my administrative law class was to read a WSJ article about the FDA warnings regarding canned tuna. Canned tuna is high in mercury, which if taken in large quantities can prove harmful, especially to developing children. The FDA can issue warnings, but cannot generally regulate foods when the harmful element occurs naturally and is not added in production. Albacore tuna is especially high in mercury.

Professor Brown posed the question to the class, "What would be an argument against the FDA banning albacore tuna altogether?" [seeking a policy argument]

One student offered an economic argument (although not clearly articulated) which can be boiled down to this: The costs of eliminating the albacore tuna industry (in job loss, etc.) would be greater than the benefits arising from the ban.

Professor Brown asked for another argument, I ventured a reply:


"I quite enjoy Albacore Tuna and don't particularly care about the Mercury. I think I should be able to make my own decision whether to eat tuna. At most, the FDA could require the tuna companies to disclose the presence of mercury on the label."

After a pause, Brown replied. "Wow, I never expected anyone to raise that argument."

Turning to the class, he said, "Now I'm sure Jim is not one of these people, but some argue that the FDA should not ban any harmful foods, but allow people to make decisions based on the warnings."

J: "But I am one of those people"


PB: "Oh, well in that case, can anyone in the class tell me why Jim is wrong."

J: "But I'm not wrong"

PB: "This is my class, and you are wrong." (something to that effect)

A few students then proffered weak arguments about why I was wrong, the best one relating to the healthcare costs the government would have to cover for indigents who eat way too much tuna. [I've blogged about the weakness of this argument here.--WB]

What bothers me is certainly not that Professor Brown disagreed with my position. Rather, what bothers me is that he would teach his class that my position is absolutely wrong, as if it were a provable fact. Furthermore, Brown offered no justification for his position that I was wrong, except for the shaky student arguments (although he might have had valid pedagogical reasons for moving on so quickly). Finally, Brown's initial suprise at my position is quite disturbing. This seems to imply that not only are libertarian ideas wrong, they are sooooo wrong that they would not normally appear in the classroom. (In Brown's defense, he did allow some discussion of the idea).

I was rather shocked that you posted Jim Thompson's story about his Admin class without comment. He says at the beginning: "If you had any doubt that liberalism (and not of the classical sort) reigns in law schools all across the country and not only in the hallowed halls of Yale, put them to rest."

But of course that is not what the story says; what it says is that one Admin professor at one law school is a liberal, and (more to the point) was an asshole about it in class. That's all.

If the story is accurate (and based on my law classes, I suspect what was really going is that the professor wanted to get the other side out, and didn't really want to waste time arguing with Jim), then Prof. Brown deserves to be condemned. But to take this one example as evidence that liberalism "reigns," "all across the country," is laughable.

A few things have wound up in my inbox, and if I don't post them now, I will forget them. Brant Kuehn comes to the defense of wireless access in classrooms (which I did here and here). Steve Sanders invokes Justice Harlan (II) to attack Congressional action in the Schiavo case.

Another reader points out that Stanley Kurtz remains bizarrely fixated on his claim that the University of Chicago Law School is a haven of liberal thought. Of all of the schools in Chicago to go on such a witch-hunt, this seems particularly odd, with both Posners, Vermeule, Epstein, Landes, Currie, all on the faculty there. One almost begins to suspect that Kurtz is just drumming up trouble to help somebody take over the board of trustees.

UPDATE: And, of course Easterbrook, Judge Ginsburg, and Gary Becker teach at Chicago too.

The hecticness of moving and a guest, and my reaction to the cayenne pepper that spilled inside one of my boxes meant that I didn't get a chance to post any interesting emails from readers last week. Here's one, from a gentleman with thoughts on Czeslaw Milosz, Warsaw's old town and my Sol Kminkowo Czosnkowa:

... I enjoyed what you wrote about Czeslaw Milosz. I read Milosz pre Nobel prize and in Polish. Milosz also touched something in me. The reasons may or may not be different. I grew up in the Polish émigré community in Chicago. My father was in the Polish army. We were raised very Polish – even though my mother is Irish. In some ways, we (the other kids like me who went to Polish school and scouts on Saturday) did not quite fit in with the kids whom we went to English school with - that is how we divided the world. English school was Monday through Friday. Polish school was only one day but more important. I was in Poland in 1986, traveling around with my cousin Adam who had been locked up during martial law. I wondered if I would have done the “right” thing like he did. Resisted and gotten screwed all my life or sold out and joined the PZPR. I thought a lot about Milosz then.

Amber Taylor’s comments about Warsaw bothered me. “I spent the day in the reconstructed Old Town and Royal Castle. While it's all very pretty, the knowledge that it's fifty years old makes it a little more Disneyland and a little less appealing.” I assume she knows why Nowe Miasto and Stare Miasto were reconstructed. The 60th anniversary of the Warsaw Uprising got little attention in the press. Most people confuse it with the Ghetto Uprising of 1943. I had two scout instructors who fought in the uprising when the were about 12-14. They were in the Szare Szeregi, running around Warsaw delivering mail. While the Warsaw Uprising was going on, my father and his comrades were in France, sealing the Falaise pocket. Growing up with all of that made Milosz all the more meaningful for me.

Anyway, getting around to what prompted me to write –

sol – salt (line over the o, feminine noun)

kminek – caraway (seed) – kminkowa is the f. adjective form (kminkowo would be for n., kminkowy would be for m.)

czosnek – garlic – czosnkowa is f. adjective form

So you have salt with garlic and caraway seeds.

UPDATE:

The reader writes in with a modification:

Cumin in Polish is kmin. Not sure if kminkowo refers to kmin or kminek (caraway). I think they would use kminowo if it was cumin - up to your taste buds to decide.

It is kind of a phony construction anyway. I think proper usage would be "sol z czoskiem i kminkiem" - salt with garlic and caraway (or "... i kminem" if it is cumin).