from the retribution vault

The November/December resolution for 2010 invites us to contrast a public health approach to a criminal justice approach to illegal drug abuse. One of the most fruitful ways to address the conflict is through the lens of retributive justice.

I haven't sketched out an entire position for each side--I'm too busy helping my debate team figure out their cases--but I do have time to post some links to previous writing on the subject. Enjoy.

1. Gerard Bradley's take on punishment as a way of maintaining "equal legal liberty for all."

2. Sharon Dolovich's Rawlsian perspective arrives at a similar destination by a different route.

3. There's more than one kind of retributivism, mind you.

4. A while back I wrote a case about plea bargaining that employed several good retributive arguments.

5. On the other hand, how about a virtue ethics approach?

the eleventy-sixth amendment

I've been staying out of the political fray this season, since I'm far too busy with far more pressing things. (Today in Debate: a half-hour skirmish on the meaning of history.) Why am I posting this, then? I don't know. I guess it's because I loathe confident ignorance.

I tried to watch Christine O'Donnell's dust-up with Chris Coons over the interpretation of the First Amendment, and whether it lays the groundwork for the separation of church and state. I was hoping to see if O'Donnell's reported ignorance ("The First Amendment?") was, in fact, an uncharitable fallacy of accent in interpretation. (Point. Counterpoint.)

I couldn't get that far. It took only 1 minute and 8 seconds to determine that O'Donnell's grasp of the Constitution is tenuous, if not fatuous. When Coons argues that schools shouldn't be allowed to teach religious doctrine, O'Donnell fires back,

"Public schools do not have the right to teach what they feel? [Turns to the audience.] Well there you go. Do you want a senator who would impose his beliefs? Talk about imposing your beliefs on the local school!

At this point, O'Donnell is at least courting an actual controversy. Local school boards have long wrestled with the First Amendment, and there are plenty of folks who want to keep the feds out of their schoolhouse. (Ironically, a lot of them are the same folks who voted for the president most responsible for the raging federalization of education, George W. Bush.)

But then, after reiterating her support of teaching Intelligent Design in the classroom, O'Donnell tries to hammer the point home:

You have just stated that you will impose your will on local school boards, and that is a blatant violation of the Constitution."

Which Constitution? The one that hides out in the National Archives makes no mention of education, leaving the matter entirely to the states. Nothing in the Constitution would prohibit the establishment of a national education system, which seems to be the trend these days.

So I never made it to the moments when O'Donnell reportedly was baffled by the placement of the establishment clause in the First Amendment. I was too astonished at her novel interpolation of the Eleventy-Sixth.

LD mailbag: what the drug resolution is all about

Recently I received a string of great questions about the illegal drugs resolution that deserve reply in a complete post. Hence, the latest LD Mailbag, non-email edition. Enjoy.

Hey,
I am new to debate and we have to learn LD first and she threw the topic on us and showed us how to format it but i am so stuck!!!!!! I dont want to quit debate but i am so lost... I am stuck on Aff and Neg cases... the cases are due tomorrow! I am so screwed!

1. Don't panic.
2. Have you read about how to write a case?
3. Seriously: breathe. And keep reading.

Neil Mehta said...

Hey Jim,
First of all I'd like to say that your blog helps me and all my friends start our cases each year. But this year, especially this topic, I'm having trouble grasping what the resolution actually means and what we are supposed to be debating
Thanks for the help.

Public health is a largely preventive approach to medical matters that affect the community--harms inflicted by disease, malnutrition, environmental hazards, and the like. Its primary tools are education, inoculation, sanitation, and regulation. Criminal justice, on the other hand, is society's response to harms inflicted by individuals. It employs punishment for many reasons, chief among them retribution, incapacitation, rehabilitation, and deterrence.

Which is a more effective approach? That's the utilitarian or pragmatic (and hence empirical) question.

Which is a more just, fair, or moral approach? That's where we bring in arguments based on rights, liberty, the "harm principle," and more.

All kinds of questions circulate around us. What is crime? What is the purpose of punishment? Is drug addiction a disease? When, if ever, is the state justified in forcing someone to seek treatment?

Anonymous said...

Hey Jim, your site has always been very helpful to me, and I'd like to sincerely thank you for all the help; the articles you post really jumpstart my cases.

As for this resolution: I'm having a really hard time grasping what the rez is asking of us, and which philosophy each side pertains to. I feel as though both aff and neg can argue many of the same philosophers and things, and its really confusing me. Both sides can use Kant, Societal Welfare, Rawls, the Social Contract, and something to the effect of: "deterrence of crime is necessary."

AFF:
I guess the most stable affirmative ground would be proving that public health is effective in reducing drug use, and that criminal justice isn't.. and then linking it all together with claims to Justice or Societal Welfare

NEG:
I guess the most stable negative ground would be proving that public health does not actually deter drug use, and that crime only has one solution: criminal justice.

Both seem to clash well, but I don't think they get to the heart of the rez, which is: what should be done of the individuals who commit these actions.. and whether those individuals are responsible for their actions.

At this point, I'm putting together cases with tape and toothpicks because I don't quite understand what it is I truly should be debating as a traditional debater. Any insight would be greatly appreciated.

-A

For "tape and toothpicks," I think you're doing rather well. One of the primary philosophical questions is whether the state is justified in coercing drug abusers into treatment for what, in many cases, is a "victimless crime." The resolution focuses on abuse, which may not imply that anyone is even suffering personally from the effects of the illegal drug. Most drug users, statistically, are not hardcore heroin addicts or tweaked-out meth-heads.

But what of those who are? Abetted or spurred on by the abuse, they can wreak havoc on society, and, via the social contract, we expect them to suffer, and society to respond to their crimes with fitting punishment.

But it's not so simple: even a public health approach can be coercive, as doctors take on the role of law enforcers, infringing on liberties without strict guidelines to limit their power. At least in the criminal justice system, you have an adversarial framework meant to protect the rights of the accused. When it comes to the "soft power" of public health, the experts always seem to win.

I agree that there is a strong element of either-side-can-use-the-same-framework, but, honestly, that's often true of LD resolutions, the most recent nuclear weapons resolution being a perfect example.

Anonymous said...

Jim,

I noticed you mentioned drug courts as a matter of criminal justice. Is there any way for the negative to include drug courts in his advocacy, and if so, how?

Drug court (Wikipedia has a decent summary), a relatively modern invention, is a great way to focus a balance Neg, in which you argue that criminal justice and public health officials need to join forces. Mandatory treatment with improved recidivism rates: what's not to love?

some Afghanistan links

Since my debaters are still researching the Afghanistan topic, here are a few links I've come across in the last couple days. Does NATO presence improve Afghan lives? Well...

1. The first in a Slate series covering efforts to beef up the Afghan police force. The gist: not going well.

2. Civilian casualties in Afghanistan.

3. The statistics analyzed in greater depth.

4. Changing counterinsurgency tactics.

5. The latest election brings news of vote fraud.

6. Andrew Bacevich lists the lessons of Year Ten.

7. Added 11/3: Nobody said nation-building would be easy. (Via Brian Doherty)

could public health officials quarantine drug abusers?

1. Let's say that a ranking public health official decides that abuse of illegal drugs is a literal epidemic.

2. How do you contain an epidemic? By quarantine, of course.

3. So the official decides to have drug abusers quarantined in rehab until clean, and, more important, no longer able to spread the mental and emotional virus of addiction.

4. Would that pass muster in a free society? If not, why not?

5. Would it fulfill the affirmative burden of the November-December 2010 LD resolution?

Added: Lest you think it's too far afield, consider the fact that anti-drug vaccines are within the realm of the plausible. So why not take it a step further?

how to road-test a thesaurus

How do you tell one thesaurus from another? They're all so doggone / darn / gosh-darn / danged similar.

Here's one way, which I invented this morning while teaching.

During a conversation about reading strategies, one of my students suggested the thesaurus as a place to look up unfamiliar words. "That's a good emergency option if you don't have a dictionary," I said. "But thesauruses just can't list as many entry words as a dictionary can. For instance, my guess is that you'll find 'pulchitrudinous' as a synonym for 'beautiful,' but not the other way around."

She seemed a little dubious, so I said to grab a random thesaurus off my pile of random thesauruses, and test my theory.

Of course, the first one she opened had "pulchitrudinous" as its own entry.

I laughed and admitted that I hadn't chosen the best example, but that my reasoning was generally still sound. After class ended, I checked the rest of the thesauruses--big ones, small ones, medium-sized ones, college editions or average Joe versions, even Roget's II. Turns out about half of them had "pulchitrudinous" or "pulchitrude" as its own entry. (I was doubly disappointed that The Superior Person's Book of Words didn't include the term. Perhaps it's not as uncommon as I had hoped.)

So that's when I turned lemonade into an Arnold Palmer, and devised this handy way of picking a good thesaurus. Open it up to P, and if it has "pulchitrudinous" or "pulchitrude" as an entry (usually "Pulchitrudinous: See beautiful"), you're probably / likely / possibly / potentially holding a good one.



Sidebar
Of course, Firefox's automatic spell-checker, which dutifully underlines every perceived orthographical slight, doesn't recognize "pulchitrudinous" or "pulchitrude" as legitimate.

Capital debater to have breakfast with Biden

Cameron Seib, a leading debater for Capital High School, will dine over hash browns and coffee with the talkingest politician who ever talked, one Vice President Joe Biden.

“I think it’s a great opportunity,” said Seib, 17, of Olympia. “You don’t get too many chances to meet such important people, and I’m definitely excited that not only is he coming to Seattle, but I get to meet him as well.”

The teenager was invited to the political fundraiser by 3rd Congressional District candidate Denny Heck. He spent the summer volunteering for Heck’s campaign.

Biden's in the region to stump for Patty Murray, who's hoping for a campaign that goes the way I like my eggs: over easy.

thoughts about the illegal drugs resolution

The Nov/Dec LD resolution for 2010, just in case you forgot:

Resolved: The abuse of illegal drugs ought to be treated as a matter of public health, not of criminal justice.

1. Recognize that the resolution isn't just about marijuana. An affirmative that focuses exclusively on pot is not sufficiently affirming--unless able to warrant the exclusive focus. (On the other hand, it's not just about meth or heroin, either. Sorry, Neg.)

2. How much the debate concerns "the real world" is a central question. Do we look at illegal drug abuse policies around the globe? Every nation seems to have its own approach to drug abuse, so it's difficult to ascertain impacts (for those who argue largely in those terms). What if we focus on the United States, as some debaters like to do? How many of the impacts are due to prohibition?

3. Does the Aff have to advocate for some form of legalization? Is "decriminalization" sufficient? Or can the Neg argue that full-scale legalization is a Negative stance, since it would negate the existence of "illegal drugs?"

4. The "balance Neg" approach seems fruitful. A coercive mechanism, via the criminal justice system, to force illegal drug abusers into rehab, combined with a public health approach.

5. Is it a kritik to say "neither?" Public health is itself coercive, as the body politic seeks further control over the body human. (If you hear echoes of Foucault, you're in the right hallway.) Imagine the possibility of vaccinating children (or adults) against drug abuse. Soon, you may not have to imagine it.

6. Statistics on drug abuse are probably useful and reliable, but I'd be cautious with some of the "facts" about drugs, which are not only controversial (due in some cases to a lack of research compounded by the drugs' very illegality), but subject to dizzying amounts of spin, by prohibitionists and legalizers alike.

7. If I were the Aff, I would stay away from the utilitarian argument altogether, arguing instead from a rights-based perspective. The criminal justice system can already handle the societal harms caused by drug abusers--DUIs, thefts, etc.--because they're harms regardless. (We can punish someone for driving while stoned, just like we punish someone for driving drunk. The law even punishes public intoxication. Same for negligent behavior.) The point is, if we don't accept a utilitarian justification of punishment--deterrence--then we have no good reason to criminalize getting high. Even if the law deters it.

8. Drug abuse isn't drug trafficking or possession... or is it? If I were on the Aff, I might argue for a narrow definition of drug abuse, and then show that only an Orwellian police state can successfully criminalize being high. For the Neg, I'd argue that outlawing trafficking or possession is a / the legitimate way to make drug abuse a matter of criminal justice--only through an indirect route.

9. Is there any compelling reason for why alcohol is legal and marijuana isn't? If you have one, please share it in the comments. Even looking through the government's "Marijuana Myths and Facts," I'm struggling to find relevant distinction.

10. Do us all a favor and don't use any pot jokes in your case. Thanks.

Washington state tournaments to use October Public Forum topic in November 2010

In Washington state, we'll use the October topic for November tournaments this year. Via email:

Coaches,

First off, I would thank to thank everyone for the great discourse of the last two days. I appreciate everyone's feedback and thoughtful comments. Based on the overall feedback from the community, opinions of the Public Forum Committee and tournament directors, we have decided to use the October Public Forum topic at the tournaments in Washington in November.

I know this will not make everyone happy, but I hope we can come together and make the October topic work. Thank you to everyone for enduring all the emails the past few days. At this point, please do not reply to all on this thread anymore. I think everyone is worn out, and I'm sure there are many who are not interested in this discussion at all.

If you have questions, please email me and I will do my best to get back to you.

This email also serves as the official announcement that the Gig Harbor Invitational will be using the October Public Forum topic:

Resolved: NATO presence improves the lives of Afghan citizens.

Thank you again for your patience. I think all of us hope that we can avoid this situation in the future.

Sincerely,
Chris Coovert
Gig Harbor HS

Thanks to Chris for taking the lead on this. The whole situation has been a great way for debate coaches (and teams) to talk about what really matters, to change minds through argumentation, and to reach a workable decision through discourse.

NFL retracts "Ground Zero Islamic Center" topic

My debaters were in an uproar last Friday, when the original Public Forum topic for November 2010 was announced:

Resolved: An Islamic cultural center should be built near Ground Zero.

They were incensed that the matter should even be debated, and at a complete loss to fathom arguing the Con.

As I'd already given thought to most of the reasons to disallow the "Ground Zero mosque," and hadn't been persuaded by any of them, I was a bit flummoxed, too, until I thought of a way for the Con to argue without sounding bigoted: to define "should" as a moral imperative, and then place a burden on the Pro to prove that society has a moral duty to build an Islamic center near Ground Zero. My guess is that many Pro teams would mostly be arguing for the right to build the center--not the duty, and would fail to meet the burden. Anyhow, it was the best hope I saw for the Con at least having a tiny chance to win in a particularly liberal region of the country.

All that's unnecessary now, since the NFL has retracted the topic. Via email:

Overwhelming concerns have been expressed by our membership regarding the November 2010 resolution. The Public Forum wording advisory committee worked diligently and thoughtfully to create a timely resolution. However, after due consideration, the National Forensic League has changed the November 2010 Public Forum resolution.

We realize that it is unusual to change a topic after posting. We hope that this new resolution will allow educators and competitors to explore core issues that face high school academic debate.

The November 2010 Public Forum resolution is

Resolved: High school Public Forum Debate resolutions should not confront sensitive religious issues.

Sincerely,

J. Scott Wunn
Executive Director

I applaud the decision--and I really like the topic.

Update: ...and here's how Washington state has resolved the matter.

Resolved: The abuse of illegal drugs ought to be treated as a matter of public health, not of criminal justice.

The NFL Lincoln Douglas debate resolution for November / December has been released:

Resolved: The abuse of illegal drugs ought to be treated as a matter of public health, not of criminal justice.

It raises all kinds of interesting questions.

Why do we criminalize certain bad behaviors, but not others? When it comes to illegal drugs, who chooses what's legal--alcohol, tobacco, caffeine--and what's illegal? What can we safely assume about the criminal justice system (or the society) in question? What would a public health response look like? Does prohibition lead inexorably to a War on Drugs? What exactly constitutes "abuse of illegal drugs?" Would drugging someone else be a public health matter if the resolution were affirmed? And who makes the decision to decriminalize drugs--do we use democratic methods? Listen to the experts? What if no consensus can be found? Who has an interest in preserving the status quo? In what ways might prohibition increase the problems of drug abuse? And, from a critical perspective, what about a libertarian stance that says neither option presented by the resolution is valid--that drugs should be a matter of individual choice, and not the State's concern?

John Stuart Mill's "harm principle" offers a good access point for someone unsure of where to begin. You can also bet that utilitarianism will be a popular position, especially for Affirmatives trying to link any kind of prohibition to the War on Drugs.

This should be interesting. As a person who, over time, has come to believe that the American drug war is a tragedy, my inclination is to see the resolution as tough for the Negative to win. I guess we'll see. Regardless, it's a fantastic resolution from an educational perspective--there's a lot of hype, misinformation, and propaganda to sift through, on all sides.

More links, analysis, and observations to come. As always, share your questions and ideas in the comments--they're what make this site so useful for so many!

Added 10/7: Some thoughts about both sides of the resolution.

Added 10/13: One of my PuFo debaters got me thinking: could a public health official quarantine drug abusers?

Added 10/19: Another attempt to cut to the core of the resolution in an LD mailbag.

Added 10/22: Some links to older material on retributive justice.

Added 10/25: Value and criterion pairs.

Added 10/31: What's the most destructive drug?

Added 11/2: A couple links from the IDPC. The first: examining countries that use the death penalty for drug offenses. The second: a policy paper encouraging a treatment-based approach.

Added 11/7: I discuss some cross-examination strategies for this resolution.

Added 11/9: I write about definitions and uniqueness in an LD mailbag.

Added 11/10: A public health effort to warn students away from drugs by having them feel the damaged organs of deceased drug addicts. "This is your brain on drugs" taken to a whole new palpable level.

Added 11/11: Slate magazine's piece about Vancouver BC's "harm reduction" efforts is well worth reading. It's perhaps the continent's most coordinated--and controversial--public health approach.

Added 11/16: I discuss alternative approaches to legalization on the Affirmative. The upshot: you may be able to argue for full legalization and still be resolutional.

Added 11/21: Taking a break from resolution-specific blogging, I offer general advice about countering The Spread.

Added 11/22: Considering civil commitment as an Aff justification.

middle-brow, unibrow

Your beloved art isn't really art. It's "art." Sorry.

Urban Intellectual Fodder.

Neither original nor path-breaking, this art is derivative hommage; postmodern commentary around the edges of art.

It is art born of attitude, not passion. It is art that postures but doesn't grip. It is art created by those who are more passionate about a career in art than about art itself.

It encompasses:

1. The indie rock spawned in urban art ghettoes.

2. The visual art spelonked in Williamsburg.

3. The movies sputtered by independents hoping to get into Sundance.

4. The novels spritzed by creative writing majors from Iowa University and other environs....

All it does is put a sheen of high-brow smarts on art that is actually middle-brow. And comes out bloodless.

Good old fashioned aesthetic snobbery. It stings, but it sings.


[via Arts and Letters Daily]

the most disappointing trailer of all time

In lieu of The AV Club's recent list of trailers that function as art (and, in some cases, are superior to the films they advertise), I offer you the most disappointing trailer of all time: The Omen (2006).

I still remember my cautious excitement upon seeing it in the theater. The simplicity, the lack of narration, the reliance on a dread-inducing squeaky swing, and, of course, the delightfully silly reference to 666, set me up to believe that the world had a chance to see a remake superior to the rather ham-fisted original--overcoming my inherent skepticism of remakes.

Alas, we got Liev Schreiber in mope-mode, and a movie that plummeted from the rooftops of possibility to a lawn of mediocrity. (I tend to think that Damien would not approve.)

It's been four years, and I'm still angry about it.


Added: So of course my feelings are in a blender about this.

priorities

Whoa. Somewhere, six days disappeared into the ether. In the blogging cosmos, that's as close to the infinite asymptote as I dare reach.

Which is to say, school has filled up much of the meager time I normally would reserve for blogging. But as soon as I finish constructing lesson plans, contacting parents, writing six letters of recommendation, and updating my five (or is it six?) school-based blogs, I'll return to your pressing questions about the morality of nuclear weapons.

And while you're waiting, read this, and realize that your--and my--complaints are trivial.

coercion plus contamination equals confession

Ever since the landmark work of Elizabeth Loftus, psychologists have warned of the pernicious effects of implanted false memories. It turns out that a similar process--sometimes unconscious on the part of the perpetrator--can lead to false confessions.

Professor Garrett said he was surprised by the complexity of the confessions he studied. “I expected, and think people intuitively think, that a false confession would look flimsy,” like someone saying simply, “I did it,” he said.

Instead, he said, “almost all of these confessions looked uncannily reliable,” rich in telling detail that almost inevitably had to come from the police. “I had known that in a couple of these cases, contamination could have occurred,” he said, using a term in police circles for introducing facts into the interrogation process. “I didn’t expect to see that almost all of them had been contaminated.”

Suspects, worn down through persistent interrogation interspersed with facts of the crime (the classic Law and Order-esque "gotcha," one imagines) or even taken to the crime scene, became adept at recounting the "details" of the crime.

Of course, there was perhaps a more important factor: none of the convicted innocents had a lawyer present during the interrogation.

And the truly frightening part:

Proving innocence after a confession, however, is rare. Eight of the defendants in Professor Garrett’s study had actually been cleared by DNA evidence before trial, but the courts convicted them anyway.

This is mind-boggling, given the justice system's overwhelming--and vastly overconfident--faith in DNA evidence to convict defendants, even though it's far more fallible than CSI would have you imagine.

How culpable are the police officers who elicit false confessions?

Jim Trainum, a former policeman who now advises police departments on training officers to avoid false confessions, explained that few of them intend to contaminate an interrogation or convict the innocent.

“You become so fixated on ‘This is the right person, this is the guilty person’ that you tend to ignore everything else,” he said. The problem with false confessions, he said, is “the wrong person is still out there, and he’s able to reoffend.”

Well... that's one of the problems. The other, perhaps worse, is that an innocent is convicted of a crime. "Better that ten of the guilty go free...."

Right?

kritiks in Lincoln-Douglas debate

Recently, a reader wrote:

Mr. Anderson,

I've been seeing a lot of people talking about Kritiks and how they try to use them in almost every debate. What is a kritik, and what does the structure mean? Do you have any resources that can help explain them better?

As is my custom, I directed him to the Wikipedia page on the subject, which, like a lot of Wikipedia, is a decent enough place to start. However, it presumes a little more familiarity with the subject than your average novice possesses. Hence, this quick guide to the kritik.

What is a kritik?
A kritik is an argument about the mindset presupposed or called forth by the language of the resolution. It's about deconstructing--peeling back the layers of, or exposing the invalid assumptions of--the resolution.


How does it work?
In Lincoln-Douglas debate, it might work like this. Say we're debating the resolution, "Resolved: states ought not possess nuclear weapons." The Negative can argue that because the resolution is cast in terms of states, it is inherently statist, and to affirm adopts a statist mindset that, in the real world, empowers states to control or subjugate individuals regardless of whether nuclear weapons ever enter the equation.*

The alternative, the Neg argues, is to negate the language (and hence power) of the resolution / statism, offering an alternative such as anarchism, which empowers individuals.

The structure is fairly straightforward: link, impact, alternative. Returning to our argument, you can see the structure.

Link: the resolution employs statist language / forces us to adopt a statist mindset.
Impact: by adopting the statist mindset, we reduce human freedom / dehumanize (ethical impacts), or perpetuate totalitarian genocide (historic or empirical impact).
Alternative: reject the statism inherent in the resolution through anarchism.

The modified kritik.
Because some of the impacts of kritiks are ethical, it is possible to shoehorn a kritik into the traditional framework of the event. Consider our previous example, modified into a standard V/C with three contentions:

Value: Freedom
Criterion: Anarchism
Contention 1 (link): the resolution employs statist language / forces us to adopt a statist mindset.
Contention 2 (impact): by adopting the statist mindset, we reduce human freedom.
Contention 3 (alternative): to restore freedom, reject the statism inherent in the resolution by encouraging anarchism.

Words of advice.
1. If you are debating in novice (or in many cases, JV), don't run a kritik. Chances are, you don't have enough experience under your belt to do it correctly--and, more likely, your judge will either deplore kritiks, or be unfamiliar with them.

2. Never run a kritik you don't fully understand. If you're facing a more experienced opponent, it can backfire terribly. And, similarly to #1, if you don't understand it, how will your judge?

3. Thus, if you plan to run a kritik, it's essential to ask the judge before the round, something like, "What are your thoughts about theory or kritiks?" If you get a blank stare, put the kritik back in your file and save it for a different round.



Questions or criticism are greatly appreciated. As a fairly traditional LD coach, I don't pretend to be the world's foremost authority on kritiks, and would welcome any clarifications, corrections, or additions.



* This lack of direct engagement with the specific argument of the resolution is one reason some find kritiks distasteful.

Google in the courtroom

Eugene Volokh points to a law.com article about one judge's attempt to keep Google out of the courtroom:

Now that New Jersey courtrooms have Wi-Fi capability, trial lawyers with wireless laptops have a distinct edge: the ability to Google prospective jurors at the counsel table.

And an appeals court has given its blessing to the practice, reversing a trial judge who told a lawyer to disconnect lest he gain an unfair advantage.

"That [plaintiff's counsel] had the foresight to bring his laptop computer to court, and defense counsel did not, simply cannot serve as a basis for judicial intervention in the name of 'fairness' or maintaining 'a level playing field,'" the court said on Aug. 30 in Carino v. Muenzen, M.D., A-5491-08.

"The playing field was, in fact, already 'level' because Internet access was open to both counsel, even if only one of them chose to utilize it."

It was only a matter of time--and as the future lawyers and judges of America (i.e., high school debaters) become increasingly used to (and dependent on) having laptops in their debate rounds, we can expect that trend will only continue.

and a minor in histrionics

Phil Davison presents What Not To Do When Speaking: overwrought death glares, awkward pauses, misquotations, rambling, and, more than anything else, shoutiness. Warning: mimicking Davison's style may lead to bouts of dizzying ineptitude.

(Yes, I had to check to make sure that Davison is legit, and not a performance artist.)

Makes Jan Brewer sound like Cicero in comparison.

the eternal awkward stage

It's one thing to believe stupid things when you're young. It's another to publish them for all the world to see.

It's another thing, still, to try to erase your former stupidity.

Zeiger, the author of two books and many columns, essays and blog posts about politics and local history, recently had his writings purged from a number of websites, including “Intellectual Conservative.”

Morrell’s campaign and the House Democratic Campaign Committee noticed the missing articles Saturday, the committee said. The group opened its general election campaign with a news release questioning why the articles, more than 50 by their count, were disappearing. The committee said Zeiger was taking them down to hide his “extremist” views. Field director Alex Hur said: “Voters deserve to know what a candidate’s values really are.”

Zeiger said those articles don’t all represent his values anymore, so he had them removed. They would be a “distraction” from the campaign, he said.

The writings aren’t from very long ago, mainly 2003 and 2004. But Zeiger is just 25, and he was in college at the time. He said he’s “grown up since age 18 and 19 when the really provocative stuff was going up.”

I'd say Zeiger is sincere, even if he's chosen the dubious strategy of purging the past. (If you're not inclined to give him the benefit, at least read his own reflections on his brief career as a pundit.)

I can empathize with Zeiger; the poems, political cartoons, and essays I crafted in high school were heartfelt but brainless, and it's easy for me to repudiate them as adolescent folly.

The only smart thing about them: they weren't published. No eternal awkward stage for me.

Capital Cougars off to a great start

The Capital Cougars put up 28 on O'Dea--and shut out their rival..

Capital and O’Dea, which have met every year since 2007, faced each other in Week 1 for the third consecutive year. The Irish had the Cougars’ number in winning the three previous matchups, 46-9 (2007), 14-13 (’08) and 19-15 last year at the Emerald City Kickoff Classic at Qwest Field.

“The last couple of years, we played them so tight,” Capital coach J.D. Johnson said. “It goes back to talking to the kids about not just wanting it, but you have to need it. We needed to win this game and have this solidify us.”

We have a battle-tested squad brimming with confidence. Our defense has always been tough, but combined with an experienced offense well-suited for a varied attack, we are officially the team to beat in the Narrows 3A league.

The Spaghetti Bowl is gonna be a good one. Don't miss it.