Sunday, April 12, 2009

Ginzgerg, Goldberg and Band-Aids

Why I'm blogging at 4:30 AM

Thank God these were only a bad dream, and could never really happen ... 
Austin ER’s got 2,678 visits from 9 people over 6 years

In the past six years, eight people from Austin and one from Luling racked up 2,678 emergency room visits in Central Texas, costing hospitals, taxpayers and others $3 million, according to a report from a nonprofit made up of hospitals and other providers that care for the uninsured and low-income Central Texans.

One of the nine spent more than a third of last year in the ER: 145 days. That same patient totaled 554 ER visits from 2003 through 2008…



''The first thing we do, let's kill all the journo professors'' - Dick the Butcher

Bernard Goldberg isn’t the most popular name in today’s newsrooms, and that was before he wrote  A Slobbering Love Affair: The True (and Pathetic) Story of a Torrid Romance Between Barack Obama and the Mainstream Media. Goldberg reinvented himself from long-time CBS newsman — with six Emmys to his credit — to liberal media bias detector with bestsellers Bias and Arrogance.

Today’s MSMers may be a lost cause. But what about journalism school professors? What do they think of Goldberg’s books? Do they take his criticisms to heart? Or can they successfully poke holes in his arguments? These professors are molding the minds of tomorrow’s media gatekeepers. What could be better than for them to engage their students with Goldberg’s thesis? Even if they disagree with Goldberg, they could spark the kind of healthy debate all budding journalists should consider.

So I decided to ask some journalism professors myself. I spent the last month directly reaching out to more than 20 professors from across the country, as well as several university PR divisions, to get their take on Goldberg’s critiques. I even turned to my Facebook and Twitter accounts to seek out anyone who might comment for this article. I should have expected the result.

Silence.



Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg defends the use of foreign law by American judges



''The first thing we do, let's kill all the liberal judges'' - A busy Dick the Butcher
what? 

11 comments:

Anonymous said...

Speaking of bandaids, Excedrin PM's by the bed, at least.
mary

Rodger the Real King of France said...

::
Mary, you may try what I do to get relief from the daily horror that the news cycle has become.

Chug red whiskey from the bottle until you start puking. When done properly, you'll have the dry heaves which can result in several hours of peace.
::

Grumpyunk said...

Been working in the ER for the last 15 years. The Houston story doesn't surprise me at all.
And there's not a damn thing you can do about it.

Anonymous said...

And the 'U' shaped toilet seat will not interupt that peace Rodger.
Tim

Fred Z said...

Rodger, I would have expected the Real King of France to know that all US law, every scrap of it, is based on foreign law. Most is based on English common law and Louisiana's is based on the French Napoleonic code.

I read the article and all the skinny ugly judge said was that she would consider good arguments even if they came from foreign courts, but would not be bound by them.

I take it your position is you would ignore good arguments from foreign courts. And here I thought one of America's great strengths was its willingness to take the best of the best, no matter where it came from, but I like your idea better. Buy American!! Even if it's a stupid argument.

Anonymous said...

Fredzy, you ignorant slut. A judge's job is to interpret US law as it applies to individual cases. US law is indeed based on foreign law but it is US law. A judge's decisions must be based in US law. A foreign case may well be a fine example of justice and can point the way for creating new US law, but it has no place in the judgments of a US court. Creating new US law is the job of the legislatures, not the courts. Are we to convict our own citizens for breaking foreign laws in our own country? Ridiculous, and so is this old biddy.

"It is terrible to contemplate how few politicians are hanged." - G.K. Chesterton That applies to judges, too.
GrinfilledCelt

rockville said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
rockville said...

It might help if more people understood the difference between binding authority and persuasive authority.

Judges must follow binding authority. It includes the Constitution and decisions by higher courts within the same legal system. Persuasive authority is merely a suggestion. It can include all sorts of things: legal review articles, obiter dicta, and decisions of foreign courts.

Persuasive authority has always included the decisions of foreign courts. There is nothing new about what Ginsburg has said. There is only a difference of opinion about how much weight one should give to various types of persuasive authority. As the article points out, some judges choose to give foreign courts no weight at all.

(I had to repost this to fix an error)

)B^/~ said...

Picture Caption: "D'jever notice that soul food sticks to your ribs way better than say Chinese or Caucasion food?..Know what I mean?

Rodger the Real King of France said...

It would be nice to know if FredZ was at all persuaded by these entirely correct rebuttals. I'm wondering if it's possible to teach anyone with set ideas anymore.

Anonymous said...

Such is the life-cycle of trolls everywhere.
GrinfilledCelt

Post a Comment

Just type your name and post as anonymous if you don't have a Blogger profile.