Justice Holmes and Natural Law

While doing some research on Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes and Justice Brandeis, I came across Holmes' essay called Natural Law. (It can be found in Collected Legal Papers published in 1952).

In this essay, Holmes says:

There is in all men a demand for the superlative, so much so that the poor devil who has no other way of reaching it attains it by getting drunk. It seems to me that this demand is at the bottom ... of the jurist's search for criteria of universal validity which he collects under the head of natural law.

And later, Holmes goes on.

The jurists who believe in natural law seem to me to be in that naive state of mind that accepts what has been familiar and accepted by them and their neighbors as something that must be accepted by all men everywhere.

I don't wish to comment on the rest of what Holmes' says, only this small part. Is that really what natural law is all about. It seems as if Holmes has set up a bit of a straw man. The Declaration of Independence as one of the most familiar documents espousing natural law does not require everyone to accept the self-evident rights it sets forth. It only gives notice that because those rights have not been accepted by all, this particular group has decided to govern itself. There is no requirement that all men everywhere accept natural law.

It seems to me that natural law is about universal truths and the search for them. It is not about requiring all men to accept those truths. Whether or not truth is accepted, it remains truth. Just because Soviet Russia did not accept or recognize the truth that all men have the right to life, the fact continutes that, under universal law, all men do have a right to life.

All that to say, I think Mr. Justice Holmes may have missed the point. Or perhaps he purposefully aimed for obfuscation.

Big Upside?

Foxnews has the story of the West Virginia man who won the Powerball lottery 2 years ago -- taking home the lump sum of over $100 million. Now his wife says she wishes he had torn up the ticket.

The story includes this nugget of information:

Lottery winners commonly regret being so public about their windfalls, said Susan Bradley, founder of the Sudden Money Institute in Palm Beach Gardens, Fla.

Sudden Money Institute? I'll have to save that for a later post.

This story brought to mind the California lottery's new marketing campaign.

An example:
A picture of someone lounging face down beside what looks like the turquoise waters of the Caribbean, feet covered with sand. The ad copy reads,

Upside: Travel
Downside: Jetlag

SuperLottoPlus
Big Upside

Sounds like lottery winners may actually end up as the losers. I read somewhere that the average lottery winner spends all of her winnings within 7 years. Hardly a big upside.

It is truly sad that we pay huge social costs for a lottery and end up with winners who are anything but in the long run.

A modern and conquering France

Politicians say the most delicious things. Today at the unveiling of the world's tallest bridge, France's President Jacques Chirac said something I found particularly humorous.

The bridge will serve as a symbol of "a modern and conquering France," he said.

Shouldn't Germany be the symbol of conquering France? If not Germany, I'm sure some other country would be happy to serve as the symbol.

The bridge is in France, but wouldn't you know it it was "[d]esigned by British architect Norman Foster."

The symbol of modern France designed by a Brit. Perfect.

Customer Service? What's that?

I recently purchased a new television for my son's room. Then, I needed to find a stand or armoire to place the new TV in. My wife prefers the armoire style, and therefore, before purchasing a stand, I needed to find the exact dimensions of our new TV, an RCA 27F650T. (I got a great deal at Best Buy on the set because it came in a damaged box -- and let me say, the help I got at Best Buy was really fantastic especially when compared to what came next.)

Off to find the dimensions, I first looked at the owner's manual. To my surprise, there were no specifications. No weight, no height, no depth, no width. So, I get out my tape measurer and measure it myself -- no problem, right. Well, except that TV furniture also has weight requirements, and I don't have a scale big enough to weigh the thing. So, fine, I'll check RCA's website.

The website has the following information:
31.5" H x 27.8" W x 30.4" D
Weight: 111.90 Lbs.

I thought great, until I realized that the dimensions don't agree with the ones I just measured. The depth I got was about 22" and the width about 31". Do I trust the weight given? I don't know -- so I contacted RCA through their website (which angered me by limited my message to 500 characters, guess they don't really want to hear from customers that much). Here's what I wrote:

Why do you not include the actual weight and dimensions of your products IN THE ACTUAL OWNERS MANUAL? I just purchased a 27F650T from Best Buy, and no dimensions to be found -- the ones on your website are just flat wrong.

I ended up picking out an armoire, driving to Burbank to IKEA to buy it, driving back to Thousand Oaks, putting it together, and moving the TV upstairs into it. I never really expected to get a response from RCA; I figured they would ignore my question since I'm sure there isn't a good reason not to have the specifications in the owner's manual. The armoire I purchased had a weight limit over 200 pounds, and I was certain the TV did not weigh anywhere close to that much. But to my surprise, I did receive a response from RCA this morning. Here's what they wrote:

Dear Customer:

Thank you for visiting RCA.com.
The approximate dimensions and weight of the 27F650T
are as follows:

Height:27.0
Width: 27.5
Depth:N|A
Weight:115.0

All dimensions are approximate. If you need exact dimensions, we recommend that you visit a local dealer in your area to measure the unit.

If we can be of further assistance, please feel free to contact us again.

Thank you for giving us the opportunity to assist.

Sincerely,

Stephanie

First off, what's with "Dear Customer"? I filled out their web form, including my name. Their email actually included these variables, but Stephanie couldn't be bothered to actually use my name. Which begs the question -- why ask for a customer's name if you make no use of it?

As to the information provided, they didn't even include a depth. I suppose that's ok, since the height and width are way off. I just measured again thinking that maybe I was remembering my measurements incorrectly. But no, the true width is almost exactly 31" and the height is not quite 24". I still have no idea what the true weight of the unit is.

But more importantly, Stephanie ignored my real question. Why isn't this information in the owner's manual? I used to work at one of these retail home electronic's stores, and we always referred to the owner's manual for exact measurements. We carried tape measurers for getting approximates.

I checked other owner's manuals in my files. My Samsung TV manual has dimensions and weight. My Brother fax machine manual has an entire specification section. Even my Xbox manual has the dimensions and weight.

Putting aside my complaint about not including specifications, RCA's response included one line that was particularly infuriating.

If you need exact dimensions, we recommend that you visit a local dealer in your area to measure the unit.

My message clearly stated:

I just purchased a 27F650T from Best Buy.

Why would I go back to a "local dealer" to get exact measurements? The dealer can't refer to the owner's manual -- it has no exact specifications. What could a dealer do? Pull out a tape measure and measure it?!?! But if that's the only solution, why didn't she just tell me to measure it myself? I guess telling the customer to get his own damn measurements would be bad form.

I have a perfectly fine RCA TV now, but I despise RCA. Why bother having a customer service department when you cannot provide even the most basic information? How is it that the manufacturer of a product is not able to provide exact (or at very least, correct approximate) measurements for its own product?
Why would I ever want to do business with a company like that?

I have an answer, but only to the final question. I wouldn't, and I won't.

Thomson/RCA/GE have lost this customer, not because their products are bad, but because they don't know anything about their products.

Cardinals collapse

What a complete and total disaster the World Series is turning out to be for the St. Louis Cardinals. Starting pitchers who can't get past the 4th inning. A fearsome batting order that can't manage to drive in a run. Throw in a few baserunning errors. What do you have?

A four game sweep in the making.

I'm calling it now. The Red Sox are your new world champions; get out your brooms.

1985, 1987, and now 2004. What's a fan to do? Cardinal pitching collapses in the postseason. It's getting to be quite predictable (See John Tudor, Game 7 '85 series -- that debacle still haunts me).

Let me spotlight a perfect example of the Cardinal ineptness in the Series. Game 3. Boston has a 1-0 lead on a first inning home run. You have the bases loaded, one out. Larry Walker is on third. Jim Edmonds, who can't seem to buy a hit in the postseason (save one walk-off homerun), hits a fly ball to left. Now, do you send Walker or do you save him and hope Reggie Sanders can get a base hit. Walker goes, he's out at the plate, and the Cardinals waste perhaps a golden opportunity.

Want another example? This is a LaRussa mistake int he 4th inning. You're down two games to none in the World Series. If you lose this, it's all but over. The only team to come back from a 3-0 deficit is the team facing you. You have first and third, nobody out. You can't seem to buy a run, so you need to keep the game close. Do you leave Suppan out there? Consider that he just got thrown out at the plate in the bottom of the third. Al Reyes is warming up. Why not bring in a fresh pitcher, who doesn't have a fresh mistake hanging over his head? Now, regular season, you might let him work out of the jam. But this is not the regular season. This is it. I mean, this game is it. You lose this. You lose the Series. You're facing the team of destiny, it seems, and you need to give them a reason, any reason, to question themselves. Your previous two pitchers didn't make it through 5 innings. Why would you expect Suppan to? Especially knowing he pitches better on the road than at home?

Don't get me wrong. I'm not blaming LaRussa for the Series loss. I blame the Cardinal bats. Where are Rolen and Edmonds? When those guys become easy outs, the Cardinals lose? The injury to Womack, and Renteria forced into a situation he's not comfortable with, equals trouble. Why not play Hart at second and let him lead off. Let Renteria bat in the sixth spot, since it fits better for him. Without Rolen and Edmonds as threats, you need Renteria's bat for sure.

Even with those changes, Rolen's and Edmonds' silences were probably insurmountable.

Maybe next year. Hopefully the Cardinals will manage to find a decent starter or two to replace some of the ones they had to depend on this year. Hopefully Danny Haren and Rick Ankiel will figure into the rotation.

The Spectre of Specter

Jonah Goldberg in The Corner has this to say about Senator Arlen Specter from Pennslyvania.

An even more limited resource is Arlen Specter who, according to everybody I talked to (including several pro-Specter Republicans) is simply doing as little as he can for Bush. The ingratitude of that is shocking. Bush spent real political capital helping Specter get the nomination and Specter is giving next to nothing in return.

I believe Bush is actually getting exactly what he deserves. There was no reason for him to back Specter in the primary against Pat Toomey. I've heard many say that electability was a major concern. Why? Rick Santorum is from Pennsylvania. He's just as conservative as Toomey. There is absolutely no reason that Toomey could not win. He would have won the primary without the President's efforts on behalf of Specter. I despise Specter, but he is just being who he has always been. He's never been a dependable Republican (see Bork), and Bush should never have helped him defeat Toomey. They say insanity is repeating the same action while expecting a different result. It truly is insane to expect Specter to change when he is near the end of his political career. Bush and his advisors should have known better.

What was he thinking, redux?

BoSox Manager Terry Francona managed to anger some on what was arguably the greatest night in the recent history of that franchise. For some unbelievably obtuse reason, he let Pedro Martinez pitch the 7th inning at Yankee Stadium when the game was well in hand. Why? Pedro got absolutely hammered, giving up several hits and 2 runs. More importantly, he let the Yankee fans back into the game. Now, you might understand this move if the Sox were behind and felt like they had no choice but to bring him in. That was not the case here.

Talk radio this morning was abuzz with talk about this asinine move. Fortunately, the Sox won anyway, but it seems that, like the Dodgers did many times this season, they were winning in spite of their manager, not because of him.

No, he did NOT!!!

He did NOT just say what I think he said, did he?

I think he did. Take a look at this quote, near the bottom of his long post:

With a choice between Tracy, Felipe Alou, Bruce Bochy, Clint Hurdle, Al Pedrique, Art Howe, Frank Robinson, Larry Bowa, Dusty Baker, Phil Garner, Tony La Russa, Lloyd McClendon, Dave Miley, and Ned Yost, Tracy's at least in the top three or four. It's possible to do better than Tracy, but not probable.

Now, keep in mind I just laid the wood to LaRussa for his boneheaded move in keeping Calero in game 4 of the NLCS. But, overall, I'm fairly happy with him as manager. But seriously, let's get real. Jim Tracy in the top 3 or 4 in THAT list? I seriously doubt it. In fact, I KNOW he's not.

Let's see:
LaRussa - has the Cardinals in contention every year. This year they had the best record in baseball with what EVERYONE concedes is suspect starting pitching.
Baker - came within an inch of a World Series title with the Giants. If Bonds gets on his horse, he wears the ring. Now, YOU may fault Baker for having Bonds in the game, but I'm not going to do that. I'll take Baker over Tracy any day. And I'm no Baker fan.
Garner - makes his mistakes, that's for sure. For instance, not putting in Lidge in Game 2 before it was too late. But the 'Stros close out the year hotter than anyone, and they've tied it up with the best team in baseball in the NLCS. Plus, he learns from his mistakes, as my friend Steve Haskins so aptly pointed out here. So, again, I'll also take Garner over Tracy anyday.

I'm not going to go any further. So, let me just stop here and point back to the quote above...

...Tracy's at least in the top three or four...

At least in the top three or four? So, in effect, he's saying, he's no worse than fourth. No, no, no, a thousand TIMES no!!!! Jim Tracy is not in the top three, period. He's not even close. At MOST, he could be fourth. But I'm not going to give him that either. Now, I'm not going through the other named managers because I don't have time. However, I'm certain that I would choose ALL of them over Jim Tracy. Well, maybe not Art Howe, but that still leaves Tracy second to last, AT BEST.

So, please, in the interests of my sanity, don't mention Jim Tracy in the same breath with managers who are FAR superior to him. I'm begging you.

What was he thinking?

Let's set the stage during yesterday's Cardinals-Astros NLCS game.

It's the bottom of the sixth, and Kiki Calero is pitching. Berkman comes up first and smashes a home run. (Keep in mind, Calero has already pitched the fifth.) Now, anyone can give up a homerun on a bad pitch. So, at this point, there's no need to panic.

Next batter. Kent. He strikes out. This seems to indicate that the Berkman at-bat was an aberration. But then Ensberg comes up to the plate. He takes a monster cut, and sends one to left, just about to the warning track. Now, it's time for LaRussa to sit up and take notice. The second batter of the inning that actually made contact, makes GOOD contact. Calero is getting hit hard, but fortunately, only one run has scored as a result. Now, might be a good time to think about replacing him.

Next batter. Vizcaino. Not exactly a fearsome hitter. But he smacks a double into the left field corner. Again, SOLID contact. Not a bloop double here. Now, that's three batters making contact, one homerun, one double, and one LONG flyball. It's understandable that, bottom of the order and all, you don't really want to bring in a pitcher for the 8 and 9 batters. But this IS the NLCS. You make the moves you have to make to win.

But he leaves Calero in. And sure enough, Chavez smacks a single and Vizcaino scores. Tie ball game. THEN, LaRussa brings Ray King in for his one batter. What a waste.

Consider this. King gets brought in after the Berkman homerun or after the long Engsberg flyout or after the sharply hit Vizcaino double. He finishes off the inning, getting Chavez and Palmeiro. Cardinals still have a one-run lead.

That makes Beltran's homerun an entirely different animal. It TIES the game instead of giving the 'Stros the lead. Now, they use Lidge for his two innings and the game goes into extra innings. At some point, Garner has to go back to his bullpen. A bullpen the Cardinals have feasted on for those first two games. A bullpen they haven't really seen in these last two games. Maybe the Cardinals don't end up winning anyway, but it sure gives them a better chance.

Come on LaRussa, quit playing your stupid matchups. They don't mean anything. Pay attention to what's going on in the field, for crying out loud. If you lose us this series, I will never forgive you. (You do remember that Gibson homerun, don't you?)

Bush Does Too Well -- Is Fired.

The Anchoress has a thought-provoking post up called "The Woman in the Black Hijab." Read it all. One section really struck me as being right on.

Perhaps President Bush had done his job too well. After a recession and a terror attack and two wars we find our economy in rip-roaring shape. Jobs up. Housing starts up. Restaurants full. Theaters full. Highways crammed with new cars. All of your kids have iPods, whether they need them or not. All of John Kerry's supporters have his bumper stickers on their Beemers. America is not suffering. Mostly.

This election is so close precisely because Bush has done so well. We have regressed to our comfortable "can't touch us" mindset. Only another attack would bring us to our senses and remind us of the stakes in our war against terror.

Googling one's name

I've been told that the most frequent searches performed on Google are individuals googling their own names.

Never having done so, I gave it a whack. And found this:

Land Murphy has a "career" in game development. It likely spans more years than 1998. I'd almost forgotten that I beta-tested Commandos from Pyro Studios for free while I was finishing up college. I've always been a rabid gamer, and this was part of that obsession/addiction. However, this a career does not make.

Amusing to say the least.

Dodgers - Cardinals: Game 2

It's do or die time for the Dodgers. I'm all for the dying. The Cardinals' pitchers have the opportunity this postseason to serve the baseball "experts" a healthy serving of crow. The Cardinals vied for the ERA crown in the National League; the Cardinal relievers tied for second in the Rolaids Relief competition in all of baseball.

Woody Williams was not stellar by any stretch of the imagination in game 1. The Cardinal bats put the game out of reach early, giving him a much easier time. I'd like to see Jason Marquis, someone the experts have stamped with a huge question mark for the playoffs, completely shut the Dodgers down. I think the Dodgers are on the ropes after game 1, and Marquis has the perfect chance to build his confidence and silence the critics.

It's possible that again the Cardinal bats will knock out Weaver early, allowing Marquis to coast. However, a shut out would be beautiful right about now.