demimasque

Morgan Freeman on Color

by

Tiger Woods isn’t the only celebrity to be tired of people trying to pigeonhole him in one race or another, or to even make a big stink about the color of his skin. Morgan Freeman recently spoke out, somewhat, on the manic obsession that our society makes of race and color:

“You’re going to relegate my history to a month?” the 68-year-old actor says in an interview on CBS’ “60 Minutes” to air Sunday (7 p.m. EST). “I don’t want a black history month. Black history is American history.”

Black History Month has roots in historian Carter G. Woodson’s Negro History Week, which he designated in 1926 as the second week in February to mark the birthdays of Frederick Douglass and Abraham Lincoln.

Woodson said he hoped the week could one day be eliminated — when black history would become fundamental to American history.

Freeman notes there is no “white history month,” and says the only way to get rid of racism is to “stop talking about it.”

The actor says he believes the labels “black” and “white” are an obstacle to beating racism.

“I am going to stop calling you a white man and I’m going to ask you to stop calling me a black man,” Freeman says.

I guess now that blacks have been recognized by the Academy of Motion Pictures, albeit in a rather contrived showing a couple years ago (which is not to say that Denzel Washington didn’t deserve the award), that’s just one less milestone to conquer. (By the way, doesn’t anybody think it’s rather nice, and rather interesting, that a black man got to go to space before one got an Oscar? I’ve been informed that Sidney Poitier won an Oscar for his role in Lilies of the Field in 1963, twenty years before Guion “Guy” Bluford became the first African-American in space. The first black man in space was Cuban Colonel Arnaldo Tamayo-Mendez aboard a Soviet mission in 1980.)

Without saying that racism is solved (which, so long as people are human, will never be definitively “solved”), I do believe that this is another step toward Dr. King’s dream that someday, people will be judged “not by the color of their skin, but the content of their character.”

Still, while we’re using labels, can we please stop insisting calling blacks “African-Americans”, and insisting that folks like Charlize Theron cannot be called “African-American” simply because she’s white.

By the way, Mr. Freeman, for your words, and for your wonderful work in motion pictures, you are the man!

[Cross-posted at Between Worlds]

Iraqi Elections

by

I’ve got a midterm in three hours, but the Iraqi elections is something that can’t be missed. Besides, I hadn’t really covered the October constitutional referendum, so this is my way of making up for it.

Read more

Strict Liability or Negligence?

by

In Torts, we’re currently working on Indiana Harbor Belt Railroad Co. v. American Cyanamid Co., 916 F.2d 1174. Judge Posner delivered the opinion, and in class, Professor Nockleby offered a critique of it. I thought Judge Posner wrote very lucidly, but Professor Nockleby also makes some great points. The professor challenged us to offer policy arguments against his, as a way of forcing us to learn the arguing skills we must develop as lawyers. I had a few thoughts, and I decided to share them with Judge Posner in an e-mail, which I have excerpted here:

Essentially, Professor Nockleby’s position is as follows:

1. The real issue in the case is, “In the absence of negligence (or proof of negligence), on whom should the presumptive burden of loss caused by the escape of a dangerous substance, acrylonitrile, while in rail transit be cast?”

2. The shipment of acrylonitrile is an abnormally dangerous activity. Therefore, the court should impose strict liability upon the Shipper. (Professor Nockleby cites Rylands, Siegler, and Spano as precedents that argue *in favor* of his position.)

3. Where a loss is created, and created non-negligently, someone must bear the loss, and strict liability is the best vehicle for assigning the loss.

[Here I have questions:
1) Does imposition of strict liability allow for later indemnification (Prof. Nockleby seems to imply that it does, but I’m not sure that’s so clear); and
2) In the instant case, isn’t the state agency which cleaned up the spill (and which charged Indiana Harbor Belt for the cleanup) essentially the way in which the liability is shifted? That is to say, if, as Prof. Nockleby insists, the danger of the case is in the future implications when, rather than a switching station, it is residents who are harmed, isn’t the fact that a government agency can clean up the spill an argument that “the people” have resources which are just as corporate as “big business”? Isn’t the government a sunk transaction cost, and what we’re doing then is simply doing the indemnification?]

4. Professor Nockleby insists that, in an abnormally dangerous activity such as shipping a dangerous chemical like acrylonitrile, it should be the agent which has control over the decision to ship which should bear the loss.

5. Professor Nockleby also takes exception to your analogy with people who build houses between runways at O’Hare. My understanding of that illustration was that the people built the houses after the runways were already there, in which case I think it is reasonable to expect people not to buy up land between runways and build houses. If, on the other hand, the houses were there before the runways, we have eminent domain issues.

I don’t expect an e-mail back from Judge Posner, but I invite you, dear readers, to leave comments, particularly if you’re familiar with this case and its interpretations and arguments. Thank you!

[Cross-posted at Law Law Stud]

[lawschool]
[torts]
[strict liability]
[negligence]
[Posner]

Alito Justice

by

I hadn’t commented on either Roberts or Miers due to the hubbub of starting school, and because there really wasn’t much to know. As for Alito, from my very limited knowledge, it seems that he’s a pretty reasonable guy. But don’t take my word for it. Michael Barone has a nice long article covering Judge Alito, and why Democrats might be ill-advised to pull out the stops in opposing him. Barone correctly notes that several Democrats are caught between a rock and a hard place: The need to be reasonable versus the need to satisfy constituents. Red-state Democrats, then, have the easiest job: They won’t face recrimination for being reasonable. What I find interesting is that some blue-state Democrats, like the Senators from Massachusetts, who would be virtually uncontested at election no matter what positions they took, nevertheless feel the need to excoriate a nominee simply because Bush made the nomination. Unsurprisingly, Pennsylvania Democrats are less likely to spit on their native son.

Andrew Sullivan notes that there’s a liberal for Alito: Kate Pringle, a liberal Democrat who once clerked for Alito.

Captain Ed adds to that list a certain Jeff Wasserstein, who characterizes himself as “a Democrat who always voted Democratic, except when I vote for a Green candidate” but is neverthless on board. Captain Ed tips his hat to the Los Angeles Times, which surprised me somewhat.

Meanwhile, James Taranto notes that the New York Times is still on the same old saw. The Tuesday column item led to some sleuthing by reader Chris Bartony (which James has posted). The best part is Chris’ conclusion:

I think that they have a Screed-O-Matic somewhere at the New York Times. They just insert the name and hit the Republican Judicial Nominee button and the thing churns out the copy. I know that Maureen Dowd and Bob Herbert use it all the time.

That seems about right.

Speaking of which, it is important to remember that there’s a difference between a judicial conservative and a social conservative; that Judge Alito, on the face of his published opinions, hardly seems an extremist in either sense; and that maybe getting things done “just about right” is more important than having your party “win”. That’s the only way American will have Alito Justice (apologies for the punnery).

[Cross-posted at Between Worlds]

Two Years, Two Curses Broken

by

Last year, the Boston Red Sox overcame the Curse of the Bambino by beating their archrivals, the New York Yankees, en route to a sweeping victory in the World Series.

This year, I watched the final pitch and tag-out at first base as the Chicago White Sox overcame their 88-year Curse of “Shoeless” Joe Jackson (also known as the Curse of the Black Sox), and won the World Series in a sweep of the Houston Astros.

Next stop: The Chicago Cubs for an attempt to break their nearly century-long curse. The Cubs have not won the World Series since 1908, a drought so long that they’ve even had time to build up another curse inside, the Curse of the Billy Goat.

PS – The Astros were understandably disappointed. It was their first ever trip to the World Series since they were created 44 years ago (the longest any major league baseball team had taken to get to the World Series), and they had overcome a 15-30 start to this season. Their time will come.

PPS – Former President George H. W. Bush, a Texan, was understanbly disappointed when they showed his face in a replay. It looks like he’s gained some weight. I guess he’s been spending too much time with Bill Clinton!

[Cross-posted at Between Worlds]