The test is: does the article explictly address, or otherwise suggest that the author has considered, how serious would a potential attack have to be to justify the author's child (lacking a child read significant other, lacking that read parent) could be very gradually eviscerated with a power drill(particular torture written in white text because it's not particularly important to my point and to spare the hypothetical sensitivites of hypothetical readers) because the government reasonably believes that the author innocently overheard a terrorist plot being discussed in detail, and is refusing to disclose it. Failing to address this means the article is not taking its topic sufficiently seriously.
As a final note, I have never before applied this test, I developed it after reading an article published in a 2006 issue of a top ten law review article. I'm not sure why I'm being coy about what article it is, but if anyone is interested, I'll provide a link.
Update: The text which I tried to make only visible if highlighted is in fact not the same color as the page background. Unfortunately, I lack even the minimal source reading skills to figure out which command in the page source sets the background color of this page.
Consent isn't everything
I also wanted to slightly expand on this comment at Orin Kerr's on Randolph v. Georgia, the Supreme Court's decision last week that the police do not have a consent exception to the warrant requirement if two co-owners of a residence are standing at the door and disagree as to whether or not they consent to police entry (the holding might be broader than this, but the breadth of the holding has nothing to do with my point). Let me also note that I've not read the opinion, only news and blog accounts of it, so I could be making a big mistake in what I'm about to stay.
It is entirely possible that the court did not need to reach the issue of consent, because the case could have been decided for the state on exigency grounds. As I said, I didn't read the opinion, so this might be addressed, and it is also possible that for some reason the state failed to plead this issue in the alternative to their primary (incorrect) consent rationale. Otherwise, the police had probable cause from the wife's phone call claiming that her husband had cocaine in the house. Because they believed they had consent to search (the wife had indicated her husband wasn't home), they had no reason to get a warrant at the time of the call. When they arrived at the house they discovered that the husband had just arrived home, and was denying them permission to search. At that point an exigency exception to the warrant requirement sprung into existence, because they had reason to believe the evidence of the crime would be destroyed, and destruction of evidence is not an exigency. The importance of the fact that the exigency didn't arise until they were on the scene is that this would not be a case where the police purposefully waited for exigency to arise in order to avoid the need for a neutral decision maker to grant a warrant. The only reason they wouldn't have had an exigency exception is if they could have frozen the scene by keeping the husband out of the house until they could return with a warrant, and I'm not sure of the facts on that issue.
Then John Adams
Followed by Jefferson
John Qunicy Adams
Martin Van Buren
A little obscure
And he was number eight
William Henry Harrison
Died too early
Or came too late
So you need not be hesitant
You can name all the Presidents
All the White House residents
Of the United States
Verse 2The only part of verse two that I can remember is the following, I'm not sure how this song deals with Tyler, Polk, Taylor, and Fillmore. Though I know how another song deals with Polk.
Franklin Pierce thenAnyway, if anyone ever finds this post who is also trying to find the full lyrics to this song, it would prove that I'm not a crazy person (on this matter, at least), so drop me a comment.
Lincoln did supplant
Update (11/18/08): Thanks for stopping by, Ask MeFi readers. I'm a fan of a song about you guys too.
Dogs playing poker
as his cellphone background picture (sorry friend, if you're reading). I don't retract that Nighthawks sort of sucks (the extent of my vocabulary for criticizing paintings is limited, though I've also used clichèd to describe that one), but today I sat down to use a computer, and its desktop background was this painting,
which I quite like. And when I looked up who'd painted Chop Suey, I discovered it was none other than Edward Hopper. So I've correspondingly revised upward my opinion of same. Another post could potentially focus on the strangeness of having one's most frequent interactions with fine art via the backgrounds of various consumer electronics, but to be honest I'll most likely never write about that. If you want more and/or real art blogging, and aren't already familiar with his work, check out Kriston Capps at Grammar.police and/or Eye Level. That last advice is, as previously, directed at people who aren't regular blog readers.
[Updated a bit over one year later to fix some typos and the link to the second image]
Repeat after me
Anyone who wants to copy this or some variant of it and put it on their blog (or just say it to people, but that would involve talking to people in real life) is more than welcome, it's more useful and more true then debating out democratic hostility to Christians. Also, it might be really useful (assuming you agree that saying this might be useful), to say this on a blog that has an audience, and even better if your audience includes someone who recently voted for a non-Democratic federal level candidate. Also, the exit-polling I link to is bizarre, since instead of asking which, if any, religious organization one identifies with, it asks which religious organization one identifies with and one's racial characteristics and one's political identification, with people being able to choose only one.
It’s a further testament to the addled mental condition of the Teatotallers during this carnage that they were unable to take advantage of the congested baserunning by fielding any ball and throwing it to any base, where it would have immediately forced out three runners and ended the inning.The whole thing is really good though, and strongly recommended. It even makes me miss the old days when I procrastinated by lurking at Baseball Primer. In fact, it's inspired me to track down this classic from back in those days (scroll down below the standings for the fun part).
I'll try to put together a post on voting rights and children tomorrow.
Ha ha, we got Waldron! Suckers.
Manna from heaven
KING: So, you don't want it to be bad?Watch and/or read the whole thing, it's very good. Actually, you can't watch the whole thing, since I've only linked to partial clips. I'd like to see Jon as an ombudsmen for a newspaper, or for that matter a network news show. The second seems more likely, despite no such position existing, because of his total lack of experience in print news media.
STEWART: Did you really just ask me if I want it to be bad?
KING: Yes because you...
STEWART: What are you -- I have kids what do you think? Yes, I don't want them to have any kind of a -- I want things to corrode to the point where we're all living in huts.
KING: Not all living in huts but generally comics political comics like things to go a little wrong, don't have to be the end of the world.
STEWART: Like things to go a little wrong like birdshot to the face of a guy that will survive.
KING: That's right.
STEWART: Not like things to go wrong until it's like Mad Max, every man for himself, let's all ride around with machineguns on, which seems to be the way that it's...
KING: You don't want Medicare to fail?
STEWART: Are you insane?
STEWART: You're literally asking me if I would prefer -- yes, Larry, what I'm saying to you as a comedian I want old people to suffer, old and poor people to suffer.
Is there a fourth rule?
And it has burst in part, I submit, because Democrats (over Mickey's vociferous protests) have been relentlessly — and, I would say, accurately — attacking his character for about four years now. If we'd started earlier, hit harder, and been more unified (e.g., had some help from Joe Lieberman and Mickey Kaus), he would now probably be even less popular than he is. The first rule of advertising is repetition. The second rule of advertising is repetition. And the third rule of advertising is repetition.- Mark Kleiman
George W. Bush isn't just an awful President; he's also a miserable excuse for a human being. Saying so, back when he was popular, wasn't an immediate vote-winner, but it paid long-term dividends. Saying it now — long, loud, and over and over and over and over and over and over and over again — isn't just truth-telling, it's also obviously good politics.