The Academic Calendar, Open Mic Night, and Right-Thinking People

It’s been a quiet week, and not just in Lake Wobegon. Part of the reason is that, notwithstanding irresponsible speculation to the contrary, I do have a job. But it’s not just me: Fitz and Wendy are quiet as well, and the Anchoress has repeatedly given notice in recent weeks that she has been quiet for one reason or another. (Her post on the other reason is worth reading, by the way.)

Personally, I suspect the academic calendar is somehow largely to blame. No matter how far I get from academic life (and by now it’s pretty far), I notice that the academic calendar still exerts tremendous influence. June, September, and December just seem to arrive pre-booked.

Anyway, because I’ve been otherwise occupied, and because I’d rather be candid about having nothing in particular to say, I’m putting up this essentially topic-less post to declare a sort of open mic night for Reasonable Minds. Think of it as your opportunity to comment on the post no one was smart enough to write. I’ll start.


2 Responses to “The Academic Calendar, Open Mic Night, and Right-Thinking People”

  1. Anonymous Source Says:

    I think all right-thinking people in this country are sick and tired of being told that ordinary, decent people are fed up in this country with being sick and tired. I’m certainly not! And I’m sick and tired of being told that I am. (Graham Chapman, R.I.P.)

  2. David Olazabal Says:

    For you full time lawyers or part-timers like Mark (I retired from the law 10 years ago), can you help me understand the Supreme Court’s decision in a recent case involving a death penalty defendant? I apologize for not having the case name. As I read in this week’s New Yorker in Talk of the Town, apparently the Court ruled as follows: A judge gave the defendant a specified deadline for filing an appeal, but the rules of appellate procedure apparently provided for an earlier deadline by three days. The defendant filed his notice of appeal, etc by the deadline given by the judge. The Supreme Court ruled that the defendant was late and could not seek the appeal. Apparently reliance on a judge’s direct instruction is not the way to go these days. The ruling, like many these days, was 5-4. I have not read the decision, but could someone explain this to me? What country was this again?

    Also, in keeping with my inability to understand what is happening in our country/world these days, are high school history/civics texbooks being updated to include the new fourth branch of government set up by Vice President Cheney, which apparently has the added advantage of not being subject to checks and balances by the other three branches. Genius. I imagine the 5 justices referred to above would have little problem with Mr. Cheney’s new status as well.

    Just wondering.

    David Olazabal

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: