Sorry for the radio silence. This judicial clerkship has been devouring my days. It seems like I hear something worth blogging about every few hours. But by the time I get home, all I want to do is relax for bit.

Still, while I've got a minute, it's worth thinking "aloud." Surely at least one of the following observations will inspire comment. d^_^b

The Election: My old friend Chelsea shared a quote about Hillary Clinton's "concession speech" from a political analyst on the O'Reilly Factor: "It's not often that the loser takes a victory lap." No kidding. Her campaign theme song should be "It's My Party (and I'll Cry if I Want To)." She clearly felt entitled to the nomination. I've said before that all she really cares about is power, and that's more obvious now than ever. I just hope Obama knows better than to pick this viper up as VP. She'll bite him, eventually, and he's got to realize that by now. It will be interesting to see what happens next.

More Election: I've been saying that McCain can't beat Obama because of the Nixon-Kennedy effect. Obama looks young. McCain is old. Obama is vibrant and charismatic; McCain is dry and paternal. Televised debates will do to McCain what they did to Nixon. Issues voting is for the primaries. The general election is all about image. Presence. Celebrity. But someone pointed out to me that, this time around, the televised debates will also be reminding the American public of Obama's skin color. Will what's left of racism in America counterbalance our obsession with looks-over-issues? Is there a sense in which Obama's race actually levels the playing field, making this a fair fight? Because if not, McCain hasn't got a prayer, no matter the ostensible merits of his political positions.

The news media shies away from discussing this because, let's face it, we don't want the election to be about a black candidate versus an old candidate. We want it to be about war, and economics, and morality, and ideology. And I can get behind that sort of idealism. But it will be interesting to see how things go.

Polygamy and Homosexuality: First, a very interesting article. June 17th rapidly approaches. The recent California Supreme Court decision regarding gay marriage was long. Over 150 pages. But the most interesting part was footnote 52:

"We emphasize that our conclusion that the constitutional right to marry properly must be interpreted to apply to gay individuals and gay couples does not mean that this constitutional right similarly must be understood to extend to polygamous . . . relationships. Past judicial decisions explain why our nation's culture has considered the latter types of relationships inimical to the mutually supportive and healthy family relationships promoted by the constitutional right to marry . . . Although the historic disparagement of and discrimination against gay individuals and gay couples clearly is no longer constitutionally permissible, the state continues to have a strong and adequate justification for refusing to officially sanction polygamous . . . relationships because of their potentially detrimental effect on a sound family environment . . . ."

Talk about a can of worms. There is a lot of (controversial) research suggesting that single parenting is detrimental to a sound family environment. Certainly, a huge amount of child abuse takes place in the homes of single mothers, perpetrated by boyfriends or roommates or new husbands who lack a blood bond with the child. There is also a lot of (again, controversial!) research suggesting that homosexual couples are likewise less healthy for a child's development. I'm not going to evaluate that research here, but this footnote is clearly hollow. Devoid of legal reasoning. In issuing its opinion (ironically, right in the middle of the Texas polygamy S.N.A.F.U.), the California Court permits a form of marriage that has only appeared on Earth in the last few decades, while disparaging a form of marriage that was the norm for most of human history--and is still the norm in many places around the world. It will be interesting to see how the legal battles over this footnote play out...

All Dressed Up, Nowhere to Go: On a lighter note, neckties are on their way out. So far as I am concerned, this is a trend that cannot play out fast enough. I generally do not wear ties to church, but the legal profession, while ever ready to embrace vast and epic socioeconomic change, is strangely reluctant to jettison inconsequential holdovers like ridiculous dress styles or aging linguistic quirks. Ties are an abomination. Meaningless flaps of cloth, noose-like throwbacks to masonic rituals and European foppery. They're actually hazardous to your health--which should be no surprise, given that they are tied around your neck, threatening both the passage of blood upward and the passage of air downward, but there you have it.

We needn't jettison fashion altogether. But men's fashion, largely static for nigh on 50 years or more, needs to contemplate the difference between "dressing well" and "dressing dangerously." I cannot wait to be back in academia, where eschewing ties permanently will become a very real possibility. I will likely wait for tenure before I burn all of my ties once and for all--being, as I am, a pragmatist who knows the value of a suit and tie in the hunt for employment--but oh, what a glorious day that will be.

I think that's all, for now. The summer has almost begun...