Posts Tagged ‘on other blogs’

Denis Dutton, 1944-2010

The creator of the wonderful Arts and Letters Daily (and a body of great work besides that on aesthetics and other subjects) will be sorely missed. Obits and appreciations: The Press (New Zealand), Nick Gillespie/Reason, Chronicle of Higher Education. For very many years, like Patrick at Popehat, until changing technology rendered the home page concept less relevant, I kept my home page set to the Daily, unrivaled as it was at its job of civilized web curation and casual tease-line artistry; now the L.A. Times speculates (via Virginia Postrel) on what will happen to it next.

August 28 roundup

  • EPA considers petition to ban lead sporting ammunition and fishing sinkers [National Shooting Sports Federation via Zincavage]
  • Claremont-McKenna economist Eric Helland, known for his work on litigation policy, joins the group blog Truth on the Market;
  • European Union expresses concern about provisions of Foreign Manufacturers Legal Accountability Act [Sidley Austin, PDF letter courtesy Learning Resources]
  • Michigan judge rules two waitresses can proceed with weight discrimination claim against Hooters [WSJ Law Blog, earlier]
  • San Francisco prosecutors charge former MoFo partner and wife with misappropriating nearly $400,000 from funds earmarked for autistic son’s services [The Recorder]
  • When litigants demand to depose the opponent’s CEO [Ted at PoL]
  • Wal-Mart seeks Supreme Court review of billion-dollar job-bias class action [Ohio Employer’s Law]
  • If you want to hire a home attendant to keep grandma from needing a nursing home, better hope you’re not in California [five years ago on Overlawyered]

New at Point of Law

Things you’re missing if you aren’t checking out my other site:

Lowering the Bar “Best of 2009”

Kevin Underhill rounds up four amusing miscellanies at his excellent site. From the fourth:

In June, a committee of the Oregon Legislature stuck some language into a bill that would (I think) have briefly redefined “no” as “yes.” Allegedly, Democrats were trying to head off an initiative they feared Republicans would later put on the ballot, asking voters to reject a spending measure. The bill provided that a vote to reject the measure would be counted as a vote to adopt it:

A measure referred to the people by referendum petition may not be adopted unless it receives an affirmative majority of the total votes cast on the measure rejecting the measure. For purposes of this subsection, a measure is considered adopted if it is rejected by the people.

The bill was amended again a few days later to remove the controversial language, after it became public.

P.S. And another installment missed above (“We are all tarnished by your stupidity.”)