Documents

[aggienaut]

   This morning we had no less than four court cases pending.
   The Aggie called me for an interview while I was walking to the Senate meeting. What caught me by complete suprise however was that they weren't even calling about ASUCD stuff. They were interviewing me as a member of the Agnostic & Atheist Student Association on my feelings about plans to build a prayer room on campus as part of the new student resource center.
   I didn't really know what to say at the time as I had just learned of it and its hard and dangerous to form an opinion on the spot during an interview. Having had time to reflect, I think I would say that the construction of a prayer room endorses religious beliefs that involve praying over other religious beliefs. If those who are into that kind of thing had no other recourse for their praying needs than facilitating them would perhaps outweigh the endorsement implications, but the fact is that if one wants to pray one can do it practically anywhere, thus making this a completely unnecessary endorsement of religious prayer. I guess thats basically what I said to the Aggie reporter, but I have a feeling it was phrased so badly I'm going to look like an ogre and will later be used against me at my confirmation hearing for Chief Justice of the United States.
   Anyway, two of the cases were later retracted by the plaintiff before we could look at them. At the Senate meeting today we had four new justices confirmed. Then we had a Court meeting, at which we answered a critical question which resulted in the new senator-elects not being confirmed today across the hall in Senate which was simulteniously in session. Word on whether or not we accepted the other two cases will go out tomorrow morning.

   It was brought up to me that while I linked to the final UTEP opinion in last entry, I never linked to my own amicus brief. Additionally, I think my amicus brief may do a better job of explaining the situation the case is about to non-UTEP observors than the UTEP opinion. As such, here is my amicus curiae opinion for that case.


   While I'm at it, here's a paper that is due tomorrow. Its kind of a weird prompt -- we were to analyze a book from the perspective of how it appears to be marketted, basically. Its due tomorrow at two. In the mean time feedback is greatly appreciated.

Comments

a little feedback

[lassen-hiker.livejournal.com]

I'm in the library and should be working on a report, so of course I'm checking out livejournal!!

Interesting paper! Two (perhaps minor)points that might be tightened up:

You write, "Clearly, this book has a radical leftist agenda. If the cover design or descriptions of the subject-matter do not convince one of this, the names of the publisher conclusively settles the matter." I think that you weaken your argument by suggesting that the name of the publisher could settle the matter.

Also, I'm not sure that you’ve made a convincing case that it was presented as an academic textbook by the prof. Just because it’s required reading on the syllabus doesn't imply to me that he thinks it's an academic textbook. Although it seems reasonable to say that you think he should have discussed with the class that it isn't an academic textbook, it's not all that central to what the paper is about. And on top of that, it seems likely to piss off the professor who I assume is grading the paper.

Good luck with finishing up your classes!

Re: a little feedback

[emosnail.livejournal.com]

thanks for the feedback.

No the professor grading the paper isn't the one who assigned the textbook discussed. That would be quite saucy.

I'll see if I can adjust the things you mention.

[ashael.livejournal.com]

I've participated in a "Religion vs. Science" symposium (sp?) today at college. It was fun, I must say. In any case, I like your answer to the Aggie or whatever.

[emosnail.livejournal.com]

Seriously though, I'm really cringing to see what I get quoted as saying in the aggie. Maybe I should tell them just to use a quote from my livejournal instead.