aggienaut | 513 Hits In 24 Hours

   Last post had 323 hits after nine hours, 401 after 12, and 518 at 24 hours. Pictures in the lj cut had 86 hits after 24 hours.

   This compares to about 50 hits per day before this lj was "discovered" by the ASUCD government. Last entry's hits may have been higher than normal because the case verdict was posted on it and people may have found that out and gone there specifically to see the verdict as that is the most accessible place it exists at (nothing useful is ever posted on ASUCD webpages).
   The previously posted pictures topped at 190 hits on the day the lj was discovered. The reason that number wasn't as high as this number could be that that entry was already a ways back in the history on that date.
   It has been hypothesized that the number is just people updating their friends' pages; but that "normal" number would be reflected by the 50 or so hits that entries previously got. On any account the 86 hits the pictures in the lj-cut registered were not definitely not friends-list reloads, requiring specifically clicking on the lj-cut or comments.
   When I have more time I'll stick some REAL sitemeters here and there and see what they tell me.

   Very briefly hung out downtown with samedisorder, ~~this other UC Davis student whose name I don't recall~~ iamrav, and this Irish guy Sean with a PhD in archeology. At first I was a bit alarmed by the latter's accent, but then I realized he was from County Kerry and it all made sense.

   Been reading Ronald Dworkin's legal theories for POL154. Decided his theories are full of crap. He maintains that law doesn't come from laws but from inherent rights that already existed and laws just describe, but this theory gives Courts the ability to completely disregard laws in favor of their interpretation of how these unwritten inherent rights are best served; which I think is extremely dangerous. He argues that because laws have the potential to conflict they cannot be considered authorative. Crap I say, crap. Being in stark opposition to Dworkin I think I am a "legal positivist." Those of you in ASUCD who want to understand and anticipate my thinking more may go look up legal positivism now.. just don't bother reading Dworkin, I think its crap. The end.

   And there no longer are lj invite codes? Its like the berlin wall of LJ came down, only not that significant. The 450 or so of you readers that don't have livejournals may now go and get them. (=

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

Bah, I can't stand this.

He argues that a federal law making it a federal offence to transport kidnap victims across state lines does not actually do so, through round about reasoning that frankly completely lost me.

The example is "a man who persuaded a young girl that it was her religious duty to run away with him, in violation of a court order, to consummate what he called a celestial marriage."

The law is "it is a federal crime to knowingly transport in interstate commerce 'any person who shall have been unlawfully seized, confined, inveigled, decoyed, kidnapped, abducted, or carried away by any means whatsoever'."

His conclusion two long paragraphs later: "Plainly a decision that inveiglement of the sort presented by the case is not made a federal crime by the statute." How he makes this conclusion I haven't the faintest idea (Pages 107-109 of Taking Rights Seriously by Ronald Dworkin).

He further reasons: "It would justify, for example, a statute making it a federal crime for a murderer to leave the state of his crime. The legislature has no general duty to follow out the lines of any particular policy, but it would plainly be wrong for [the presiding judge] to suppose that the legislature had in some sense enacted that further statute"

what the heck.

It makes sense: It's not kidnapping if you've convinced the person that they want to run away, and they do so of their own will. But then again, that is inveiglement... but is it unlawful inveiglement? I think that's a circular definition of unlawful inveiglement — "it is unlawful to inveigle unlawfully. As for the murderer not leaving his own home state, I think he's talking about self-abduction.. but again, it's circular. Hmmm. Anyway, back to physics for me.

Well this specific situation makes it even simpler: since the suspect had a court order against inveigling the victim this is clearly a case of unlawful inveiglment.

Furthermore the law doesn't merely make an already illegal act illegal, it makes the illegal act a federal matter, meaning because of the law federal authorities can now join in the chase.

As to murder, its the same relevance, it makes the already criminal murderer liable to be pursued by federal authorities and the various other implications of a federal crime.

Aaand I believe it IS still kidnapping if you "convince" a minor (as I have interpreted the "young girl" to be) to run away with you in the current interpretation of relevant laws.. as they are not old enough to "consent" to being taken from their legal guardians.

I met that Irish Sean fellow last Saturday.
He started to babble in Gaelic and I was stunned stupid for a while.

He's quite the character. And County Kerry is, in my opinion (and that of the rest of Kilkenny), a place with a very silly accent. Since I haven't heard such an accent in many many years I didn't know what to make of it at first.

He's also purported to be "the youngest archeologist in Europe"

Okay, if that's the case, I'm the most insanely stupid person ever. I understood "No more LJ codes" as "No more LJs unless you already have one."

Yes. I am dumb. The UCD guy was the Ishar, who is way cool and also iamrav, and whom you should get to know because ... he's way cool.

See, I read your LJ.

--

Don't worry I've talked to other people who interpreted it the same way.

We should all hang out again sometime. The end.

I leave town on monday.

513 Hits In 24 Hours

Dworkin = Crap, and who the hell says inveigle?

Re: Dworkin = Crap, and who the hell says inveigle?

Re: Dworkin = Crap, and who the hell says inveigle?

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject