Clueless Kolb Wants Murdering "Juveniles" Back on the Streets

In her recent article, Sherry Kolb demonstrates the buffoonery that so often results when an academic believes themselves qualified to comment on every subject under the sun.

First, she demonstrates a complete misunderstanding of juvenile justice by claiming there is a "paradox" in our justice system's treatment of teens. It is the usual liberal non-sense: teens are considered irresponsible when it comes to authority over their own abortions, piercings, driving, contracts, etc; but our "paradoxical" justice system holds them accountable for violent crime."

Given that Kolb is pro-abortion, perhaps she has never been a parent or like most liberals wasn't too interested in responsible parenting. In any case, most people that have responsibly raised a child know there is no paradox. The reason is simple: At a very early age children learn not to hurt others, but it takes much, much, much longer for them to learn not to hurt themselves. That is why we hold them accountable for vicious violence perpetrated on others: children know it is wrong. A 13 year old knows it is wrong to stab or shoot someone. He may not see the folly of getting a permanent Sponge Bob tattoo on his forehead.

Next, she implies we are inferior to other nations that believe in "rehabilitation" of the offenders. She provides absolutely no evidence that children who commit horrific crimes can be rehabilitated, nor that releasing such violent offenders is very safe. Would it be nice if we could reprogram all violent offenders, especially children, and turn them into safe people? Of course.

But Kolb provides absolutely no evidence that we have any such ability now, and promotes a policy that will get people killed. What else would you expect from a pro-abortion liberal?

John Dean Says Americans too Stupid--Turn Over Congress to Law Profs

John Dean thinks Americans are too stupid to govern themselves, and Congress should be replaced with law professors. In fact, he thinks Americans are so stupid he doesn't even bother to explain himself (as probably we are too stupid to understand).

In Dean's latest article, he insists that we Americans are stoopid to believe that eavesdropping on terrorist conversations is a good thing:

Millions of Americans buy this logic, and in accepting it, believe they are doing the right thing for themselves, their family, and their friends, neighbors, community and country. They are sadly wrong. If you accept this argument, you have been badly fooled.

So tell us how we've been fooled Johny-boy! Well the Deanster does just that...sort of. Basically he says we all need to read up on "Law School Professor Daniel J. Solove" (I have no idea why Dean capitalizes "law school professor", as if it is some kind of official title). Solove is apparently the Einstein of privacy:

[H]e writes, "to understand privacy, we must conceptualize it and its value more pluralistically." Through several years of work, Solove has developed a more nuanced concept of privacy that rebuts the idea that there is a "one-size-fits-all conception of privacy."

Well isn't that special. Dean then describes Solove's work in a rambling babble that makes absolutely no sense. There is absolutely no analysis relating whatever it is he's talking about to terrorism. Basically, in typical liberal fashion, he tells the reader "a Professor says it is so" and you must therefore Believe. Then Dean says:

... members of Congress should look at Solove's work. Too many of them have no idea what privacy is all about, and grossly underestimate the value of this complex and essential concept.

Of course they should. Defer to a law professor instead of common sense. Why? Where's the argument? Do any other [L]aw [P]rofessors disagree with Solove, or is he some kind of supreme being (like Dean)?

I beseech thee reader, examine Dean's background instead of relying on FindLaw's scandalously biased "bio" on him. It is a disgrace to the few talented FindLaw contributors that this charlatan shares the same blog.

Pro-Abortion Kolb Continues Liberal Abortion Myths

In her recent pro-abortion article, Kolb utilizes a few slimy tricks typical of her writing:

1. Misstate the position of the other side,
2. Pretend to be a dispassionate neutral observer,
3. Misapply and misinterpret science

As she casually plugs her book, Kolb concludes her article as follows:

As I have argued in my book, When Sex Counts: Making Babies and Making Law, a prohibition against abortion amounts to a government-imposed requirement that women remain pregnant. Prohibiting the morning-after-pill or the I.U.D., however, would go one step further: it would require that women who are not pregnant actually become pregnant against their will.

The essence of Kolb's argument is as follows: Assuming pregnancy does not begin at conception, but rather when the fertilized egg attaches to the womb, prohibiting a woman from willfully destroying the fertilized egg requires her to become pregnant against her will.

Before we even address her assumption, notice her charged rhetoric comes close to equating such prohibitions as equivalent to rape. Do zygotes magically fall from the sky and enter women's reproductive organs through means of CIA technology developed by Bush and the neo-cons? I wonder.

To deceive her reader that a fertilized egg is morally and legally duplicitous depending on whether or not it is attached to the woman's womb, Kolb pulls out her copy of Gray's Anatomy and pulls a fast-one on the reader. Simply because the medical community chooses to define pregnancy as the point when the fertilized egg attaches to the womb has absolutely no bearing on whether the legal or moral definition should be the same.

Most consumers know how deceptive and immoral it is to twist and contort definitions from first hand experience. We've all deposited a check with a bank at one time or another and been told the funds won't be available for ten days (sometimes longer), even after the signatory's bank has assured us the check has cleared. What happens is that our banks try to define "deposit" as meaning an indefinite period of time after you make deposit, rather than the instant they receive the money from the signatory's bank. They do this to give themselves a few extra days of interest on OUR money. The correct legal and moral definition of "deposit" should be the exact moment the signatory's money hits your account.

Kolb's irrational approach treats the fertilization of an egg as a non-event. "No, no" she says, we must wait until the fertilized egg attaches to the womb...because the medical book says so!

Kolb uses this illogic to imply that anti-abortion proponents who also accept birth control are intellectually confused. In her world, condoms are equivalent to the after-morning pill because both prevent a fertilized egg from attaching to a woman's womb.

Earth to Kolb! Stop lying to your readers about what anti-abortion advocates believe. Many (if not all) believe life begins at conception and do not differentiate between attachment to a womb or not. What matters morally to them is that the life force of the male and female have joined to continue the image of G-d anew. Condoms and other anti-conception devices are moral to all but a very few extremists, who have absolutely no objections to contraception.

Kolb knows this, but in her furor to sell books and portray women as victims incapable of controlling their sexuality, Kolb distorts and deceives her readers.

Kolb is one of the many liberal legal authors who know Roe v. Wade does not guarantee a right to abortion but instead spreads the alternative gospel. Roe discussed a woman's right to privacy versus a baby's right to live. Like all laws made by man, Roe may not have been perfect and in need of tweaking as society and science shed new understanding on the issue. Read it yourself, and don't let Kolb hide the ball. Society does have the right to protect babies in the womb.

Does Sebok overcomplicate Texas med-mal award cap impacts?

In his latest article, Sebok disputes the notion that statutory med-mal award caps help reduce physicians' malpractice insurance premiums. I don't necessarily disagree with his arguments or analysis, other than the fact that the most important player isn't discussed. Why not ask the insurance companies themselves whether the new legislation is a factor in their rate-setting?

Cassel gives fair, skeptical review of Dean's new book

Elaine Cassel's closing remarks in her review of John Dean's new book are telling:

If the Democrats win the White House, gain a sixty-person majority in the Senate, and pick up more House seats, we will see if Dean is correct in his argument that Democrats will reinstate the processes necessary for good governing.

If you'd rather not bother to read the entire article, that sentence sums it up. Dean has scribbled yet another anti-conservative, anti-Republican book. As Cassel describes it, Dean blames Republicans for pretty much everything, including the common cold. Democrats can fix it all, of course. While it would have been nice for Cassel to take a stronger intellectual stand, she politely disagrees with Dean by offering three magic words sure to infuriate a whiny anti-conservative like Dean: we will see.

John Dean Borrows from Nazi Propagandists

As a typical fox without grapes, John Dean demonstrates just how low anti-conservatives will stoop in his recent series of articles on FindLaw's Writ blog. First off, for a good chuckle compare the whitewashed version of Dean's bio with the real skinny on WikiPedia. How many useful idiots bother to investigate who Dean really is before slurping down his filth?

Now, sit back with a nice Chianti and read what Dean has to say about conservatives. Go ahead, read all three articles. Then ask yourself, at any point does Dean actually address conservative positions on any topic? No. Instead, Dean claims to "profile" conservatives with the help of modern psychoanalysis and anthropology "experts". His conclusion? In terms of evolution, conservatives are closer to apes than are further developed liberals.

Of course, in Part I he begins mildly, observing that conservatives are afflicted with a personality disorder tending towards authoritarianism. Now I don't have a PhD. in child psychology, but I've observed (and remember from my own childhood) that children tend to level that charge against anyone who doesn't let them have their own way, including teachers, parents, and babysitters. Seems to me that Part I is nothing more than a temper tantrum of a pseudo-intellectual. Note the complete absence of "authoritarian" personalities in the Democratic party...sure.

Part II is more sociological babble, but its very important to notice that the pseudo-scientific tone and analysis continues. Rather than view conservative thinking as a lineage of various philosophical ideas that draws free-willed persons into particular viewpoints, conservatism is portrayed as a social hierarchy with a will of its own. Much the way a National Geographic episode describes the functioning of dog packs or lion prides, Dean projects alpha male status upon conservative leaders, and everyone else is merely a follower controlled by instinct, not reason. Think I'm putting words in his mouth? Keep reading.

Part III reveals Dean's true message. Basically, guys like Newt are the silver backs, who "lord" over others by suggesting books to read? Wow, what an authoritarian! Suggesting books. Dean bends over backwards to fit a square peg into a round hole. But the message is clear. Conservatives are sub-human apes.

Dehumanizing your political opponents with pseudo-scientific theory is one of the lowest forms of political discourse. It was often used by the Nazis, who portrayed Jews and other minorities as rats and other vermin, developing a "scientific" explanation for Aryan superiority over other races. It is still used by radical Islamists to dehumanize non-Arab races. It appeals to the basest nature of humanity, and serves as a means to justify any and all atrocities. It also serves as an ego boost for those who just can't cut it. Given the biographical information offered up on WikiPedia, I think Dean's resort to this kind of argument speaks for itself.