Keith Burgess-Jackson, J.D., Ph.D.

Barring a miracle, Seven-Inning Felix (18-9) will not win 20 games this season. He has never won 20 games in his 11 Major League seasons. In my judgment, that prevents him from being considered a great pitcher. Yesterday, in Anaheim, he made it through only six innings (throwing 98 pitches). Before he left the game (what are they saving him for?), he gave up the tying run, which ensured that he would not get the victory. His team eventually lost, 3-2. The Seattle Mariners are in fourth place in the five-team American League West. Seven-Inning Felix has never appeared in a playoff game. This is another reason why he cannot be considered a great pitcher. Great pitchers lead their teams to victory. Seven-Inning Felix just shows up every fifth day, throws 100 pitches, and takes a shower. What a dud. I can't believe Seattle fans haven't rebelled against him by now. He earns $24,857,000 per year and they get nothing to show for it. Nothing.

Let's Dance (1983). Guitar by Nile Rodgers. Lead guitar by Stevie Ray Vaughn.

Pope Francis thinks that he is using his moral authority. Nope. He's losing it.

It may be self-defeating (though that depends on what one takes the goal to be), but the so-called base of the Republican Party will not vote for an establishment candidate, even if such a person wins the nomination. They'll stay home. They did it in 2012 when Mitt Romney was a candidate and they'll do it again in 2016. Read this. When you've been burned repeatedly by touching something, you stop touching it. McCain; Romney; Boehner; McConnell. What's the point? They're not much different from Democrats, and they certainly don't do what they were sent to Washington to do. I'll never vote for an establishment Republican again. I'm tired of voting for the lesser of two evils. Go Donald! Go Ben! Go Carly! Go Ted! (Ted Cruz may be a United States Senator, but he's an outsider.)

Here is a recent essay from The Onion.

Katherine, eight-year-old Luki, and I visited Michigan (including my parents) this past July and August. I took a lot of pictures with my Canon EOS Rebel T2i camera and my iPhone 5c. I'll post some of the better images (with commentary) in days and weeks to come, if only to recall to my mind the things we saw and did and the fun we had. This image (click to enlarge) shows the Frankenmuth Bavarian Inn, where we ate dinner on our first day in Michigan. I grew up in rural Vassar, which is only 16 miles or so from Frankenmuth, so I spent a lot of time there over the years (mainly partying with my friends after I reached drinking age). The town is proud of its German heritage. Each year, it hosts a Bavarian Festival that draws people from far and wide. If you like beer, fried chicken, polka music, and things German (such as lederhosen), this is the place for you. (There's also a world-famous Christmas store, in case you want to stock up on ornaments.)

Here.

Here.

This brings me to my final point, the most important reason to care about intellectual diversity in law schools: Intellectual diversity matters to students. Without it, they are getting only half of a legal education. Again, at Georgetown, the ratio is three [Republicans] out of 120, and so most students will graduate without ever laying eyes on a Republican behind a lectern. In their three years in law school, they will simply never see what that looks like. How are they to learn how to persuade Justices Scalia, Thomas, Alito, Roberts, and Kennedy, when they do not encounter a single professor with a similar perspective? Some say that liberal professors are careful to present both sides of the argument. But that does not suffice. Unsurprisingly, the liberal version of the conservative argument is generally a caricature of the actual conservative argument. To put this point most sharply, students are spending more than $150,000 on their legal education, and they are being taught how to argue against hypothetical Republicans. For that kind of money, they should at least learn to argue against real ones.

(Nicholas Quinn Rosenkranz, "Intellectual Diversity in the Legal Academy," Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy 37 [winter 2014]: 137-43, at 142-3 [italics in original; footnote omitted])

Note from KBJ: The best explanation of the lack of intellectual diversity in law schools (actually, in academia generally) is cowardice. Progressives prefer comfort to challenge, safety to insecurity, and solidarity to controversy. It's easy to feel safe when everyone around you thinks and feels the way you do. Next question: Does academia produce cowards or do cowards gravitate to academia? Answer: both.

To the Editor:

Ever since the creation of so-called super PACs, proponents of strict campaign finance limits have insisted that these groups will allow the wealthy to “buy” elections. But the rapid demise of Gov. Scott Walker’s presidential campaign—which occurred despite support from a well-financed super PAC—is more evidence of how wrong this claim is (“Walker’s Exit Shows Limits of ‘Super PACs,’ Even Those Flush With Cash,” news article, Sept. 23).

The fact is that the money super PACs raise buys only one thing: the opportunity to present a message to voters. Whether voters are persuaded by that message is entirely up to them.

Should we be surprised that Governor Walker learned this lesson the hard way? Of course not. American history is filled with well-financed candidates who were electoral flops. Scott Walker wasn’t the first and—even in the age of super PACs—he surely will not be the last.

PAUL SHERMAN

Arlington, Va.

The writer is a lawyer at the Institute for Justice, which represented the plaintiffs in SpeechNow.org v. F.E.C., a federal lawsuit that eliminated limits on contributions to super PACs.

Note from KBJ: I do not understand the Left's obsession with money in politics. Money doesn't vote; people vote.