This may come as a surprise to my readers. I’m applying to the History Channel’s newest reality TV show, “Top Shot.” The ten episode show is designed to test marksmanship skill and declare one “Top Shot” who will win $100,000 in cash! From the press release:
In each episode, contenders will face team and elimination challenges inspired by real
events in history, from Wild West shootouts to modern-day sniper missions. Every
challenge will reveal the weapons, technologies and tactics of a different era, while hi-
speed HD cameras capture the skillful execution of each test with breathtaking precision
in extreme slow-motion.
Wish me luck! I’ve been on TV before, in Fourwheeler Magazine and I had a great time. This competition presents an entirely new challenge, however. Sixteen people will be chosen as finalist, and one top shot declared. Anyone who knows me well knows that I have what it takes. I’ll be working on my casting video in the coming weeks, and with any luck, I’ll have a chance to be the first ever Top Shot!
Over the years, I’ve taken many people to the range, learned a lot, improved my marksmanship and taught others what a joy firearm shooting can be. Now I will have the chance to show the world my marksmanship skills and test myself in tough shooting scenarios with a wide variety of firearms. While I am not yet sure of the details of the show, I can only imagine that whoever the top shot is, he or she will be expected to make amazing shots at extreme distances. Of course, I’d love to be that guy, and that’s why I’m doing this.
I blogged yesterday about the forthcoming Christian Legal Society v. Martinez, which was granted certiorari yesterday and will be reviewed by the Supreme Court soon. Eugene Volokh, who is the Gary T. Schwartz Professor of Law at UCLA, founder of the Volokh Conspiracy, a libertarian legal blog that has over a dozen authors, most of whom are prominent law professors on various subjects, and long time supporter of the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education, responded to a comment that I left on his blog yesterday regarding expressive association. The original post, entitled, “Supreme Court Agrees to Hear Expressive Association / Government Benefits Case” contains the original comment thread. I left several comments throughout the day, as is common when commenters disagree, and often times, these comments add considerably to my understanding of the issue as a reader and/or allow me to express my opinion about a given issue. Because this case covers a controversial issue involving a clash between anti-discrimination statutes and expressive association rights, there was quite a bit of disagreement on the subject. His post from today appears here, entitled “Ideological Groups Being Taken Over by Those Hostile to the Underlying Ideology.”
The case involves the concept of freedom of association, and the right of the Christian Legal Society at the University of California-Hastings to deny voting membership to students who refuse to profess belief in the central ideas of the organization. Among them, of course, is the politically unpopular Christian doctrine against homosexuality.
This story is almost so shocking and so obscene, that it is hard to believe that this is the United States of America. The Electronic Freedom Foundation, a nonprofit that has occasionally worked with FIRE (that is how I found out about them) reported a fact that is, as I stated before, almost unbelievable:
Oops, Tim is at it again. Yep, that’s right. I apparently have been naughty.
According to this website, there are exactly ten things, analogous to George Carlin’s seven dirty words, that are not worthy of discussion on the Internet:
I thought only a few of these issues had been covered here, but key searches of my blog for specific words brought up something about each and every one of them.
Damnit, I just can’t win. I’m always the center of some controversy.
The Lori Drew case, which I blogged about a few weeks ago should be over very soon. According to Professor Orin Kerr, the Justice Department will file a motion to dismiss in the case either tomorrow or the following day.
Professor Kerr represented Drew, taking her case pro bono. In the words of a Volokh Conspiracy commenter, “If I ever need an example of a case taken to establish an important principle on behalf of a client who is scum of the earth, this case will fit the bill.” I agree. This woman is disgusting, but the government’s charges against her are even worse. I am reminded of one of my favorite Supreme Court cases, National Socialist Party of America v. Village of Skokie, where reportedly Jewish ACLU attorneys reportedly defended the neo-Nazi group’s right to assemble and march, even in a predominantly Jewish community.
Congratulations to Professor Kerr, who is an expert in criminal law, criminal procedure, and computer crime.
Congratulations to Kerr for this much-needed victory for every Internet user. The fact that a Professor of Law from Washington, D.C. was able to not only brief a case, but actually argue it in court in California simply for the good of the public is an absolutely outstanding life accomplishment.
Professor Kerr and I have had some very insightful and interesting email correspondence in the past, and I am happy to celebrate this job well done.
It appears the GEO has come to a tentative agreement with the University. In return for giving up some of their health benefits, they have secured a small increase in the stipend for the lowest paid graduate students, and, they believe, full protection for their tuition waivers.
The union must approve the contract by democratic vote. If you ask me, they would be fools to approve this. The University was offering 100% health coverage and they have no reason to compromise on that issue. Most of their stipend demands have been dismissed (the increase in pay is nowhere near what they demanded, and most of the TAs will get nothing). If this is victory for them, it is a hollow victory.
I am not going to make any predictions, but my intuition suggests that this will be unsatisfactory. The union has no incentive to give up so much ground for so little. It remains to be seen.
Although I find your conduct morally deplorable (as I did the administration’s during the scandal), I would like to thank the GEO. You guys have made this my biggest day ever on this blog.
I welcome any and all comments to this blog and welcome you as visitors, readers, and lurkers as well.
Here’s a video taken today, showing the union members blocking the entrances to Davenport Hall, the English Building and the Foreign Language Building.
While I support your right to protest despite the fact that I do not agree with what you have to say, impeding undergraduates from entering buildings where classes are being taught is unacceptable and should not be tolerated.
How about some decency to the undergraduates, who have no part in this dispute and just want to go to class?
So, I was walking between classes at 10 am and I hear a phrase that is likely to become familiar to me in the next week, “Please don’t cross our picket lines.”
So why wouldn’t the undergraduates cross our picket lines? Is the Graduate Student Organization (GEO) going to pay my tuition if I go on strike? Are they going to make up for the lack of instruction and progress in my education that they have caused by refusing to perform to their obligations as teachers? What justifies their intimidation tactics, attempting to prevent undergraduate students from attending classes?
Unlike them, we pay for our classes! We are not only paying for ourselves, though. We are also subsidizing their education. It is disgusting and incomprehensible that they think we are not going to go to lecture because they want more compensation.
The GEO should be ashamed of itself. They cannot be allowed to block students from going to class and getting their education. Once they do that, they are no longer engaging in protected political speech.
I have contacted the University of Illinois’ Department of Public Safety. I have expressed my interest in protection for students who are crossing the picket lines to get to class. Something must be done, because as of this morning, it is completely out of control.
So apparently someone in the GEO is a bit butt-hurt that I slammed them on the Daily Illini’s website in suggesting that they are “selfish and inept” in solving their labor dispute, which will come to a head tomorrow morning at 8 am when their strike begins. I responded on the DI’s website, but I think this is worthy of preserving for all posterity, as it was directed at me, anonymously, by a person claiming to be a TA who refuses to use his or her name.
Posted by Tim 
Posted by Tim 
Posted by Tim 
