Archive for the ‘Uncategorized’ Category

Thou Shalt Not Dissent

Friday, November 13th, 2015

The first commandment of any orthodoxy is “thou shalt not dissent.” Because, to the orthodox, their doctrine is who they are. It is their identity. Any threat to the dogma is existential — any challenge to their beliefs is a threat to themselves. And so the first law is to forbid dissent within; and the second law is to repress dissent from without.

This happens all the time, and everywhere. It’s why the Tudors had such a problem with Catholics, why Muslims have such a problem with apostasy, why we had the Red Scare, and why Academia is such a self-selectedly dangerous place for those who don’t toe the party line.

So you look at the shenanigans going on at college campuses lately. I’m not writing a substantive criticism here –plenty more are writing fine pieces on how hypocritical, misguided, entitled, and meanspirited are those who shout down views with which they are uncomfortable; those who demand warnings before exposed to knowledge; those who want others to protect them from the dangerous ideas in the First Amendment that let people criticize their First-Amendment-protected speech and associations; those who demand punishment of those who do not protect them as fully as they like, or who do not grovel enough when they apologize. None of this is new. Student groups at my own college back in the late 80s would forbid the press and “outsiders” from their otherwise public meetings on campus, would swipe an entire press run of student papers running an editorial contrary to their views, would go after dissenters with vitriolic passion, and so forth and so on. It’s what orthodoxies do.

I’m writing to point out that the end result of “thou shalt not disent” — unless brutally enforced, and often even then — is to breed more and stronger dissent. It’s counterproductive. And it’s going to be counterproductive here.

Because people push back. Ideas that they don’t even care that much about at first suddenly become deeply important and worth fighting for, when threatened with repression. Mildly-observant once-a-year churchgoers become dedicated fervent churchgoers when they move to a country where they have to do it underground. Casual supporters of gun ownership who otherwise had no problem with sensible safety regulation (viz, the NRA before the late 70s) suddenly become rabid opponents of any attempt to regulate ownership in the face of an orthodoxy of banning guns, to the point of creating their own orthodoxy (see the NRA ever since).

Why is climate change denial such a big thing? Why are people so avid in denying that the climate is warming, that it’s very likely caused by greenhouse gases created because of human activity? The science is pretty damn clear on this one. Why do otherwise rational people resist it with such passion? Because climate change became an orthodoxy that shouts down and silences those who disagree. From reading conservative pundits, one gets the impression — clearly their impression — that the climate change orthodoxy refuses internal dissent to such a great extent that even shoddy studies get praised if they support the dogma, while inconsistent studies are silenced rather than acknowledged and dissected, and there’s more than a little sweeping of inconveniences under the rug in service of the cause. The very phrase “climate change deniers” is an accusation, a charge of blasphemy, a label that there’s something seriously wrong with you, that you don’t deserve to be heard. The result is that people who are naturally skeptical about sweeping scientific claims (“remember how it was Global Cooling, before it changed to Global Warming? and are eggs good for us again?”) start to feel like they’re being pushed around. And so they push back. Their skepticism — so readily assuaged with respectable evidence — becomes opposition. And now you can shout yourself until you’re blue in the face, show them reams of reams of data, and they simply don’t trust it. You can’t reason someone out of a position they didn’t reason themselves into.

And so look what these adult “kids” on campus want: Racial tolerance? That’s a good thing! Courtesy, gentility? What’s wrong with that! Freedom to form associations of like-minded individuals with their own space where they’re free to associate without constantly being confronted by other-minded people? By all means!

What are they getting? It started off with mild derision — look at these social justice warriors, aren’t they silly? But then they started fighting their war by silencing, shutting down, excluding, and punishing everyone who wasn’t sufficiently orthodox? That’s only causing pushback. Thoughtful people may only criticize their methods, but many will feel compelled to oppose them on the merits. People whose mild racism might have gone away with simple exposure and accustomization (the whole point of “diversity,” remember?) now may well feel attacked, learn to associate only more negativity, and double down on their racism. That is a bad thing! Those the PC see as uncouth, when treated with pure discourtesy, rudeness, and hostility, may well decide that PC manners ain’t manners at all, and double down on their own attitudes. When the SJW insist on their own freedoms of expression, but insist on stifling the expression of others, not only do they lose all credibility in the Free Speech arena, but they’re fighting for a dangerous precedent where the tables may turn, and they may find their own expression being stifled.

These orthodoxies fail because they’re held by otherwise decent people. Not too many of them would be willing to enforce them with, say, a brutal pogrom. Which is kinda what it takes. They really and truly believe they’re right, and that dissent is goddamn dangerous, and that the ends are noble enough to justify their suppression of dissent. If they’re lucky, all of that just makes them look silly. But when push comes to shove, it makes them the bad guys.

And it’ll backfire. It’s going to make it that much harder to achieve social justice, because now they’ve got to overcome the very “deniers” their orthodoxy created.

Well anyway, I’ve got my popcorn. Let’s watch the show.

Q&A Roundup Part 6

Friday, September 18th, 2015

My comic was on hold for a bit this summer during a trial and the run-up to trial beforehand. I periodically reassured my readers that I was still here, and would be back once the “work” work was done. This spawned its own variety of reader comments. I had to reply to this one:

I have this wonderful feeling that as the trials drag on the story of the “sorry for the delay” notes will be a searing tale of one lawyers descent into madness and redemption, maybe with some hot gypsies thrown in.

That’d be pretty funny. Sadly, I don’t have time for madness. Maybe gypsies, ha!

[UPDATE: Trial’s still going, but everything’s on schedule. Can’t complain. I’ll get back to this soon enough.]

[UPDATE: Ditto today. Keep the faith.]

[UPDATE: You know, I thought this would have been over by now. Screw it – I’ll spend some time on the comic tonight. Just a little. Just to keep it fresh in my mind.]

[UPDATE: I didn’t get much sleep last night, but it was so worth it. Good to feel the words and pictures flowing again. They’ll have to wait some more, though. Too much to do for court.]

[UPDATE: I lied. Couldn’t wait. Comic called last night, and I answered. Bad lawyer! No coffee!]

[UPDATE: Christ. Today the judge actually stopped things to ask if I was paying attention. Apparently there’d been a question. Fortunately I had the wit to give an answer, because truth be told I’d been rewriting that stupid page in my legal pad. For the nineteenth time. I think I covered pretty well, but oh god how am I going to make that page make sense when I never said that other stuff ten pages ago when I should have and it’s too late to bring it up now. Stress.]

[UPDATE: Tonight the wife kept pestering me to come to bed. Yeah right. She only means to sleep. I don’t get why I have to be there sleeping at the same time. Doesn’t she see I’m working?]

[UPDATE: So sleepy. I swear I saw Lady Justice and The State gossiping in front of the courthouse today. But of course it’s just the statues. Statues hardly ever gossip, ha!]

[UPDATE: So tonight she was all “come to bed, and I don’t mean just to sleep” but then of course she turned it into a rant and was all “jeezus when was the last time you slept through the night” and “you’re killing me here” like SHE is the one suffering. I didn’t even reply right away because 1) Rude. And 2) I had to get this freaking line art just the right kind of sloppy. And of course as soon as I turn around to answer she’s gone. Well, I guess whatever it was couldn’t have been THAT important, amirite?]

[UPDATE: Hey, sorry the delay is just going on and on. Trial kinda sucks up your whole day, 24-7, except for sleeping. Though I’m giving up just a tiny bit of that sleep to work on the comic so you don’t have to wait for-freaking-ever! ‘Cause I love you guys. You guys are the best.]

[UPDATE: Was looking for cheese tonight. Don’t know why, just craved cheese for some reason. Couldn’t find it in the fridge. Called out to She Who Must Be Obeyed to ask where she’d “hidden” it (ha!) but no answer. Guess she’s out with the girls. Actually haven’t seen too much of her lately. Nice of her to let me work, though.]

[UPDATE: I must say this trial is going really well so far, but you’d think the government would have run out of witnesses by now! How many people even LIVE in that neighborhood? Oh well, back to the grind tomorrow. And I really shouldn’t comment like that on an ongoing case. Forget I said it, okay?]

[UPDATE: It’s probably nothing? But late last night I felt a, you know, *presence* in the room with me. Kind of like someone was looking over my shoulder at my drawings. And judging me. No, seriously, I was kinda creeped out.]

[UPDATE: Had to go to the store after court today. All out of coffee. Too bad they don’t sell it in I.V. bags! Ha ha ha ha ha!!!]

[UPDATE: It happened again. I felt the presence. So I spun around in my chair real fast, and there was nothing there. Except there was. I could have sworn I saw, just for a moment, a little gnarled old lady watching me in the dark from the far corner of the room. I might not have been getting enough sleep lately (ANYTHING for you guys!) so it could have been one of those “microsleep” waking dreams you hear about truckers getting, where they *had* to swerve on that deserted highway in Utah because of the dragon in the middle of the road. Though my money’s on the dragon being real. But not this old lady. She was just a figment, for a fraction of a second, and then she was gone. Just my imagination. But you truckers out there, you watch out for those dragons, okay?]

[UPDATE: It’s been a few days since I checked in, just wanted to let you know the trial is STILL going on. The court reporter even said it’s starting to seem surreal to him. Nobody remembers a case going on this long. The prosecutor doesn’t even acknowledge us, just keeps plugging away, calling witness after witness. I’m tempted to not even cross-examine the next one, just to kinda move things along.]

[UPDATE: Spoke to her last night. I’d been building up the courage for a couple of nights. Just lost it and demanded that she tell me what she wants! The old lady spoke back!!! Her voice was like honey that’s crystallized and cracked with disuse. She wanted to tell me the future, what my jury was going to do, warning me about a strategy I’ve been contemplating. But I shut her right up. Tell me what’s going to happen next in the comic, I demanded! But the evil thing just vanished in disgust. That’s okay. The characters talk to me now. I bet if I’m nice to them, they’ll clue me in on what they’re planning to do. Maybe I’ll draw Pi that pony she wanted as a little girl…]

[UPDATE: Today the judge made a REALLY inappropriate comment about hygiene, looking right at my table. As if *I* have any say over whether the jail let my client shower before coming to court. Ugh. The old lady was back again last night. First she just looked at me, like she was considering something. Her big hoop earrings lay awkwardly against this big scarf she wears around her hair. Then she changed. Kind of filtered into a much younger her. Now she looked maybe sixteen. Same earrings, but now her hair was free and long and wild. She danced barefoot, though there was no music, in ruffled skirts that billowed about her like an ancient sea creature. Then she put a finger to her eye and dissolved into nothing. I had been wondering when she’d finally leave. I have a COMIC to write, you know?]

[UPDATE: So I spat coffee all over the morning paper. Did you see it, too? They said my trial had ended over a month ago, for reasons they didn’t disclose, and it was being – get this – RE-tried in a couple of weeks. These reporters never get anything right. If they’d bothered to, you know, actually come to COURT they’d have seen we’re still slogging away. Idiots.]

[UPDATE: Last night when I was talking to the characters, the narrator guy (what the hell is his name, anyway?) opened up a door I must have drawn, and invited me in. That was really nice of him, but I had to say no. Too busy!]

[UPDATE: You know what? If they invite me in tonight? I’ll say yes. I’ll go.]

[UPDATE: I hope they have coffee!]

Ferguson Q&A

Tuesday, November 25th, 2014

From Tumblr:


I haven’t seen the actual evidence yet, so I’ll hold off on analyzing the case just yet.

As for the prosecutor’s actions? I think it was a strategy of wussing out.

Let me explain:

I’m pretty sure the prosecutor decided early on that either (1) there was no crime here, or (2) there was insufficient evidence to prove one beyond a reasonable doubt, and that therefore the case should not be prosecuted. (IIRC, the DOJ also looked at the evidence and said they weren’t going to proceed criminally.) I myself have no idea whether this ought to have been prosecuted or not, but the way this all played out, I’m almost certain that the prosecutor himself didn’t think so.

What a prosecutor is supposed to do in that circumstance is simple: Decline to prosecute. If you don’t think someone committed a crime, you don’t subject them to the criminal justice system, period. You don’t “let a jury sort it out.” You don’t initiate the process to convict and punish a human being whom you don’t believe to be guilty in the first place. He didn’t do it? Let him go.

Similarly, if the prosecutor thinks the crime was committed, but doesn’t have enough evidence to prove it beyond a reasonable doubt, he’s supposed to decline to prosecute. Period. You don’t “zealously advocate” for conviction like some sort of civil litigator and hope the adversarial system achieves justice for you. You can’t prove it? Let him go.

Instead, this prosecutor wussed out. Having decided that this is a case that should not be prosecuted, he failed to act accordingly. I’m pretty sure he was afraid that, if he stood by his decision, he’d be pilloried in the press as covering up for the police and as just another white law enforcement asshole perpetuating all this injustice. So he decided not to make the decision at all. “Leave it up to the grand jury,” he thought, “and that way it’s their decision, not mine, and I can’t be blamed.”

That’s cowardly. A prosecutor is supposed to have the judgment to make these calls, and the balls to go ahead and… you know… make the call. Not pass the buck and the blame to an anonymous group of citizens shanghaied into a bureaucratic process.

The prosecutor then presented all of the available evidence to the grand jury, instead of the usual bare-bones presentation. [Ordinarily, you give the jury grand jury just enough evidence to ask them whether there’s probable cause to let you proceed to trial.] This is not, in itself, a bad thing. I myself tended to give grand juries all of the relevant evidence at my disposal. [Unlike many prosecutors who are afraid of creating cross-examination fodder for the defense, or give details that an alibi could be constructed around, I simply preferred to show them that I’m holding all the cards. A much better strategy, in my experience.] And I had grand jury presentations that lasted more than twice as long as this one did (though, granted, they tended to involve years’ worth of wiretaps and surveillance or warehouses full of documents, rather than a single event that lasted a few minutes). My point is, the amount of evidence and the length of the proceeding don’t offend me in the slightest.

But here, the reason why the prosecutor gave the grand jury all of the evidence was plainly to pass the buck. He didn’t want anyone saying he’d cherry-picked the evidence to make it look like the cop didn’t do anything wrong. No sir! Rather than let anyone think he’d influenced the decision in any way, he would simply present everything and let the grand jurors sort it out.

That’s passing the buck. That’s wussiness of lowest degree.

And what was the result? Did he avoid finger-pointing? No! The people who would have pointed fingers at him were going to do so regardless, and theydid so regardless. Instead of accusing him of cherry-picking the evidence, he’s accused of presenting too much, of [gasp!] showing his Brady material to the grand jury, of letting the defendant tell his side of the story (defendants have the right to do so, by the way).

Did he avoid accusations of being the police’s advocate, of being yet another white cog in the injustice machine? No! His unusual tactics just made everyone more suspicious that he was doing something fishy. His failure to get an indictment when everyone knows you can indict a ham sandwich makes people think he threw the game.

Not only did he fail to avoid criticism, he made it worse. By failing to have the courage of his convictions, he undermined everyone’s perception of the justice of the system. And perception is EVERYTHING in this game. Everything. If the public doesn’t perceive that justice is being done as a matter of course, then the system loses legitimacy and things can go to hell really fast.

Not only did he do precisely that which would undermine the trust of those whose trust he needed to win back so desperately… he put a man whom he clearly believed should not go to trial at risk of being subjected to a circus of a trial and a punishment that public blood lust would guarantee to be severe. A punishment the prosecutor himself did not think was deserved. Again, I don’t know whether it was deserved or not, but the fact that the prosecutor was willing to subject another human being to that… solely to avoid a little criticism?

It’s beyond cowardly. It’s despicable.

Even if he thought the guy was guilty, everything he did was the opposite of what a prosecutor’s supposed to do. He made everything worse.

Hello again

Tuesday, July 16th, 2013

Hello, again. That was quite the hiatus, there.

Long story short, I sort of got the feeling that folks wanted me to spend more time on the comic, which ate into the time I would have spent doing this.  And eventually took over.  Which is a shame, because here I don’t have to stick to my syllabus, but get to write about whatever’s going on.

But three people in three days have told me that this blog was in fact valuable for them.  And I did miss it.  So I guess I’ll have to make time for both.

The next post won’t take any time at all, though — I’m just going to cut-and-paste an answer I wrote to one of my Tumblr followers last night about the Zimmerman case. That’s cheating, I know.  But I promise more new content shortly.


Tuesday, September 11th, 2012

I’ve been taking a break from posting here while cranking out the last installments of my guide to criminal law. The last one went up today (it touches on terrorism, but the fact that it was posted on 9/11 was the purest coincidence).

And just in time, too. Because the book can now be pre-ordered from the publisher.

You read that right. YOU CAN BUY THE BOOK! Yeeha!

Awesome book cover

Well, what are you waiting for? Stop reading this and go make my publisher happy.

On Strict Liability, Regulatory Offenses, and Overcriminalization

Monday, August 13th, 2012

The latest Illustrated Guide post is finally up. It only took for-freaking-ever, what with work and family and something like twenty rewrites. It goes into some of the problems with strict liability, overcriminalization and regulatory crimes — which is the perfect way to sneak in a (simplified) history lesson  on criminal law, to show how the problems developed. It wraps up with some preachy solutions.

It’s the longest one yet, with 56 panels and over 100 drawings. The tl;dr version is “good people still get in trouble, but it’s fixable.”

The first half can be seen here.

The second half can be seen here.

. . . . .

Here are some random samples:

. . . . . -=-=-=-=- . . . . .

. . . . . -=-=-=-=- . . . . .

. . . . . -=-=-=-=- . . . . .

See the rest here.

Next time, a real blog post. Promise.



Plugging Away

Tuesday, February 7th, 2012

In lieu of a regular blog post, I figured I’d leave a sample of the illustrated guide to crimlaw I’m doing on Tumblr (a link to the full series is over there on the right). Regular writing will resume shortly. Enjoy.




Still here

Wednesday, January 11th, 2012

We haven’t gone anywhere.

Well, actually we did. We spent a couple of weeks visiting family for Christmas and New Year’s. And then took a week getting back on top of work. In the meantime, a dozen great post topics have come to mind only to be forgotten (or, if we happened to have a pencil handy, rapidly jotted down for later rejection).

Still, we’ve managed to put out some more installments in our illustrated guide to criminal law. Part 8 on actus reus just went up, and you can click the link at the right to see the whole series. Next up is attempt, then we’ll cover strict liability, liability for the acts of others, defenses, where the law comes from, examples of crimes, the rule of law, terrorism… and then we’ll get to the procedural, constitutional and policy stuff. Enjoy!

But we’re not neglecting the blog. We’ll be back shortly.

Be Right Back

Wednesday, December 21st, 2011

Any SEO guru worth his fee will tell you that, once your blog gets some mention or award or whatnot, you need to pump out a lot of content right away. Otherwise, people who come to visit out of curiosity will stop coming back when they don’t see updates. And I have no reason to doubt that they’re right.

Nevertheless, we don’t write this for the hits. So after the ABA Journal very kindly put us on their blawg list a couple of weeks ago, we didn’t start churning out more posts — on the contrary, we’ve only had one substantive post since then. There has been plenty to write about, but we just haven’t gotten to it.

The reason, of course, is that we started doing our illustrated guide to criminal law about the same time, and the response has been so unexpected and overwhelming that we’ve felt obligated to get at least the introductory sections finished before the holidays. Starting off with first principles, we’ve covered what crime and punishment are, and the various purposes of punishment, and now we’re working on a sixth installment on mens rea and culpability. With any luck, we’ll have that out this week.

And then we’re taking a break with the family, which usually means even less time to write than usual, so there might not be another update here until after New Year’s.

So if we don’t get a chance to rap at ya before then, here’s wishing you a merry Christmas, happy Hannukah, cool Kwanzaa, super Solstice, and a very happy New Year!

Best wishes,


Worth Watching

Friday, December 9th, 2011

Harry Morgan died this week. When we were in grade school, we knew him as Col. Potter on M*A*S*H and as the Sheriff in “The Apple Dumpling Gang,” two characters that seemed to our young eyes to be the most “real” on either show. But of course he did a lot more than that. Plenty of excellent eulogies have been written elsewhere, but we thought we’d share a clip from his old “Dragnet” days that seems as appropriate now as it did then.


So apparently we’ve got a Tumblr

Friday, December 2nd, 2011


So now we have a Tumblr.

It was bound to happen, really. There are plenty of questions, issues and misconceptions about criminal law; we like explaining things; we like drawing things (poorly); people like learning stuff with pictures… So doing a webcomic sort of guide to criminal law just seemed natural.

And making a Tumblr out of it makes more sense than posting them here on the blog. The voices are just too different to put them both in the same place. And Tumblr’s more of a visual medium.

We’re calling it “The Criminal Lawyer’s Guide to Criminal Law (with pictures!)” We are very creative with titles, as you probably are aware.

We’ve got several posts already planned out, and the first one is up here. They’re going to be very rudimentary at first, but soon we expect to have worked through to some tougher concepts.

It’s silly, sure… but it’s fun. We’ll get a kick out of it, even if nobody else does.


Thursday, December 1st, 2011

The Criminal Lawyer made the ABA Journal Blawg 100 today, much to our surprise. We are quietly proud.

Be sure to check out the list, there are a lot of excellent blogs there that might be new to you. And weren’t you just saying to yourself how you need some fresh stuff in your RSS reader?

During the month of December, the ABA Journal is having people vote for their favorites in each category. If you’re so inclined, you can give us an upvote in the “Criminal Justice” category here.

More importantly, we’d like to thank those who nominated us (whoever you are), and especially thank all of our sexy sexy readers. You guys are awesome, and not just because you have excellent taste in blogs.


Read These

Saturday, November 26th, 2011

We probably shouldn’t have titled our last post “Free Time.” Apparently that was too hubristic for the gods, who have denied us any more for the writing of a post this week. At least one that’s more wheat than chaff. (The blogosphere has more than enough chaff as it is.) But we did have sufficient time to spot some other folks’ posts that are insightful, thoughtful and remarkably chaff-free. In case you missed them, here are a couple from the past day or so really worth the read:

First, Radley Balko’s piece “Driven by Drug War Incentives, Cops Target Pot Smokers, Brush Off Victims of Violent Crime.” In it, he describes even more of the perverse incentives our well-meaning politicos have given the police, incentives not only to devote disproportionate resources to drug enforcement, but also to make bad arrests, plant evidence, seize whatever they can get their hands on as forfeiture, and otherwise do the exact opposite of what we pay them to do.

Next, Scott Greenfield’s “Those Who Can’t, Teach Law.” One of the more thoughtful responses we’ve seen to the less-than-awesome NYT piece on law school failing to teach the practice of law.

We’ve got some pretty strong views on both of those topics, and maybe if we get a chance we’ll impose them on you share them with you later. But in the meantime, or if we never get around to it, you could do a lot worse than to read these.


Free Time

Friday, November 18th, 2011

We love reading the advances of real scientists doing real research. It puts us in our place when we’re feeling all smart — here are people actually advancing knowledge and doing stuff for real! — and at the same time we get to learn some really cool stuff.

For example: It was January of 2000, and we were sitting in a Hell’s Kitchen Dunkin’ Donuts, just looking out the window, thinking about this and that, when suddenly we had an epiphany: What if the wave function was a real thing, and we just saw the sliver of it that coincided with our own dimension?

You have to understand, this was back before we got married and had kids, and so we occasionally had what was called “free time.” (We’re not sure what it’s called these days, it’s been so long since we had any.) How it worked was, we had “free time,” which we spent pursuing various hobbies like motorcycling, playing in bar bands, and the like. We had gone to the Dunkin’ Donuts after a lackluster rehearsal with an acting company we were with at the time (another hobby), and our mind must have turned to quantum physics — which had been a mild hobby of ours ever since John Crowley showed us that Omni article on string theory back in our freshman year of high school. The more we learned about it, and all the spooky nonsensical impossible stuff that apparently was really being observed, the more we dove into it. By 2000, we’d written off string theory as hopeless, and were waiting for some brilliant scientist to come up with something like Garrett Lisi did some years later. We weren’t contributing anything, of course; just trying to understand the current state of knowledge.

So anyway, what our epiphany was, was that it seemed you could explain a lot of that spooky nonsensical impossible stuff if you thought of things like photons and electron as not being particles or waves or whatever, and instead thought of them as wavelike things rippling or oscillating in a higher dimension, and what we saw was nothing more than the points where they intersected our 4-dimensional reality. You need more dimensions for the math, but you only need 5 to explain it.

Take the standard 2-slit experiment. You shine a beam of photons at a screen with two slits on it, and on the far wall you’re going to get an interference pattern as the two sets of waves from each slit interact with each other (as in the hastily-photoshopped image at the top). If you shoot individual photons through a single slit, you get just a single patch of light on the far wall. If you shoot individual photons at the two-slit screen, the same interference pattern builds up as if each photon had interfered with itself, and found a spot on the far wall in that interference pattern. It makes no sense if the photon only exists in our 4-dimensional world, and yet it happens.

But if you think of the photon as something one dimension higher, it’s easy to contemplate.

(Note: what follows is not science, but only what occurred to us as we sipped our hot chocolate that day.)

Think of a 3-dimensional sphere. If you only experienced (more…)

Trying Out a New Comment Thing

Tuesday, November 15th, 2011

We’ve just adopted a nifty little tool we’ve noticed on a few other blogs we follow — When you’re leaving a comment, if you provide the web address of your own blog, then it’ll provide a link to your latest blog post at the end of your comment. A harmless way to share the love, we think. (And you can disable it by unchecking the CommentLuv box before commenting.)

That is all.