ProfessorBainbridge.com

Chateau Lafite-Rothschild (Pauillac) 1983

Good, but not exceptional, and thus rather disappointing, especially considering what I paid for it a few years ago (don't even ask ... I can't bear to go there!). In fairness, this bottle has developed substantial ullage (upper shoulder) since I bought it and the cork was deeply stained and crumbly.

A modest nose of cedar and blackcurrants. Good berry flavors on the palate, but fairly light-bodied for a wine of this caliber. Surprisingly short finish. Grade: B

Update: Now he tells me. James Suckling of the Wine Spectator reports:

Had this last night during a dinner at Yquem {Prof B: Nice job of name dropping!} and it's starting to fade. The wine showed lots of currant and herbal character on the nose. It was medium bodied, with firm, angular tannins and slightly drying finish. It was not a lot of fun to drink. 86 points. Two bottles were served and they were both the same. May be it's just going through a bad patch but my guess is that it's on its way down.

I agree. It's hard to see this wine turning around. But, given the worrisome cork condition, it could be that I just had a bum bottle.

Merry Christmas

I'm taking the day off from the hustle and bustle of the blogosphere. Helen and I will have breakfast and then go to Mass at St. Victor. After which, presents will be opened, dogs will be walked, and naps will be taken. Finally, a dinner of duck with a very old claret from deep in the cellar (look for a tasting note tonight in the wine blog). Thanks to all my readers, who have made blogging so rewarding, and best wishes for a Merry Christmas and a very happy 2006.

I leave you with a passage from Pope Benedict XVI's first Christmas Eve homily:

... in Jesus Christ, the Son of God, God himself became man. To him the Father says: “You are my son”. God’s everlasting “today” has come down into the fleeting today of the world and lifted our momentary today into God’s eternal today. God is so great that he can become small. God is so powerful that he can make himself vulnerable and come to us as a defenceless child, so that we can love him. God is so good that he can give up his divine splendour and come down to a stable, so that we might find him, so that his goodness might touch us, give itself to us and continue to work through us. This is Christmas: “You are my son, this day I have begotten you”. God has become one of us, so that we can be with him and become like him. As a sign, he chose the Child lying in the manger: this is how God is. This is how we come to know him. And on every child shines something of the splendour of that “today”, of that closeness of God which we ought to love and to which we must yield – it shines on every child, even on those still unborn.

Diamond Creek Volcanic Hill (Napa Valley) 1986

At age 20 (almost), this is a profound example of what an age-worthy California cabernet can achieve with time. The bottle was in excellent shape. The wine was still in the neck and while the cork was somewhat stained, there was no evidence of seepage.

Still a remarkably deep ruby, albeit showing some brick-red coloration at the rim. A huge bouquet of anise, leather, tobacco, cedar, and prunes. A tad light on the palate and a relatively short finish, however. Even so, it offers tasty fruit leather, dried currant, and cedar flavors. All told, however, this was one of those wines where your time is best spent savoring the spectacular nose.

I picked this up at auction a while back for $65, which makes it the bargain of 2005. Grade: A

Twenty Bench (Napa Valley) 2002

Good Napa cabernets priced under $20 are as rare as hens' teeth  these days. The Twenty Bench is no hen's tooth. At $17/bottle, however, it is an acceptable cabernet and a reasonable value. There is decent berry flavor, but also an odd vegetal note (asparagus?). Short finish. Soft tannins and weak acids make it easy to drink now but guarantee a short cellar life. Drink up. Grade: C

Supporting the Troops

According to the LA Times, "In dramatic contrast to the Vietnam War era, U.S. service personnel now are being treated to strangers' spontaneous bursts of gratitude." One way I've decided to support our troops this holiday season is by contributing to the Archdiocese for the Military Services, which offers a wide variety of ministries to members of the US armed forces.

Respecting the Magisterium

There's a big fight in the St Louis Catholic diocese between the local bishop and dissident parishioners of a church who are insisting on financial independence. In a letter to the W$J's editor, Andrew Pohlman asserts that:

As a St. Louis resident and a member of the Catholic church, I am deeply offended and saddened by the actions of Archbishop Raymond L. Burke and his team of prosecutors attempting to uphold canon law ("Out of Line: A Catholic Parish Pays High Price for Independence," page one, Dec. 20). He would be best served adopting a philosophy made popular by the bracelets seen worn by Christians throughout the country: WWJD -- What Would Jesus Do? Canon law is as a matter of historical fact; man's law, not God's law. If this debate was held in front of the Pearly Gates, I am quite confident the outcome wouldn't result in the excommunication of devoted parishioners and clergy. Although I don't typically attend St. Stanislaus, I plan to attend Christmas Mass at that parish to show my support for the parishioners' mission. I don't, however, plan to repent in any way for spending time worshipping with a devoted group of followers who are simply asserting their independence under the leadership of a bishop engaged in a land-grab under the guise of a divine quest.

Pohlman's letter reflects a fundamental lack of understanding of Catholic theology; indeed, the implicit premise of Pohlman's letter is the core Protestant doctrine of sola scriptura. It is a core tenet of Catholic belief that the Church's magisterial teaching is authoritative:

We are talking not about an optional or secondary aspect of the faith, but about that which in final analysis makes Catholics Catholic and separates Catholics from other Christians. Acceptance of the magisterium and assent to the magisterium is the identifying Catholic belief.

In a real sense magisterium is an identifying mark of the Catholic Church, and acceptance of the magisterium is an identifying mark of the Catholic. In this ecumenical age I have come to understand the different Christian communities as differing indeed in doctrine, but differing also according to where they place final ecclesial authority under Christ. For the Orthodox it is the Patriarchate; for the Episcopalians it was the episcopoi or bishops; for the Presbyterians the presbytery; for the Congregationalists the individual congregation; and for the Baptists, no authority exists above the individual Christian. But for Catholics, as Section 25 of the Dogmatic Constitution on the Church of the Second Vatican Council teaches, final authority under Christ is found in the Pope and bishops, just as in the New Testament it reposed in Peter and the Apostles. (Link)

The canon law Pohlman so cavalierly dismisses is a core part of the magisterium:

... the lay Christian faithful are bound by the obligations and possess the rights which are enumerated in the canons of this title. (Canon 224)

What we have here thus is an example of the basic problem of the American Catholic Church; namely, the belief that the Church is a cafeteria.

A Note to Prof. Smith

My friend Tom Smith, Right Coast blogger and fellow corporate law professor, boasts that "USD kicks butt on bar results." Memo to Tom: Coming in sixth does not count as butt kicking in my book. Just for the record, via Paul Caron, here is the ranking of California law schools by their graduates' California bar results. The observant reader will note which school came in #1, by the way:

July 2005 California Bar Exam Law School Results (First Time Takers) v. US News & SSRN
CA Bar Rank	School	US News Overall CA Rank	US News Peer CA Rank	SSRN CA Rank
1 (88.7%)	UCLA	3	3	2
2 (88.0%)	Stanford	1	1	1
3 (87.0%)	Boalt	2	2	4
4 (84.3%)	Hastings	6	6	9
5 (81.7%)	USC	4	4	3
6 (80.0%)	USD	8	7	5
7 (75.0%)	Loyola	7	8	6
8 (74.4%)	USF	Tier 3	10	13
9 (73.8%)	Davis	5	5	7
10 (72.6%)	Pepperdine	9	10	16
11 (66.4%)	Southwest.	Tier 3	13	10
12 (63.9%)	McGeorge	10	12	15
13 (62.5%)	Santa Clara	Tier 3	9	12
14 (59.5%)	Chapman	Tier 4	17	11
15 (57.7%)	Cal- Western	Tier 4	14	14
16 (43.8%)	Golden Gate	Tier 4	14	18
17 (39.7%)	Whittier	Tier 4	16	17
18 (38.4%)	T. Jefferson	Tier 4	17	8
19 (24.6%)	Western St.	Tier 4	19	19

On another front, Professor Smith asks why there is no law wiki. Wikipedia has gotten a lot of disrespect in the blogosphere lately, but the BBC reports that Wikipedia in fact is about as accurate the Encyclopedia Britannica on science issues, which suggests the wiki idea may not be so bad after all. Indeed, Prof. Smith later noted that a law wiki in fact exists. Personally, however, I can think of at least four reasons why a corporate law wiki is unnecessary:

Behrens & Hitchcock Syrah (Napa Valley) 1997

A very interesting wine. Fully mature, but with plenty of life left. Showing a slight edge of brick at the rim, although still an attractive ruby at the center. Excellent nose of nutty, toasty plums. On the palate, it suggests plums and blackberries. Grade: A-

The Patriot Act: What Would Kirk Do?

Congress has extended the Patriot Act for five weeks, so as to delay the debate over renewal of certain controversial provisions that affect Civil Liberties. A lot of conservative bloggers, including some friends of mine, have been annoyed with Congress, to say the least, for not renewing the Act forthwith. I don't share their angst.

If I may quote Russell Kirk, who knew a thing or two about conservatism:

A central administration, or a corps of select managers and civil servants, however well intentioned and well trained, cannot confer justice and prosperity and tranquility upon a mass of men and women deprived of their old responsibilities. That experiment has been made before; and it has been disastrous. ...

The conservative endeavors to so limit and balance political power that anarchy or tyranny may not arise. ...

Knowing human nature for a mixture of good and evil, the conservative does not put his trust in mere benevolence. Constitutional restrictions, political checks and balances, adequate enforcement of the laws, the old intricate web of restraints upon will and appetite—these the conservative approves as instruments of freedom and order. A just government maintains a healthy tension between the claims of authority and the claims of liberty.

There's no doubt that the Patriot Act tipped the balance between "the claims of authority and the claims of liberty." It may well be that such an adjustment was necessary to wage the post-9/11 War on Terror. It may be the case that such a shift is still necessary.

But that leads to my main point. Again, I quote Kirk:

Burke’s reminder of the necessity for prudent change is in the mind of the conservative. But necessary change, conservatives argue, ought to he gradual and discriminatory, never unfixing old interests at once. ...

In politics we do well to abide by precedent and precept and even prejudice, for the great mysterious incorporation of the human race has acquired a prescriptive wisdom far greater than any man’s petty private rationality....

Liberals and radicals, the conservative says, are imprudent: for they dash at their objectives without giving much heed to the risk of new abuses worse than the evils they hope to sweep away. As John Randolph of Roanoke put it, Providence moves slowly, but the devil always hurries. Human society being complex, remedies cannot be simple if they are to be efficacious. The conservative declares that he acts only after sufficient reflection, having weighed the consequences. Sudden and slashing reforms are as perilous as sudden and slashing surgery." It is not change per se that is the problem, it is hasty change that overturns long-established customs and principles.

No one can deny that the Patriot Act was originally rushed into law:

The Act swept through Congress with remarkable speed and little dissent. House Resolution 3162 was introduced in the House of Representatives on October 23, 2001. Assistant Attorney General Viet D. Dinh and future Secretary of Homeland Security Michael Chertoff were the primary drafters of the Act. The bill passed in the House of Representatives 357–66 on October 24, 2001, and in the Senate 98–1 (Senator Russ Feingold (Democrat, Wisconsin) cast the lone dissenting vote, and Senator Mary Landrieu (Democrat, Louisiana) was the sole non-voting member) on October 25, 2001. President George W. Bush signed the bill into law on October 26, 2001.

As a site critical of the Act recounts the history:

One of the most striking features of the USA PATRIOT Act is the lack of debate surrounding its introduction. Many of the provisions of the Act relating to electronic surveillance were proposed before September 11th, and were subject to much criticism and debate. ... When the legislative proposals were introduced by the Bush administration in the aftermath of September 11th, Attorney General John Ashcroft gave Congress one week in which to pass the bill -- without changes. Vermont Democrat Patrick Leahy, chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, managed to convince the Justice Department to agree to some changes, and members of the House began to make significant improvements. However, the Attorney General warned that further terrorist acts were imminent, and that Congress could be to blame for such attacks if it failed to pass the bill immediately.

Extensive and hurried negotiation in the Senate resulted in a bipartisan bill, stripped of many of the concessions won by Sen. Leahy. Senator Thomas Daschle, the majority leader, sought unanimous consent to pass the proposal without debate or amendment; Senator Russ Feingold was the only member to object.

Minor changes were made in the House, which passed the bill 357 to 66. The Senate and House versions were quickly reconciled, and the Act was signed into law on October 26, 2001.

Unfortunately, the renewal of the Patriot Act got caught up in a similar rush - this time the rush for Congress to get out of town for the Christmas break. Last minute changes were being tossed around "without giving much heed to the risk of new abuses worse than the evils they hope to sweep away."

In sum, the Patriot Act was a "hasty change that overturns long-established customs and principles." We should not have compounded the error by rushing through a renewal. Congress should be commended for having given itself time to take a deep breath and make sure that it has an opportunity for full debate and evaluation of each provision and proposed amendment rather than making hurried changes at the last minute under the gun.

Is JK Rowling Channeling Hayek?

Is the Harry Potter series thinly disguised libertarian propaganda? A new article by law professor Benjamin Barton seems to suggest an affirmative answer (HT: CE Petit):

This Essay examines what the Harry Potter series (and particularly the most recent book, The Half-Blood Prince) tells us about government and bureaucracy. There are two short   answers. The first is that Rowling presents a government (The Ministry of Magic) that is 100% bureaucracy. There is no discernable executive or legislative branch, and no elections. There is a modified judicial function, but it appears to be completely dominated by the bureaucracy, and certainly does not serve as an independent check on governmental excess.

Second, government is controlled by and for the benefit of the self-interested bureaucrat. The most cold-blooded public choice theorist could not present a bleaker portrait of a government captured by special interests and motivated solely by a desire to increase bureaucratic power and influence. ...

Furthermore, Rowling eliminates many of the progressive defenses of bureaucracy. ...

Big Brother Watching Your Car?

According to the Independent (UK):

Britain is to become the first country in the world where the movements of all vehicles on the roads are recorded. A new national surveillance system will hold the records for at least two years.

Using a network of cameras that can automatically read every passing number plate, the plan is to build a huge database of vehicle movements so that the police and security services can analyse any journey a driver has made over several years.

Steven Taylor observes:

this underscores a key difference between European and American sensibilities: we are currently having a major debate over whether the NSA should ever listen in on the domestic end of an international phone call with a suspected al Qaeda operative, and the British are to keep records of where everyone is driving.

I must confess: those traffic-light cameras make me itchy, so this would be enough to give me shingles.

Kevin Drum asks:

The Independent mildly suggests that a few civil liberties nutbags might be concerned about this, but they don't even bother quoting anyone. The British seem to be surprisingly unconcerned about this. ...

Do you really believe that police aren't going to use this for random fishing expeditions against people they just don't like? Do you also believe in Santa Claus?

I wonder how long it will take before they start using this technology to automatically hand out speeding tickets. In any event, it does seem like the etirety of the West is going through a period in which the civil liberties for which our ancestors fought are slowly being eroded in the name of safety and security.

Chandler on Shareholder Power

Gordon Smith posts on Delaware Chancellor William Chandler's decision in Unisuper Ltd. v. News Corporation, a case that potentially poses a conflict between the enabling principle dear to contractarian scholars of corporate law -- i.e., the principle that corporation laws should be subordinate to private ordering -- and the basic default rule of director primacy. I haven't seen a copy of the opinion yet, but I'm very aggravated by one passage from it quoted by Gordon:

Delaware’s corporation law vests managerial power in the board of directors because it is not feasible for shareholders, the owners of the corporation, to exercise day-to-day power over the company’s business and affairs. Nonetheless, when shareholders exercise their right to vote in order to assert control over the business and affairs of the corporation the board must give way. This is because the board’s power – which is that of an agent’s with regard to its principal – derives from the shareholders, who are the ultimate holders of power under Delaware law.

Stuff and nonsense! (That wasn't the most respectful tone to use with respect to one of the best judges in the country!) As I wrote in Director Primacy: The Means and Ends of Corporate Governance:

... control—the power and right to exercise decisionmaking fiat—is vested neither in the shareholders nor the managers, but in the board of directors. According to this “director primacy” model, the corporation is a vehicle by which the board of directors hires various factors of production. The board of directors thus is not a mere agent of the shareholders, but rather is a sui generis body—a sort of Platonic guardian—serving as the nexus of the various contracts making up the corporation.

... the powers of the board of directors are neither delegated to the board by shareholders nor usurped by the former. Instead, as an early New York decision put it, the board’s powers are “original and undelegated.”

If any reader has a copy of the opinion, I would very much appreciate receiving it so that I can evaluate it in more depth.

What price Security?

Robert Novak on the 4 GOP Senators who helped temporarily delay renewal of the Patriot Act:

These four GOP dissenters are far from being members of the party's slender liberal wing. Lifetime records as measured by the American Conservative Union are Sununu, 95 percent; Craig, 94 percent; Hagel, 85 percent; and Murkowski, 74 percent. Liberals who reflexively oppose anything Bush supports are overjoyed to welcome four apostates, but in fact they represent doctrinal Republican belief in individual rights against governmental power.

Novak's also got a response for those who say the dissenters endangered Americans:

In 1759, well before this county was born, Franklin said, "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."

Great stuff.

Rodney Strong Charlotte's Home Sauvignon Blanc (Sonoma County)

A very pleasant and reasonably priced ($14) SB. Good melon, lemon, and grass aromas and flavors. Clean and crisp. Nice with Thai food that's not too spicy. Grade: B

The Price of Blogging

We academics occasionally debate whether blogging is good or bad for our careers. I just discovered one cost of blogging - I lost out on a potential expert witness designation because I had written something negative about the prospective client here on the blog. And, no, it wasn't in one of my political rants - it was a core corporate governance post that went directly to my academic interests. Ouch.

I wonder whether this has happened to other blawggers. I'd think it would be even more of a problem for practicing lawyers than us academic types, of course, but it's definitely something for somebody just starting out with a blog to consider.

As for me, it's probably too late to do anything. I'd rather blog than consult most days anyway. Blogging's a hobby. Consulting's work. And I feel about work much the same way the narrator of the brilliant humorous novel Three Men in a Boat did:

It always does seem to me that I am doing more work than I should do. It is not that I object to the work, mind you; I like work: it fascinates me. I can sit and look at it for hours. I love to keep it by me: the idea of getting rid of it nearly breaks my heart.

You cannot give me too much work; to accumulate work has almost become a passion with me: my study is so full of it now, that there is hardly an inch of room for any more. I shall have to throw out a wing soon.

And I am careful of my work, too. Why, some of the work that I have by me now has been in my possession for years and years, and there isn't a finger-mark on it. I take a great pride in my work; I take it down now and then and dust it. No man keeps his work in a better state of preservation than I do.