Will Baude   Amy Lamboley   Amanda Butler   Jonathan Baude  Peter Northup   Beth Plocharczyk   Greg Goelzhauser   Heidi Bond   Sudeep Agarwala   Jeremy Reff   Leora Baude

May 18, 2005

A faulty stove

Don't you hate things that look great, but don't work worth a damn? Like chiseled boxers with glass jaws, or beautiful looking tasteless food? I do, at least. And I'm feeling that way about my parents' new stove.

It looks astonishing, I have to admit. An array of buttons festoon the front, promising to do things I didn't even imagine stoves did. The griddles can be electronically expanded and contracted, while the stove can be programmed to the single degree. There's a professional looking ventilator above, and an equally complicated microwave (boo) attached to the top. There's even this needle you're supposed stick into meat, which shuts off when the internal temperature reaches the FDA approved standard. Incredible. And expensive.

Oh, and also completely useless. You can't use cast iron on the griddles - it might crack the glass, or whatever it is. The repair man who came to look at the scratch our completely normal pot made said that you have to take a carpentry level when you're out buying cookware, since the heat is apparently inefficient if your pots aren't exactly flat on the bottom - "don't bother with those expensive pans", he said - "they don't work". To keep the complex electronics cool (for which, by the way, you have to buy a warranty, otherwise they're essentially guaranteed to break down to expensive effect), the oven almost constantly emits a giant fan noise. Oh, and that ventilator? It's so weak that the steam from your cooking degrades the microwave handle to the extent that it eventually falls off. Seriously.

So what is this oven possibly for? Well, just like a lot of gadgets that people buy, the point of this stove is apparently to invite friends over, show them that your credit rating is still high enough to afford the gleaming monstrosity, and then send them home again having eaten food bought furtively at the Price Club and passed off as your own by the addition of some aerosol whipped cream. We're taking it back to the store when I return from Wilmington. And buying an honest stove with a few knobs, and some coils that can heat cast iron and normal pots alike.



TrackBack URL for this entry: http://WWW.crescatsententia.org/cgi-bin/mt-tb.cgi/2581

WWSD?

In his NEA v. Finley concurrence, Justice Scalia (joined by Justice Thomas) explains that he doesn't think the First Amendment applies to these sorts of government-subsidy cases, but he then adds this cryptic observation:

3. I suppose it would be unconstitutional for the government to give money to an organization devoted to the promotion of candidates nominated by the Republican party–but it would be just as unconstitutional for the government itself to promote candidates nominated by the Republican party, and I do not think that that unconstitutionality has anything to do with the First Amendment.

What on earth does he have in mind? A rational-basis equal protection argument? That seems unlikely. From his R.A.V. opinion:
Of course the only reason that government interest is not a "legitimate" one is that it violates the First Amendment. This Court itself has occasionally fused the First Amendment into the Equal Protection Clause in this fashion, but at least with the acknowledgment . . . that the First Amendment underlies its analysis.

So what else does Scalia have in mind? If we had no First Amendment, he thinks it would be unconstitutional for the state to fund the Republican party and only the Republican party, or to promote only Republican candidates. Under . . . the bill of attainder clause? The lack of an enumerated power to promote candidates? The non-delegation doctrine? These all seem highly unlikely. Does anybody know what in the world is going on here?

[Thanks to Steve Sachs for bringing this strange dilemma to my attention.]

UPDATE: And thanks also to Marty Lederman, who guides me to Rehnquist's dissent in Southeastern Promotions v. Conrad: "Limitations on the use of municipal auditoriums by government must be sufficiently reasonable to satisfy the Due Process Clause and cannot unfairly discriminate in violation of the Equal Protection Clause. A municipal auditorium which opened itself to Republicans while closing itself to Democrats would run afoul of the Fourteenth Amendment." (Rehnquist does not say which part of the Fourteenth Amendment would be violated by preferring Republicans to Democrats, but it is a start.) Several commentators have also argued that such laws would violate basic structural principles of the Constitution, but if that's so, it's unclear why that wouldn't be true of any rules that promote the 2-party system. The 2-party system is no more embedded in our Constitution structurally than the 1-party system is.

At any rate, I won't be blogging about the First Amendment for the next 48 hours because I have begun my take-home exam, and don't want to run afoul of any anti-leaking rules.


TrackBack URL for this entry: http://WWW.crescatsententia.org/cgi-bin/mt-tb.cgi/2579

Levywatch

He's here in Phoebe's comments.


TrackBack URL for this entry: http://WWW.crescatsententia.org/cgi-bin/mt-tb.cgi/2578