Legal Commentary

I haven't been able to blog too much the last little while as I've been on the road and feverishly trying to make progress on a few projects. But I wondered just now if any of you caught the SNL tribute to George Carlin last night of the first episode ever, which Carlin hosted? I had a couple reactions: First, the show seems to have started very poorly and haphazardly. How did it succeed to a second episode? Most of Carlin's jokes fell flat not only now but also to much of the studio audience.  So much of the rest of the show was pretty forgettable or worse, triggering groans and fierce patience--not to mention, what became of Janis Ian and Billy Preston, those musical guests too??

The other reaction is a mite more substantive. During the inane Albert Brooks short, the news segment "reports" that one of the states lowered the age of consent to seven and then cuts to a guy trying to work some mojo with a seven year old girl in a bar. It wasn't particularly funny, but it was remarkable: I can't imagine that skit being run today even when the show and society at large is so much ... raunchier.  I wonder in what other ways our comedic norms of what's passably funny today are more "conservative" than they were 33 years ago. I'm guessing humor poking fun at minorities is less likely to pass muster on SNL today than it would have in the 70's --but see Chapelle's show-- but I'm not sure what else has experienced the same "trajectory of uptightness." Thoughts?

If you're looking for an interesting tribute of a more scholarly sort, check out Janet Halley's latest in the Harvard Blackletter Law Journal. It's the polished version of the remarks she made  upon her installation as the Royall Chair at HLS.  In the article, entitled "My Isaac Royall Legacy," Halley explores not only the distinguished legacy of those who preceded her as Royall Chair (including Thayer and more recently Clark), but also the social context which created the conditions for the bequest to Harvard to establish the Chair. The context Halley illuminates includes discussion of the slaves owned by Royall and what (precious little) we know about them. It's definitely an unusual way to say, Hey Elena, thanks for this great Chair! But putting aside Halley's little footnote snark about the "victims" of Harvard Law School's legacy -- snark, because it's unelaborated -- I can't imagine a more appropriate way to pay tribute under the circumstances.