Author name: Teri Kanefield

When the Guardian, the Telegraph, and Jennifer Mercieca recommended The Ideological Brain: The Radical Science of Flexible Thinking by Leor Zmigrod, I figured I should get a copy and read it. So I did. Leor Zmigrod is a political neuroscientist with an impressive resume. Her book is about how our brains function and why so […]

Wicked is so woke. It is also about democracy and fascism.

To gain perspective on today’s politics, I have set out on a journey. I haven’t settled on a title yet, but I’m thinking something like “Make Political Philosophy Cool Again.” Here’s where we’ve been so far: Introduction. (Given the nature of our current information disruption and what I was seeing in both left-leaning and right-leaning

I started out writing about the trial and execution of Socrates. This brought me to the nature of subversiveness and the role of subversive elements in a democracy.  *  *  * To gain perspective on today’s politics, I have set out on a journey. Here’s where we’ve been so far: Introduction. (Given the nature of

As coincidence would have it, as I was reading Book VIII of The Republic and considering a blog post about the interplay of democracy and oligarchy when Biden gave a speech warning Americans of a rising oligarchy. I did not intend my blog post about The Republic to be so timely.

Welcome to the second stop of the journey I announced in November as a way to gain perspective on the state of western democracy in general and American politics in particular. If you are just joining me, here is what came before: Why I am Setting out on a Journey and Inviting You Along (November

Last month, I talked about a philosophical journey for perspective on today’s politics. Plato is always a good place to start. If you’ve never delved into Plato, you’re in for a treat. I’ll try to be a helpful tour guide. I’ll also talk about TV lawyers and the spirit of liberty because . . .

In September, I visited Chile for the Chilean Independence festivities and a reunion for my husband and his siblings. I learned, among other things, that an 84-year-old in-law, who is one of the sweetest people I know, admired Augusto Pinochet. She is also a fan of Donald Trump. She worked all of her life as a

This week, JJ died suddenly of a pulmonary blood clot. You wouldn’t have known from his puppy looks and constant puppy energy, but he was a senior dog diagnosed with bronchitis and a heart murmur that was getting worse. Given how suddenly and peacefully JJ passed, the vet said it was most likely a pulmonary

Welcome back to Everything You Ever Wanted To Know (and presumably more than you’ll ever need to know) about Criminal Law and Procedure. Last week, in Part 1, the Basics, I covered: What is a crime and how do we decide which behavior to criminalize? Types of Crimes When Rape Was a Property Crime Financial

A reader offered this suggestion for my blog: I’d really like to understand the entire process better. How does a criminal case go from arrest to indictment, trial, and appeal? Another reader pointed out that I’ve talked about many aspects of criminal law and criminal procedure over the years and asked: Why not start at

This one is all about criminal appeals. It also includes insights into the life of a criminal appellate defense lawyer. I think I know why people have been asking about appeals. There was what you might call a high-profile criminal conviction in the news this week. However, I plan to talk about criminal appeals in

Because I’ll be talking about the case of Crown v. Peter Zenger, you know this blog post will be fun. What? You’ve never heard of Peter Zenger? Well, read on. I ended last week’s post with this question: Because jurors can’t un-hear or un-see, how does having things stricken from the record work? The routine goes

Last week I summarized Peter Arenella’s 1998 piece, The Perils of Legal Punditry. Among other things, Arenella argues that much of legal punditry is “Hot air that passes for legal commentary.” If you missed it, start here. I suggested that people don’t need lawyers to decode the news. I turned off my comments and added

This blog post could have been called “Why you don’t need a lawyer to answer your questions about legal issues in the news.” Mostly it’s about former TV pundit Peter Arenella’s scathing assessment of legal punditry published in 1998 in the University of Chicago Legal Forum. His piece, written 26 years ago, has renewed relevance