YouTube what's the deal man? This is befriending the bots don't even know what episode we're on I'm gonna try to pump these out every single day got this set up legit My office is popping so I just definitely need to get this content out help you guys with your Madden game and today I'm gonna try to help you guys something that's really underrated. I know all you guys underrated has never talked about And that's special teams. It's three fairies is a football and they win so many games You guys should be watching the Madden Bowl now if you're not I believe it's every day 5 p.m The Madden Bowl is on so you're watching some of the best players in short games where special teams matter You know whether they can kick field goals from 62 yards or punt somebody into the corner Just little things about the game.  There's so many different things to special teams that really go unnoticed Absolutely unnoticed And I want to break down a couple of those things. Hopefully you guys Use these and get better at you know punting and kicking the ball because it can win you games And if you guys are watching these big tournaments, it definitely has Caused some people to be in better positions worse positions, whatever it may be But let's get into the film. Let's get into the practice mode where you go practice all these things all the time I got the Patriots right now. We're gonna go to field goal first man because Field goal, I just want to show you some simple things now prefer to boss this is serious where I Can't assume you guys know things you know I gotta go to the very basics and that's this this this meter You know, if you want to kick a further field goal, you got to put your trajectory down They're left stick down because it will change the trajectory. It won't be as high and it will go further now essentially In real life, right and what happens is if they kick the trajectory lower the football It's more likely to get blocked because it's lower the line They can jump and get a fingertip on it So that's why you see a lot of times those far field goals, you know 60 yarders 58 yards They're more likely to be blocked then a 30 yard because the trajectory of the ball is different So you see here. I'll do this. This is what where we on 47 yarder You know fairly easy so you get back here. Let's just see the difference And Punting here we go. We're at the 40 yard line. So this is a 57 yard field goal. What's got Kowsky? You see is there you see how the treasure trajectory. I won't even change it. We'll see where the kick goes Full power. We'll see if you can put this in here The short that's because I did not change that left stick Same thing you say it's going to be short You know Just change the left stick another thing you got to account for the wind now I'll be the first to tell you I don't pay attention to the wind and then we go put it down there When does three miles an hour towards me? Full power that time I put the left stick down That's galsy hit the camera. So that feel low would be good thing I don't know man. She's just sometimes But one thing is like if you forget the wind and we see people do this You know, sometimes it's worth coming out in field goal and Actually, you know looking at the wind and calling a timeout if you're if you you know If you're in that good of position to be able to waste timeouts Also, if it's two minutes and 30 seconds left in the game, you can run the ball have the clock running You know, you want to take it a two-minute warning to shorten the game But instead of just sitting at your play call screen or chewing clock come out and field goal That way you can look at the wind You know, you're not gonna snap the ball because it's going to the two-minute warning And that way you can know what the wind is because the wind affects everything differently like the real nerds really know all this stuff I'm gonna be the first one to tell you. I really don't know all these things, you know but I said a mutt everybody probably has 99 kick power at this point, but the biggest thing with this is a You definitely want to hold left down and and also this is just like physics Like it's the ball will travel further on a straight line You know, if you say you're hitting a 57 yarder and you want to go right down the middle Which is an easier kick Essentially, there's a little there's probably about a yard difference between a straight line and right down the middle for Gaskowski You know, I think he made that one, you know Whereas if I kept it now, it's gonna be a harder kick, but if I aimed for this part of the goal post It's going to put you know, it's going to travel further. Oh Never mind, I just completely lied But you know, I think I was in full power on that one But a straight line is shorter than a little one off to the to the left or right, but field goals are field goals The biggest thing I'm gonna show you guys just as simple to that people you guys might not know, you know And that's punning punning the ball. It sounds stupid but a one I think personally I always do it used to be like max max protect or You know max coverage. I pretty much just do pun I don't know. I don't know if you guys dab one and he's I don't punt tight and all this stuff. I just do punt Right, so let's go ahead and put them in a punt return some type of pun return middle Now this is a ridiculous spot to punt the ball from let's say All right, we're here We're on the 34 yard line now we want to point we want to get this thing. We can't punt it to the end zone I don't think You know, let's see where we actually can punt it straight up I'll show you guys how far you never want to put into the end zone. It's the cardinal rule of football and Him not catching that punt I hate as we get the most beautiful point because he didn't catch it, you know One thing about this game. I wish, you know, I'm hopefully somebody realized But I wish you could change coaching suggestions always catch a punt always Always go catch a punt because I should be able to control whether I fair catch Whether I let it go or whether I you know try to return it right there a fair catch Would have saved me 10 yards have I returned it for another 10 yards over 20 yards, but okay now We know we can't kick it that far Now The the number one thing you have to know when you have to play with your controller on vibrate I don't know if you guys some people turn that off some people don't but uh, if you if you go left or right, right? As soon as your controller starts vibrating that means you want to kick it out of bounds So you want to get right to where you're vibrating pause and Then kick it, you know, I went to the right wide side here most of time I try to go short side kind of goes with the same line as look at that point Boom that we get him at the at the you know, he can't return it. He can't do nothing I don't have to worry about tacking Tyreek Hill I don't have to worry about tacking, you know, Devin Hester, whatever it may be once again I like going short side because it changes the line is longer the ball will go further There we go as soon as the vibrates stop and we'll see where this goes now It goes in do you want to get a perfect kick that one? The wind got me a little bit as you see the just today three mile an hour winds, but you're still able to return it We have three mile an hour wind going back into the right So now you want to go okay a little bit of wind. I see I vibrate here. Let's go left a little bit more Full out of balance here Acura kick that's important in these you want to act your kick Better better better better not perfect, but better last thing I'll tell you about this here We go and this is what people do to punt. This is how you see those guys getting those punt dots as they say Let's change the spot of the ball This is probably the biggest thing because most of you guys probably know this if you don't I mean I'm glad I could help you but say we're at the 48 right and we get to a fourth and eight or something late in the game We want to pin them back right now. We can do the same trick But what you have to realize about when you're punting here is that? The vibration will start in the back of the end zone like when it goes out of bounds So essentially because let's see how far I can kick the ball so I see how far I can kick the ball all Probably all the way out the back of the end zone Right, okay So that's the distance on this punt. So essentially when you take this to the left It's gonna start vibrating when I can hit out of bounds in The back of the end zone and you don't want the punt to go to back of the end zone This is a bad punt flat out bad punt, right? But I aimed it to when I start vibrate. So when you're in this close to your your opponent's end zone, right? You definitely have to okay. It's vibrating, but that's at the back of the end zone Let me go left a little bit more Try to get what they say a punt dot and Another thing with that I don't really know where that was probably the ten yard line something like that Another thing with these puns is You don't got to get it to the one yard line, man Just make sure you don't get it in the end zone being at the 14 is way tougher than being at the 20 Also mentally for the for the player like when the ball goes in the end zone if I'm getting the ball back with a money drive and that ball goes in the end zone I have a deep sigh of relief and honestly Maybe it could be better as we go with the trajectory line to kick it to the wide side in these situations Let's see if I can dot it Maybe a little bit better. I mean they should tell you where these puns are and what I feel if I don't see it And then end zone is a pretty good pretty good punt You know But these are these are a huge deal if you want to win late games if you want to be able to You know close out a game if you're up three don't want them to get into the end zone But main thing with this video man learn the line and trajectory on your punts also I Said the vibration is key. That's when you're sensitive kicking it out of bounds So learn how to play with that learn how to utilize that feature in the game That maybe not a lot of you guys realize that that's in the game As soon as your controller starts vibrating that means the kick is gonna go out of bounds man But like I said the front about I'm doing a series like this every day So anything you guys Need help with I've heard route concepts all the time. I have a bunch of them. I'm gonna break down easy ones Few guys to help you get a little bit better man And like I said it is may we are dwindling down man 21 or man 20 getting ready for man 21 But essentially all these tricks all these little tips will carry over you don't learn these in one day You don't learn all this stuff and in one sitting Everything I learned from Madden essentially goes back to man. Oh six man. Oh for whatever I started playing man And you learn a little bit every year and it just you know Translates in the other year and understand it first So anything you can add to your game even late in the year will help you continue to become a better man player So comment below on what you guys really need help with and what is confusing you what do you understand?


This is the dream of all dreams. There it is. I forgot about this. Oh it's big. I don't know. He needs a dolly. He needs help. That is his job. Getting ready for baby. Not yet. Not yet. Not telling you yet. Oh boy. Bottom line. We're going for comfort and taking care of the mama. Yes. Mama. It's like dream, butter, luxury. Okay here it comes. How is he going to do that? I don't know. Poor man's back. Let's see. Here. Care for the mama. Open it. Open it now. Care for the mama. There it is. Come back to tomorrow's vlog and you'll see the chair. Put together. I got to keep working so we can't pull it out now. Come back tomorrow. I want to just do the color. Mama's excited though. Hope mama's going to get that. Come back. Fine actually let's come out to the, let's come out to the, we've got a story. We've got a story for you. Something happened but we're okay. I have a Valentine's Day miracle story. When Seth was out of town everything was just a little off. My heart was off. The world was a little off. I got the children to mass 30 minutes early because I misremember what time it was and I dropped my phone in the sink and we don't have rice. We don't have those little packets that you're supposed to have around the end to dry things out and it died. I mean it like went to its grave. Would not hold a charge. Freaked out on me. Gave me a symbol of like a triangle with an exclamation point. It was like you blew it and I was so bummed. We got this on eBay like two or three years ago. It's been amazing and so I went on eBay and found a couple ones that might look good instead of to Seth and was like you know what I'm going to just wait till you get home to buy one because I want to make sure it's a good seller and that you think it's a good deal and that type of thing. Then today like three days later I go why did I even try and plug it in? I'm so excited because there's so much on here that didn't transfer over with to my SIM card like I got a little temporary one from T-Mobile and contacts didn't come over and none of my pictures because I guess I don't have stuff set up as backup and it's just like one I don't have to spend money. Two I don't have to learn in a phone and three my life can just get back into sync and back into life. So babe I'm glad you're home and two thank you for this Valentine's Day miracle. Isn't true love amazing? She's amazing. She went to the doctor this morning all as well with baby. Baby's good. Baby's healthy. Baby's head is down. That's a good thing. That's a good thing. Well our doctor today said I don't know if I've ever met anyone who smiles as much as you do. Hello it's Bridget. Of course you've never met anyone who smiles as much as her. She's amazing and her phone is working. Praise him. Praise him. All right I am doing laundry getting caught up from the 10-day road trip getting reoriented into being back at the house which it wasn't that long like 10 days as long but it's not that long and but man it was it was intense. You're like on almost all the time for 10 days straight we didn't take any breaks on the weekends we just filmed and met people and filmed really when we were in the car I think we were just like quiet a lot of the time because we were just like processing everything from the trip. Anyway um oh yeah and one other thing I'm back it's February I'm just trying to be patient the first big race is June 2nd the Dirty 30 50k come here guys all you runners out there yes I have not forgotten here we are here's the calendar so basically where's the first race June over here boom there it is up in Blackhawk July August bottom line I'm excited to be back in Denver back to running and warmer temperatures and back to getting you know back in consistent shape I'm not planning on traveling anymore this spring here we are just living life doing laundry getting things done we're in winter swore coming at you all right true love trying to keep up with true love all right here we go you guys come on come on here we go did you want to say anything this is gonna be so fun all right hold on oh so charming oh so charming we can see our breath okay oh no it's finally cold again in Colorado oh North Dakota stay out of here


Tim Hortons SO commercial car block truck stop whatever you want to call it and this is the mess We got a deal with here in the mornings I slept here overnight because I got to pick up a load just down the street right now We got people blocking this all up in here You know that guy with the trusses over there blocking that entire driveway so the entrance you can't get in here So it's very tight. It's very tight. There comes a guy in here right now.  It's a grain hauler. Oh Oh, oh looking at his options looking at his options. Okay, he's gonna come in the exit because the entrance is blocked And people all these people blocking everything. They're just inside getting Timmy's. That's how much people love Timmy's here in Canada They will go to great lengths. Oh, what's this guy gonna do? Okay, so he's gonna pull all the way around here I hope he doesn't go and Block that exit now because then I can't get out. I'm always gonna go park over there smart guy smart crazy, right? It's just chaos just chaos every morning here. It's a good morning. Welcome to the chaos Make sure you go down below my video. Make sure you're subscribed if you don't mind At the end of the video if you like it hit the like button if you didn't like it hit the dislike button twice Now I've got nothing to complain about. I don't have a trailer behind me. My trailer is waiting for me down the road So I don't have a problem. I'll be able to get out. There's still a lane for the exit Though it would be hard to get fuel here the fuel pumps for an all-in-all spot. It's a very small Lot like a small property, right? And since they got a Tim Hortons here. I don't know what it is about Tim Hortons But we all just have to have it. I mean it's good coffee, but I Would compare to like Dunkin Donuts in the US. It's it's good But it's not like oh boy. We got to go back and get another one right now after you have it It's coffee. It does the job. It wakes you up They got Decent food in there, but something about Tim Hortons does something to a Canadian It's like a magnet. You look at all these people look at all these guys Even though there's no room to park even though a lot is so small. They couldn't help themselves. It's like an addiction They had to stop they needed their Timmy's even though across the street You can get coffee at the petro pass down the road. You can get coffee at like fine jay or husky Down the road that way. I mean just petro pass on the other side of the city, too but This one spot Though it's gonna be the tightest spot to get in and out of drivers still They look at it like not it's worth it. I might get stuck in there, you know, it's worth it for Timmy's I don't know. I don't know what it is. I mean, I'm one of them. I don't know why I Mean McDonald's coffee is just as good But we still go to two words. I don't know what are they putting in their coffee? Let's roll So today's a pretty easy day just doing some local stuff again Like I said yesterday and the day before I've just got to be home for this weekend. We have our Couple of events going on this weekend and it's Father's Day. I'd be home for that So I'm just grabbing a trailer actually in in winterpackers grabbing it and bringing it to Portage La Prairie an hour down the road. I'll probably call it a day after that I think this guy's gonna want to cut in front of me edging forward from my left over here I'm bigger. I got a bigger nose. I'll just stick it right in there. Just stick your nose in It's like this.  We're big. We're bulky. We're slow We're in everybody's way Gotta wake up every morning and realize that people are gonna be mad at you for no reason And that's okay Just do your best to stay out of their way and do your best, you know Follow the rules obey right of ways. What else can you do? four-wheelers be four-wheelers as a truck driver you have to Have a defensive mindset at all times.  So that's the order whoever gets there first That's how the line works The van got there and then I got there then the pickup came and tried Looked like he was gonna try to sneak in front of me. He ended up not trying but I also was kind of assertive and you know as soon as the van started moving I Stuck my nose right in there said no this space is mine, right? Now if he would have gotten there first obviously I would have yielded to him whatever As besides the point we're trucking. I feel light is a feather. I got no trailer behind me. Let's go get this trailer Really easy day next week will probably be a little bit more busy as this week we kind of We kept ourselves busy. I mean it wasn't a bad week. I kept ourselves busy around here So I'm happy with it I'm gonna try to get a few more nickels next week. Let's speed limit here a hundred Home sweet home, man It's actually kind of chilly in here. I've noticed this thing is very well insulated better insulated than the other one Because on the hottest summer days I come into the shop and it's cool like cold in the shop I'm hoping that's gonna be the same thing in wintertime. Just the opposite has freezing outside But it's still pretty warm inside. We have floor heat which heats the shop right now That's that's the only heat in here. I've got a wire up a 220 volt outlet in here Yeah, so that I can have my little heater running if I need to but floor heat does enough That's all you really need to keep the shop. Well All right, let's get old blue in here. I ordered some drive tires for today My dad went and got some new ones and it sort of motivated me to get them now We have these over here. We've got these good year G182s. These are expensive tires I bought them through our works account. They get a discount. I just got the bill for them finally $750 each $1,500 sitting right here, and I don't want them. I'm ordering something else so I Want to go order six new tires like this, right? And I don't get the same discount or even if I did let's say I went through the same account I got the same discount $750 times 6 we're looking at $4,500 plus installation It would be more than that Plus what how much would it be like 35 bucks a tire or something a Couple hundred bucks. Maybe I'm gonna know $5,000 plus tax So I'm looking at a bill of over $5,000 just for six tires because I already have these right So I went and bought eight tires now This is gonna cause a whole bunch of comments But that's good because the more comments I get on my channel the more Google and YouTube Pushed my video out to new people.  My dad bought them for his truck. He bought eight black Hawks and he has them on his truck I believe they come from the same company as handcooks You know, I wanted to put like Michelin's or Goodyear's on but tires are so expensive so expensive Like these tires here without an account or without any special fancy discounts. Those are about a thousand dollars each Thousand bucks each two thousand dollars for two tires. That's That's a non-starter. I can't spend eight thousand dollars just to my drives because I got to buy steers to in fall And that's another two thousand dollars for two tires because those are about a thousand dollars each so ten thousand dollars That's what I've been saying. That's what these tires are worth, right? These black Hawks I ordered eight of them closed shoulder After-tax installation everything said and done me driving away $4,000 I got eight black Hawk tires For a thousand dollars less than what I would pay for six Good years So now I have these spare tires here. Anybody want some tires? They're for sale. I Don't want them five hundred bucks each It's a deal. They only have a couple of thousand miles on them Maybe one two thousand miles or so because I only had them on for a short little while Look at this tread. They're perfect. They're brand new. Look at that perfect tires I Paid seven hundred fifty dollars for each of them Someone want to take them off my hands for a thousand bucks Now these are a bit of an odd size of tire 295 75 are 22 and a half So they won't fit on they're not the most common tire in Canada So I understand and not a lot of people could use these but It's a pretty good discount. I Realize I'm losing money on that, but it's either that or they just sit here I'd like to keep them as spares Honestly, I've thought about that, but there's nowhere for me to carry them on my truck I can't put them anywhere on my truck and I don't haul my own trailer. I Have a different trailer every week. I can't keep moving them back and forth and sometimes there's just literally no place to put them I can't carry them with me. They're kind of useless to me Unless if I were to get a flat tire like right here in town then I could just come and get them No, they're just gonna end up sitting here for for weeks and weeks. So Yeah, pretty much half price 295 75 are 22 and a half if you have used for them if you're in the Manitoba area and you're willing to come get them I'm not bringing them anywhere. I'm sorry. I don't mean to be rude. That's a pretty good discount already I think you can come get it. I'm not happy as you might Tell about losing the money on them, but I do Amaze well get something for them, right? Let me know down below in the comments or send me an email actually, you know what? This is something that you would want a response. I sometimes the comments Don't get to me for some reason if you really want the tires and you're serious and you live in the area Email me trucker Josh vlogs at gmail.com with the subject line tires or something like that And we work something out If not, if I don't sell them, I'm just gonna sit here So I was hesitant going with a cheaper brand of tire because I like to have good solid American brand tires on my truck Right Michelin be if good rich good year Well-known tires that have a good reputation that last a long time do the job But you know what? Sometimes you just got to pinch some penny somewhere and We'll see we'll see you'll be able to tell right here on my vlogs. Was it a good decision? Was it a bad decision? I made an executive decision over my business. I said, we're gonna save this money Even if I don't sell those tires, I still saved a thousand dollars By buying these eight tires and just leaving those sit there. So if I sell them for a thousand dollars, I mean it kind of balances unless but It is what it is You just got to make do. Oh my god, I guess and we'll see how these tires do I'll let you see them once they're on the truck. I ordered them. So they'll be here Monday My truck is going in for a service Monday morning. It's Friday today when I'm filming this So once it's done with the service if there's time I'll take it there Monday afternoon I'll get the tires switched up for me If not, we'll maybe do it Tuesday morning But I need to get back on the road as soon as possible So I'll keep you updated.  I'll let you know how they do I'll mark the odometer and I'll write it down in my booklet of when we installed them And we'll see how many miles we get out of them most tires you can get about you can get close to 300,000 miles Out of some tires You drive them right in between 200 and 300,000 miles We'll see what happens I'm always nervous spending big money, especially on new brands that I haven't used before but hey If you have any experiences, do you run black Hawk tires? Let me know down below in the comment section What you think of them by the time you watch this I'll already have bought them and they'll be on the truck So there's no convincing me not to buy them, but I'd like to know what your experience is with them The big brands were just a little too expensive couldn't justify it Prices have gone up a lot in everything, right? So We'll see was it worth the savings?  They're not recaps when I had my Volvo Way back that I remember I put recaps on there and those didn't pretty good for me They did really good. They never flew apart and they lasted decently long But I went with virgin tires just a little bit of a different brand. I'm a little nervous about it See what happens These are the tires I got on here right now worn right down Mean they may be able to go for a little while longer, but not much longer Then I have this one this hand cook on here. This was the used tire that I bought It's not really good for me. Actually, that's the same tires that my dad had on his truck Before he just changed them recently and they did really well for him This tire here It's got some pretty good tread, but there is something stuck in it right here And it's not leaking not yet, but uh I mean Keep picking things up keep driving over things These are doing all right. All right, it might have been able to get a little bit more out of them But these here again very worn down And these ones Again like the same as the other ones 295 75r 22 and a halfs. These are firestones FD 692s They did really good It's a good brand and You know Good well for me. We'll see how those block hogs do we'll see At least they'll all match again, right? And the steers all probably always go with Michelin X lines These on the front are 275 80 r 22 and a half They've actually been doing really good too. These I am going to keep on here until uh Fall time just before winter This is the driver side though The driver side is always better than the passenger side passenger side wears down faster Because the truck is usually leaning this way, right? I'm gonna passenger side Still doing all right I think we can make it till fall We'll see said before we have that appointment Monday morning, so it'll be a little bit of a long weekend I'd like to get moving Monday afternoon We'll see See what happens see what they got for me. It seemed to be a little bit slow this week And right now and then we go through a slow patch and not much to do And all of a sudden we're super super busy and everybody's scrambling I guess that's the whole point of business, right? It can never just be like steady Same pace every day. It's just some days or just give or give or give or other days are like Anyways, let's go home and hold my baby. I miss them and my wife. Oh, what is this? What what is going on here?


filling the void with the incessant hubbub of their reflective intellect what is drained in this particular instance is the common law invoked by Kent early in the 19th century as the water of life determinedly sucked out approximately 80 years later by the American legal traditions reigning a visceral Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr who dissolves both life and law in the acid bath of nothing but history that is to be the fate of the 20th century to my eye Parker's invocation of the common law is elegeric almost in the full sense of a word that is it mourns that which is irreversibly dead radically for its revival but what is most decidedly his achievement it seems to me is to show how by paying attention to their antecedents two of the most relentlessly positivist of scholarly discourses namely modern American history and modern American law both stand revealed as subtle knowledges while simultaneously each by reference to those antecedents is re-infused with the capacity for a certain mystery invigorated in their capacity to unsettle subtle knowledges and here I am following canal's reading of Carl Lewis who may have not myself read but without necessarily paying a surprise at that capacity the exorbitant exaction demanded by what we have come to call postmodernism which is that knowledge shall never ever settle again what I mean to suggest is that what the science now maybe can do a second lap as metaphysics what might happen if we were to re-infuse wealth's hungry law books with metaphysics that same thread of metaphysics had been by Norman Spalvin's resistant subject and to the fabric of this morning although the read is certainly distinct the subject's resistance and hence chance to awareness lies on the possibility refusal to be bound refusal to be completed refusal to be ended or contained by anything law or politics or history and in holding the moment of refusal itself indefinitely open and reminded of Berthold Brecht's dispestitute purple George Furkinby and Frebenin Hovel who dreams the day of judgment the greatest arraignment of all times of the judge, the living, the dead all who had in any way warmed the poor from defenseless and who awakens from his dream to find that he is himself a condemned the moment of future of his awakening his arrest and his execution Brecht annihilates the possibility of a relationship between justice and law the oppressed will not be rescued by dreams the question rather is the knowledge one possesses the moment of awakening the knowledge one brings to bear on the materiality that presents itself when one wakes up it seems that society has the last word by hanging George Furkinby in that waking moment he has understood how ancient is the crime to which he and his kind fall victim law reminds us of the price that accompanies refusal an unbounded awareness is as ontologically terrifying as the finality of death and is hence as much an occasion for avoidance as that first scene which he inverts in his paper terror urges us to displace to trim, to contain or to complete our existence or to have it completed for us on our behalf by structures of law politics of history that undertake completion by rematerializing the subject in compliance a consenting legal subject to settle knowledge I think here I'm sure that we are quite as bereft of means to apprehend the possibility of a distinct subject position as Norm argues in his paper I wondered for example when agonists like my colleague at the American Bar Foundation Bonnie Honig stand in Norm's account of contemporary political theory at the intersection of law and history also like those like Cornelia Lisman already mentioned by Marianne perhaps in a very different way Carol Payton this work in both cases seems not to assume the legal subject but rather to trace the means and media of its construction as such I agree though that when I take to get a larger point that if our history is not to dissolve into law then our task is to write legal history without necessarily assuming law to do that one must be able at least to imagine history without law or at the very least imagine how to write a law's beginning and end but then the question arises whether this is not to dissolve law into history as as Holmes did and hence pose just another form of completion it seems to me one must therefore know how to write of the beginning and end of history too unless one is to hold history up as the one allowable universal critical solvent and hence the one allowable mode of completion that completes everything except itself resistance in norm's sense is precisely to resist completion to hold open a fissure rather than close it this is precisely why in my view his resistant subject properly belongs to the fabric of metaphysics although after listening to his presentation that's fine I begin to see why that is not necessarily the case let us remember the counter history which Norman books in his paper of which of course speaks the counter history to that which pacifies society justifies power and founds the order that constitutes the social body this counter history that shows that laws deceive that kings wear masks that power creates illusions and that historians tell lies this counter history this is the resource of the resistant subject necessarily dwells in the realm of the metaphysical for it is a history that relies on outwitting the trick on detecting the secret on deciphering the truth that has been sealed on detaching its subjects from their given historic juridic consciousness and locale in order to introduce them to a form of history and time that could be dreamed of precisely because it may not be known now I said a few minutes ago that canals paper wets one's appetite for his book it seems not unkind and I have no need or I have no desire to be unkind for I value his friendship to say that Steven Wilson's paper wets one's appetite for as it were the rest of his paper Steven has written us a menu for a feast that comes accompanied with more than enough hints of what's in store to set one celebrating I will spare him the inevitable illusion to slow a food let's instead begin with the sign of the restaurant door as plans for this event were coming together and we corresponded about his participation we corresponded about possible titles for what he intended to write and Steven sent me his the title he chose as one of two and I said I like that one he then responded that he did two and described it quite unforgettably as the a new genre of legal history slash nonfiction I can't think of a better interpretive term for a pursuit that exists at the junction of two distinct bodies of text and practice that to make sense it must keep distinct and simultaneously bring together in time and at the same time throughout as in all great cooking one's palate encounters successive subtle contrasts in flavor in Steven's paper the gentle astringency of a fine vinegar seasons his account of the state of legal history the doing of what we do a judicious dusting of time or perhaps the satisfaction of a well-aged cheese serves metaphorically caution this against two rash of a suit of methodological faddishness when I came to Condero's dictionary in Steven's paper it made me pause to look at another Ambrose Bierce's General's Dictionary which may be familiar to many of you Bierce respectively defines law essentially as power history as lies and justice I quote commodity which is a more or less adultery condition the state sells to the citizen as a reward for his allegiance taxes and personal service but of all Steven's devices the richest I think of Blake's telescope and Galileo's observatory I hope this works because Blake's telescope and Galileo's observatory bring irresistibly to mind the third optical illusion perched temporarily more or less between them the Impogats utterly unforgettable 1724 engraving that will be done to many of us entitled some of the principle inhabitants of the moon as they were perfectly discovered by a telescope brought to the greatest perfection a known more simply as royalty law as you will see I hope you can see well his face is the coin of the realm around its neck is a stream of bubbles Clover and Hooft Episcopacy works a money pump law is a hammer in a periway like Blake's telescope Hogarth's telescope has magnified its objects it has not touched them but here's no problem it need not touch them for engaging upon them it has penetrated them it shows them as they are as in Galileo's observatory simple observation is indeed the beginning of heresy as readers and writers of texts interpreters of objects and tellers of tales about them we can learn a lot from the engravers I particularly this one Hogarth who was so great an observer and with it also so great a theorist of observation the god of games and those who keep them Janus is these days the most popular of academic gods particularly in our practice of purposefully a directionless direction this morning Steven's paper named the god of legal historians once more it seems we are catching up to the curve we're way behind the curve in this particular case more than 150 years ago Maxime de Comte author of Paris, its organs, its functions its life anointed Janus Goddard of history history he wrote is like Janus it has two faces but he added dryly whether it looks at the past or at the present it sees the same things in a sense it takes Steven's advice in his paper to be not that dissimilar as legal historians we can be Janus faced but we need not be so respectful of the claims of difference of the twin objects of our attention law and history insist on making for themselves one may have an eye for each but the advantage of having two eyes is supposed to be that it improves one sight not that it condemns one to a life of double vision each of these papers this morning in its own way encourages me to believe that we can look with two eyes and if we look carefully enough we can see that what appears to be difference or dichotomy may simply be distinctness a speech act law can be action as metaphysics law can be history and history can be law and in the moment of waking up the resistant subjects of knowledge can settle upon what has unsettled the subject and so to finish with Penelope the day need not unravel the knowledge the night has woken thank you very much I think at this moment what we hope what we ask is interventions discussions questions from the floor from the panel anything of that nature we have microphones down here the format of the room is such as to make free discussion not easy not difficult we hope you will engage with each other as much as direct your attention as it were back and forth in a bilateral way between audience and panel maybe could people identify themselves as this this is a question for the conference I'm here as a lawyer and not as a historian although as an academic lawyer a social part of my legal practices are doing history so I took the conference title literally law as and I read all the papers seeking to find a lawyer doing history I discovered of course that there were none I did discover a couple things one that law as history already has proposed disciplinary discipline it's in some way about closely reading texts and not just in Stephen Will's explicit terms but in many of the historians presentations the second thing I discovered is that the papers were quantitatively balanced between historians who were engaged in what might say nationalist enterprise what can history give us as a purchase on law and legal practices and and then there are a group of loosely irrationalists Nicheans, discourse deconstructors, psychoanalysts images and there of course question ability to do any kind of rationalist purchase on legal practice now as a whole group of texts aggregate texts the revelation is that both the irrationalists and the irrationalists depend upon each other dialectically and we have to invent the other if the other wasn't already present so the historians are worried about the degree of rationality in their claims and the irrationalists are extremely rational in the presentation of their position so why is this bothersome to a lawyer well a lawyer, it seems to me is always engaged in strategic representation and as such it seems to me problematic that we always teach our students to use official case reports statutory language legislative reports all of which of course are documents of history all of which of course are winners of history and that we don't teach our students to deal with the context of production of law which following E.P. Thompson and I take to be both in our renaissance form of social struggle so we don't do much representation of the losers histories involved in all of these continuous contests and of course that means we don't recover what are not saying but often are lost voices so the question this raises for the lawyer as strategic actor is what do what do the participants in this contest do about lawyers doing history as strategy and why are the legal historians seemingly drawn to working with against out through winners documents does somebody want to answer or start a new thread can you pose that as a it strikes me you pose that as in part a rhetorical question to which you may have an answer yourself even if your answer is one of I think what you guys are doing is bullshit it would be good to pause it out I think well lawyers as engaged in strategic representation are always looking for the best strategy the paper that I felt closest to actually presentation not the paper's folding but the live's folding was about law not being understandable except as resistance to law well that's a kind of of external content within the production of law shorter it recognizes law as inherently contested and struggle over power but it doesn't lend itself to an interior legal practice which is based upon the struggle of different groups continuously as witnessed in episodes over power or the legitimation of existing conditions and as a lawyer rather than a historian I want to try to increase the interiority of legal practice as as contested and always in a legitimate impressive I think there are ontological reasons why that's a good strategy I think several of us have actually not answers but responses I mean one is that this goes back to the law and society legal realism the problem of legal history in the context of law and society was that sociology and political science and economics had at least a self presentation that they could be useful history never had that presentation so legal history always failed was always a stepsister within the law and society context so one side of it is there is the sort of law office history problematic which always seemed like bad history there are generations of critiques of that law and society never seemed exactly to work I take part of the law part of the response to it vastly over simple is that doing legal history is also a practice it's about people reading about a way of understanding the world that is different than being useful to a lawyer or being useful to lawyers it may be it is a form of liberal education it's a form of opening up possibilities and alternatives that may not just to use the sort of old fashioned 50s language or the sort of Llewellyn-esque language does that have cash value that's a different question but I take what's going on in this room and what has happened in recent legal history and to go further what's happened in recent law and society work is to challenge the sort of cash value for law understanding of the practice of what we do but that's the contrast lawyer's strategy or strategic representation has cash value and it does not resolve the contrast I guess I'm not sure my position to answer the question as a panelist who does not hold a PhD in history question doesn't seem posed to me but I do want to say that with respect it seems to me to turn on some false dichotomies that it seems to me precisely the objective of the presenters here to Pierce so let me just bring two of them up the idea that case law represents winner's history would depend on a very taking a very thin time slice and evaluating we may do that in the classroom to our error to our students detriment but I don't think even if you took the domain of law to represent in cases themselves you would find winner's history what you find is a series of really interesting reversals and losers who are becoming winners and losers who are shifting position winners who are shifting position winners finding ground eroding under them if you take a kind of diachronic perspective that I think becomes readily apparent so I don't I just not sure that there's a lost history on the side of looking to law and only finding winners that view it seems to me not to be a historical view of law and then on the legal representations as strategic it kind of leaves implied that the other representations the one you're going to once you heard this morning and going to hear you know tomorrow are not strategic and also that law can't be capable of non-strategic representation I think precisely there again the idea is to erode that false dichotomy and to pay attention to the respects in which law wants and promises something other than strategic which is in fact strategic and in which historians and academics and legal academics are engaged in the same the same enterprise I take the fascinating I guess a perfect as the word to use first question for the conference but I my gut reaction to the question was that it is entirely appropriate for those present to seek to find means of approach to law that are if you will outside the church and I think what we'll find in fact what I think I try to argue both in the paper and in my presentation is that when we get outside the church we're going to find lawyers and clients there too well I'm not positive that I understand the question but what I would say is that when lawyers are engaged in strategic representation and that law students are not taught enough about context that this is precisely the claim of Beth Merz's book on the language of law school and learning to think like a lawyer and that as Dirk has mentioned the law and society movement was an attempt to try and get to those contexts the limitations of law and society is precisely that the context it puts law in is as what you call a struggle of groups over power and that if you start if you take for granted that the lawyers practice is necessarily about the struggle of groups over power and you look for tools regarding power you're not going to be very successful at resistance or at justice which really I would think motivates and underlies although you don't acknowledge it the struggle of the groups for power that you're dealing with so I think what some of the sort of probably the papers that you're considering has irrationalist and sort of involved in Nietzschean or deconstructive or whatever it is you put together there are doing are pointing to the limitations of the instrumental analysis of lawyering that doesn't realize that characterizing it simply as a struggle of groups over power is not exhaustive of what lawyers like yourself do should we take another question Mariana Mariana you just identify yourself quickly Mariana so I do have a question for but I just can't resist adding a historical correction to dirt's account of law and society because it's a very American perspective I was just saying the domination of the law society movement was born for social scientists uniquely American and I really objected people talking about the law society movement from the US centric perspective I mean in Canada the whole law society movement was led by legal historians and in fact was monopolized by legal historians for about 25 years and sociologists came to it very late so I just think I came to correct there are such an eminent historian but really in the context of this conference I think it's important to recognize these differences anyway but I have a question for Kunal which is about your use of the term metaphysical which troubles me a little bit because it seems to in a sense cover far too much like 19th century historical sensibilities certainly we're often teleological or Christian or whatever but to call all of that metaphysical I wonder if there aren't some finer divisions because whether you're a pragmatist or whether you're a Nietzschean you sort of denounce any kind of teleology as metaphysical but I don't think all teleology is metaphysical I mean you can have Marxist or materialist teleologies and you can have liberal humanist teleologies and so I just sort of wonder why you picked that term and exactly what word is it doing maybe I do anything like so actually oh this works too so yeah I mean I was recently sort of taken to task by an academic philosopher I'm sorry I was recently taken to task by an academic philosopher for precisely my use of the term metaphysics and my responses you know I mean there are a couple of different responses I mean one is of course I don't I have no interest in making a claim that metaphysics from the perspective of any prior understanding of what metaphysics is or isn't but rather that it is in fact one of the languages that one of the historical languages of the period itself there's a sort of very self-conscious sort of premissing of a historical consciousness that emerges in the late 19th century against metaphysics so I sort of build on that and then also I would say secondarily these kinds of discussions in the philosophy of history history as sort of directionality metaphysics is of course a very broad term which you can find so you can find causation as being about metaphysics for instance and a whole bunch of things and I'm using it in more limited ways maybe I take that criticism as a helpful corrective my name is Matthew Cromer my question was for Professor Parker as well I really enjoyed all the papers by the way, I thought they were historic to me I have sort of a historiographical objection maybe to that physical thing which is that I mean you might be giving all our wonder homes way way too much credit because even sort of historians of ideas, theorists thinking someone like Reinhardt Kasselike or something would date what you were talking about a very similar thing to the early 18th century right there are people like Pocock who would say no no no Kasselike's giving the enlightenment way too much credit this historicism happened in the 16th and 17th century that's when they decided to get rid of this juristic wholesome totalizing natural law and metaphysical stuff right and I thought Professor Spaulding's paper really used the relationship between what Pocock and Foucault were doing and this kind of revolutionary, growing modern reformation moment and the word metaphysics is problematic not just because it's I'm not a philosopher so I don't want to get into debates about what that means but it's problematic because it oversees the complexity which I think you're probably drawing attention to of historical thinking before what we think of as historicist studies of the law of the 20th century thinking of legal antiquarianism or the explosion of historical scholarship and all I mean, you know, when Hugh writes his histories, is that metaphysics? I you know, he would roll over in his grave to a certain extent I mean, when Jefferson collects the laws of Virginia, is that metaphysics? I know he would, I mean he, again he would roll over in his grave at that there's a series of critical pieces of the legal history of before this sort of epic-making division you're making that sort of suggests kind of counter narrative and I was wondering just to sort of a final point where you would put something like Larry Kramer's recovery of quote-unquote popular constitutionalism in your narrative of where metaphysics and historicism sort of meet each other so you're absolutely right, of course you even date your story in memorabilia and lists and so that's been done so one of the things that what I'm doing really is a set of temporary concerns to be left aside once I finish a book, which is that within I would say still, within the telling of the history of American legal thought itself Holmes occupies a sort of pivot position and you could very well make the argument that he is less central but we have made him central and so I take it so that was one of the starting points of think there's a shift in the way in which not only American legal historians think about the past but also the ways in which legal law students are taught. During my first year of law school we had a legal realist bridge session in the first semester where we were sort of told about the innovative nature of legal realism so I think that's a very important part of the way that story has been told having said that what I'm trying to do is not so much to diminish the importance of Holmes or people that follow Holmes is if you like a sort of label that explains what he follows about it not trying to demonstrate its lack of nearness as much as to show that nearness and a lack of nearness producing a relationship between nearness and lack of nearness is precisely the problem that the relationship between law and history sort of revolves around it's the same kind of structural problem I'm afraid I have to apologize I have to confess that I have nothing to say about Larry so Chris wants to I just wanted to I just wanted to add that indeed it may be entirely appropriate to argue that a phenomenon an intellectual phenomenon has earlier roots or earlier manifestations or whatever there is a sort of game that historians play which I have played at times which is to say you're wrong because I found your phenomenon in an earlier moment therefore your phenomenon is kind of disallowed I don't mean that that is your particular point but humankind continually reinvents the same things over and over there is no reason that because Pocock for example may discover a phenomenon of historicizing in 17th century thought that hums cannot rediscover and conceptualize as original thought the same phenomenon at the end of the 19th century they don't sort of the one does not cancel the other we're not on our ladder of progress I think we we can dispense with that can I just add something really briefly I think that just picking up on what Chris said I think this was very much what I wanted to do in this project is it's sort of important to be able to hold on simultaneously to the idea that something is new and that something is old that something is both similar to itself and different from itself and what I would take from that is my own commitment to taking seriously the ideas of the people that I worked on is in fact the common law representation of itself that drives my understanding of history rather than the other way around and so in the mode of if you know what I'm going to say and if Marilyn's returns anthropology in fact this is the form of the RPG study that in fact shapes the form of your anthropology that's sort of what I wanted to do sort of really take seriously what common law thinking was as a way of turning it back if you like as a light bulb on my own work as an historian yeah I mean I heard you say I mean I think that's absolutely right those points are well taken but it just seems to me that I mean if you've already decided the common law is fundamentally a historical that the temporality of the common law is a historical you're going to get a series of already sort of deciding to a certain extent and I just in the introduction as a historian there's so many sort of historiographical counter here it is that are there and it's obvious that you know that they're there and they don't seem to sort of argue with them explicitly which is wondering if how much they were there behind your thought where did they learn yes your own question I got a professor of law professor of history of law and professor of medieval studies at UC Santa Barbara interested in the history of the subject and turning to legal discourse in the early and later Middle Ages part of that history so I have a question for professors Baldwin just a straightforward question I found very interesting both here written paper and your presentation but what I'm wondering is in your role presentation the resistance subject that you present to us is very much a person who's saying no I'm not going to follow the law could you make a connection for us between the war psychoanalytic resistance subject that you discuss in your written paper and the one that you presented orally so part of what I want to say is just a practical thing about particular constraints in research agenda and the fact that I come to this larger project both as someone interested in the theory of resistance and as somebody who still practices law pro bono anyway and teaches and writes in the area of legal ethics so I spend a lot of time thinking about how to instruct and to exhort and to challenge people who are going to exercise a tremendous amount of social power there's no question about that in their fidelity to law in their conception of their fidelity to law so that has prompted me to take some of the psychoanalytic stuff seriously it's prompted me to as I think I used the metaphor of digging early on in the talk and I mean it seriously I found myself digging digging past the ethics codes digging past the standard conceptions of legal theory to get at something that matches what I see lawyers doing in practice interestingly no I'm not sure actually it's interesting because it's quite captured what I see lawyers doing is trying to find ways to say yes to clients whom others believe they should say no so it's a complicated relationship and position that the lawyer is in it is not just as the voice of the prohibitory power of law and that complicates of course when one looks to the psychoanalytic side it says who is the lawyer representing who is the client is this a subject is this a legal subject what does the client want what can't the client say she corporation it class action class of plaintiffs or defendant class it wants but let me just try to give you the register which kind of pushed me into the psychoanalytic account I have been have struggled since I first read Discipline and Hunish with Foucault's injunction to turn away from sovereign power from juridical discourse and to look to the operation of disciplinary power and his I think critique of law and legal discourse and political theorists and historians for being so caught up with the story of sovereign power and not that of disciplinary power and it seemed obviously right to me and then immediately as a lawyer and as someone who thinks and writes about legal ethics incomplete as an account of law kind of impoverished conception of sovereign power or the relationship between sovereign and disciplinary power or if you will some of the appropriations of that that pushed me back to Lacan who describes censorship the psychic censorship as law as the operation of law and also wants to the linguistic structure we all come into this involved order as law but also wanting to describe and to take analysts to task for failing to question their own desire and their own resistance and the way they approach subjects resistance to analysis so it's trying to think those two things together or to push them together the intersection and interdependence of sovereign power disciplinary power and Lacan's account of the subject and I think that has a tremendous amount the lawyers aren't eager to ask the question to do with the counseling moment where we hope or want the lawyer to say no or the client is saying no into the lawyer's job to emphasize that yes is actually the answer where to start Hi Justin Richland, UC Irvine my questions for Mary and Constable and it's a question from a fellow traveler as you know in the sort of legal language and discourse analysis world and my question is this so I very much take time value in and pursue in my own ways this sort of effort to collapse as Chris described the distinction between law and you know on the books of law and action and the effort to sort of say law and the books is law in action it is legal action and I find speech act theory so it is for that purpose but I sometimes wonder and I often wonder for myself the reason why I think I find it so this is in fact because law was so much the inspiration for thinking about the form of force of speech right and the same thing with purse I mean purse in this privatism is semiotic turned to Nicholas St. John Green and all of the window homes for the conceptualization to do things right so then what are we just in a vicious cycle here we just are we letting is inviting its own tail to then turn speech act theory back I mean is it turning back to understand law are we getting anywhere are we is it a business then to use speech act theory to understand law or is it just colluding in the in reaffirming the force of law by using it to understand it and this is maybe this is not I don't think this is a question only you and I care about but I think it's one I'm constantly grabbing I mean if I if I have a center question it has to do with how extensively it's already known to some degree written or assumed that legal action is speech acts and that the whoever it was I forgot what I was saying you said about how when law becomes operative or it's hereby determined or the operativeness of law it is so ordered we know at that moment this is what makes the law the law in that speaking so everyone knows that already and so your question is what what else is going on here aren't we just repeating what it is that in some ways has been known for and I think the difference in what it is that I'm interested in is how it is that drawing our attention explicitly back to the claiming that goes on in law has to be claimed to something whether that something exists and actually this is a response I have to Chris's comments is because it's not necessarily the case that there's justice out there or in here and there's law somewhere else and that law connects to that other thing through speech it's that the speech acts of law are what it is that enable whatever it is that we think or do or have access to and somehow invoke as justice and so I think it's that link to justice is not at all what you know Austin or you know the people who are explicitly doing speech act there you are thinking about when they're not law so I would say that it's the corrective that speech act that thing about law is speech acts is able to offer to other fields having to do with law like philosophy of law or sociology of law which is the important thing about legal speech acts. Does that answer your question? Well I'm amazing you had an answer for me because I had to puzzling with this answer and what I'm hearing is you know it's something that Paul Cahn in Rain of Law calls this the appearance of law and it is this appearance that makes the difference so how do we know the difference between legal power or political power right or your political power has to do with the how it appears how it appears is in this discursive modality or whatever it's in the lens discursive and traditional one right and that's important because otherwise you lose the connection you have to have both to have the connection with justice Chris? I guess I just wanted to to ask when I am a question which he is on from but Justin has said in response to your response because it occurred to me actually as I was delivering my comment that perhaps this is a stupid question but what distinguishes what you are doing from ethnography are you doing an ethnography of speech in effect? tell me what ethnography is I mean ethnography is like Justin so I mean do you see the point of the question I wonder if you have a response whether you see in my I am as doing what exactly what you do I think what Marianne and I do is very similar I think that we come from different traditions but what I do see is the question always being so what is the performative force of speech in these moments but then also you're saying it's a kind of it's always a grounding in a particular moment with habits of being and habits of discourse and habits and traditions that you're speaking to and bringing forth but also making a new so it's presupposing and attaining at the same time and in that respect I completely agree what I find so hard to do and this is where the question goes is right and that's what law wants to constantly do very explicitly and very understands itself as doing and so it's a slippage we are constantly slipping between the analytic guy and being able to say aha look we found something very interesting here and then wondering aren't we just sort of saying right and legal power is law is power I mean I don't know and re-inscribing disability I don't know whether it's ethnography or not I'm not sure I don't know let's take some more questions this is just another way identify yourself I've written also down this read to from the University of Toronto this is just sorry very briefly maybe another way into this and that is to return to the subject but also the question of agency because Marilyn I really appreciate at your point that what we're trying to do here is not simply address law in its instrumentality which is the dominant way in which law is taught and addressed as far as I know it's a story and indeed addressed by lawyers in a kind of utilitarian way and so the question about agency in law requires us to really think through the relationship to an agency in instrumentality Marilyn I'm coming down from a paper I just gave at Columbia Law and a slippage in what I mean as a slippage I'm now just chance myself for running my paper for tomorrow but the slippage between laws law is local, sovereign command and laws are almost inhabiting and the reason I bring it up is that I would ask you and also Norman and also Kunal to elaborate a little bit on what kind of subject you were imagining when you were problematizing law and history as an agency you're imagining because my problem with Austin a sort of more traditional reading of Austin, not the brother kind is that it presupposes an intending subject the figure of law is the intending subject the inferior intending subject it seems to me that all of your gestures are problematizing now but you haven't named that Norman it's interesting to me that you use the word existence rather than complicity we perhaps you might think of all of us subjects as complicit in law right so what would it mean to rethink the name resistance as complicity then Kunal the subject of common law is this effect the subject effect of people and it would be interesting to think about elaborating the relationship between agencies of activity just on that ground so just a very open question about what kind of agency what makes your intervention actually problematize law and agency not just law and history because history sometimes is a standard for agency I just want to say one thing the previous person is the author of a book called arguing with tradition sorry but in terms of your question about what kind of subject is being imagined here and doesn't this presuppose an intending subject I think you're right yes that Austin does presuppose an intending subject but that's not all he says that there's a limit JL JL okay how to do things with words he his conditions for what it is that makes a speaker solicitous require more than that the subject intent and so that's what I'm most interested is what else right what else there is than what it is that law presumes as willing and intending somehow right so it's the subject beyond what is intended that's at stake here okay so I did 30 seconds of subject agency yeah and agency everything is 30 seconds so I'm really interested in moving away from a certain conception of law as tax that is to say the one that's dependent on appellate judge as high oracle of law and the courtroom as the site of the articulation of the law the place where the speech acts that might give us law actually meaningfully take place or where their meaning actually found so I'm interested in after judgment what happens after judgment there are I could give you a look there are an astonishing number of if we get off of away from the not escaped brown there before an astonishing number of cases that we repeat we rehearse we teach over and over again the most history of which is extraordinarily revealing for the question of resistance and I might say agency as well not an attending subject I'm not as interested in that and don't take psychoanalytic theory to lead us there but rather to a wanting subject and an attorney and a client a relationship of displaced agency which raises questions of definition on both sides for the object that is wanted and so it's that that I want to interrogate in the larger project that this paper is just kind of a way of clearing some theoretical ground to go there I would simply say very quickly that since I'm often accused of being reckless I'm sorry but but I think that what I'm trying to do might in fact be named in the ways that you are suggesting but what it would add is to sort of draw out of there and sort of enter your language is something that has to have been told Catherine who needs no introduction I think everybody knows who I am so what I heard among the papers and that particularly emerged in Richard's comment has to do with where we get when we say law as as opposed to law and and I'm interested in what the panelists think about what I heard in each of your papers is the porousness about law using as gives us where if we use and we envision law as something with fairly impermeable boundaries and we can argue about what's inside the boundary but it's very much about drawing a circle that puts something inside and that's law and then out of that is society and what I thought was really interesting in Norm's paper but then it makes me sort of ask an interesting question about Kunal's paper is that Norm's paper explicitly invites this idea of the permeability of where law stops and something else starts as you said right now through the after judgment and then you can't understand even what law is if you don't think a lot about what happens after the judgment the person who wins the judgment often wins nothing and winds up being the loser for it as any lawyer who's represented for example a plaintiff in employment discrimination case could tell you you might be worse off than before you started and then this idea of resistance therefore it's kind of necessary to understand what the law is because it's sort of what it does Mary Ann says but we don't even always know what it does particularly as historians because it's so hard and the big project of legal history at least as the way that I sort of learned it is and what a law society inspired kind of legal history is is to try and get it reach that barrier between what we think the law is and what it really winds up doing or wound up doing in the past and so Kunal's paper seems to be very interesting in this way in that the common law is the it in the paper and the paper envisions the common law as being less permeable than it is sometimes described as being and that's precisely what makes your paper sort of interesting is that everybody who reads it is asked to envision we know what the common law is and I can read in the paper saying I've never really known what the common law is and it's the slipperiness of that that makes the it's the slipperiness of what the common law was in a way that accounts for its surprising persistence through time in the U.S. and so I'm just sure it's about this idea of the permeability that we get when we think about as as opposed to the ampersand I want to say that when you talk about what law is as what law does that it's important to distinguish thinking of what law is as a noun versus what law does as an activity versus what law does as an effect and in part when people think about what law does simply in terms of its effects that's going back to that instrumental conception of law and that what's interesting about legal history is that it's able to recognize what law does in its activity as distinct from its effects and also what law does in its activity which is still a watch in some sense and a noun in some sense but different from the propositional rules or the objects that I think that either professional legal academy or some kinds of philosophers of law make law be right so the interesting about legal history is it can hit all three of those sorry I just wanted to add perhaps personally about the formulation means to me are meant to me as a way of both creating law and as a problem by imagining something else another standpoint from which to examine it but also that law as in my view or in my mind as stated sort of boldly is intended to call into question our constructions of phenomena as relational that is as conjunctive or disjunctive and hence I think when we begin to talk of agency and resistance in such concepts become problematic too because far and away the most common ways of thinking about agency resistance and so forth popular, very popular terms for historians for quite a long time is precisely that they are relational they reconstruct the relational we think of them relationally in terms of one thing in terms of the other one thing in relation to the other as requires me to think if I want to think about agency I need to think about it differently than relationally that is part of as it were the project I mean it's horrible to say let's have a conference and the conference is going to have a project and the end of it will be somewhere different than we were before and really the objective is to bring an audience into contact with a bunch of interesting papers and see what happens so you kind of put a label on it but the label does have some it does have some resonance I think it does have some purchase and that is the resonance it has to me I just wanted to say one little thing which is that in response to Catherine's question that if you think of the pragmatic moment as being the moment of the triumph of relational thinking so it's Herbert Spencer that really sort of creates modern relational thinking for social sciences certainly in the Anglo-American world at this point in time it's interesting that it's only after Spencer that in the 1930s there's a conference held at Alba Law School on the future of the common law and Bown's paper is actually called what is the common law which in fact is not a question that anyone is really asking at least in that way in the 19th century so I think that would be one way of thinking that it is now quarter of am I supposed to be policing time it depends on how hungry everybody is it would be better not to continue indefinitely obviously it would be let's go for the I'm looking at an audience that wants to sorry, that's Sean no, no, no, I'm hungry okay, I'm hungry


Come here, come here, come here. Come here brother. So here we are in East London and I can't believe it, Sainsbury's have got a meat-free pop-up butcher here. So we're going to go inside and see what they got. So just waiting in line for the vegan meat here and look who's in the line. Who's that? Hey, Rob, what are you doing mate? How are you? How's it going? How's it going? Of course Robbie's going to be here. Just getting some plant-based meats. You always got the scoop on the latest news don't you? Plant-based fare? Smells better than an actual butcher. It does smell really nice in here.  It's none of its cooks either. I think it's the ribs that smell really nice in here. No flies buzzing around the corpses? Yeah, that's okay. Yeah, that's all right. And then over there. In this shop. They're all available even to supermarkets. They're larger ones. Thanks so much. Have a nice evening. Have a nice evening. Have a nice evening. Have a nice evening. Have a nice evening. Have a nice evening. Have a nice evening. Have a nice evening. Have a nice evening. None of these had names. None of these sausages used to be someone. No, no. They maybe were a tree or something. They were once a lonely mushroom. Just a mushroom. Yeah. Minding it's own business. Maybe a button mushroom. Yeah, a button mushroom. Something like that. I wonder what a mushroom slaughterhouse looks like. Like this pretty much. We don't want to talk in there. We've just got out of the most ethical butcher in the world. Okay, this is what we've got. So we've got the veggie bacon here. This is from Vivera. Marinated tempeh rits. And some mushroom sausages. I can personally confess to these being delicious. They're amazing, aren't they? Let's hand some of these out to the public and talk about this meat-free butcher and see what they think. What do you think about this meat-free butcher? It's a brilliant idea. Going to try it. Are you vegetarian or... Yeah. Ah, both of you? Just me. Yeah. You're carnivore? Yeah. Don't eat much.  Not much. We're handing out these boxes from the meat-free butcher. Yeah. This is a meat-free butcher pop-up. Do you like the idea of that? Yeah, definitely me.  No. You don't eat meat? Are you a vegan? No. A vegetarian? Yeah.  A little bit. A little bit? Well, this has sausages. I'll show you what it is. Shroom jobs. Shroom jobs. Yeah. It's got bacon and it's got the tempeh ribs in there. So maybe you can... What do you think about that plant-based meat? Here, you can take this. Yeah? I've got a few more on hand and I'm out. Thank you. Thank you very much. Take care. There's no vegan topping on there. There's no animals in this meat. This is a plant made of plants. Plant-based meat.  We just went to the KFC. They brought out a vegan burger. They sold out in four days. Yeah, I know. It's crazy. I can see the sponsor house there. Awesome, mate. Enjoy your vegan meat. No animals. No slaughterhouse. No... Better for the environment. Tasty. You're not really into it, are you? Ah, stuff that's pretending to be me. You don't like it? Have you tried it? I've tried some of it. Okay. I like eating vegetables. I have vegetables. Ah, okay. People are also asking why do we have to call it bacon and sausages and burgers and steaks? Because we're trying to get in there and infiltrate and give people an alternative with the same name. So then they know, oh, that's supposed to mimic that. What do you think is a bit weird that they're trying to imitate meat products with plants? Yeah. That's interesting. I think about actual meat is from an actual animal that was actually killed. Do you not think that's weird or do you think that's just normalised now? I think it's... I pay attention to it. You've seen a slaughterhouse? No. You haven't? No. I've been inside of them and they... Like when I go into a butcher, it smells exactly like a slaughterhouse, that blood and that fear.  Well, you know, why do they use euphemisms for pig flesh and for cow flesh and why do they call it beef and bacon?  Yeah, no, I'm up for it. You're up for it? We're handing out boxes here. This is for you. Really? This has got... Do I need to...? No, you don't have to pay for anything. You're going to have to put your head around the way though. No, no, that's quite... Do it for somebody else. Okay. You're not... No, I'm up for it. I just... Yeah. You know what? Here's a card. This is... So you're through Sainsbury, so you... No, I'm just a vegan advocate. Oh, okay. Yeah. Animal rights activists. Okay. This is good for animals. No, I'm eating a lot less meat than that. That's good. Well, Sainsbury's got some good options. Here's a vegan challenge on the back here and some great information on the front. So, Land of Hope and Glory is what I was talking about with the slaughterhouses and stuff. Yeah, I know. I don't like the meat industry. I'd carefully buy my meat, but... Is there a careful way of getting sourcing dead animals? I don't know. They're all getting killed. I know. Some are worse than others. True. You know what's best? No killing. I do. Thanks, brother. This is a meat-free butcher. There's no animals in this meat. It's interesting, isn't it? Yeah. Yeah. Come here, come here, come here. Come here, brother. Yeah.  Come here, bros. Come here. How you going, mate? Good, man. I'm Joey. Good. What do you think of this meat-free butcher here? I'm not sure. Is it weird? It's weird. Goblin? Yeah. What do you think? They've got mince, they've got sausages made out of mushrooms. I get it, but I like the flavor. It's all about the flavor. About the taste? I understand people who don't eat meat, but I'm just saying. You don't eat meat for ethics? You understand people who don't eat meat because of the ethical implications? It's a personal view. I don't really care. You don't care? No, everybody for themselves. But I like the flavor. The taste. The taste. Do you think the taste justifies the slaughterhouse, though?  You eat it? It's fine, man.  You eat them? It's okay. It's all in. Have you ever seen a slaughterhouse before? Yeah. You have? Yeah. What do you think of it? It just didn't really affect you that much? Not really. Look, I don't mind paying like 100 pounds for a piece of beef. A piece of beef, right? Yeah. But I was just joking. No, no, you can have a joke, man. Are you leaving to go home or are you going to be out drinking? Out drinking. Out drinking. Because I was going to give you this, but... What is it? It's a little pack of vegan meats that you can try. No, you can keep it for somebody. Yeah. But I get it. I've tried, but it's just the flavor.  I understand, but I've seen slaughterhouse footage. I connect with animals. I don't want people to hurt dogs, but... No, but for me, it's not even a hunter mentality. It's like fishing, right? If you fish and you catch a fish, you eat it, right? That's my philosophy.  Nothing justifies killing anything, but... But you said taste.  So do you think it's not morally justified to kill animals for food, but we still do it because they taste good? It's a personal thing. I like the taste. People want to, like, not eat meat. It's fine for me. I want to leave you one more question. Do you think it's really personal if there's another animal involved? It's more like... It's a personal thing that involves someone else. What do you mean? Well, like, do you view animals as victims? Like, they could be victims of violence, animals?  Yeah, like, so if there's someone else involved, and it's not really too personal because there's an impact, there's a consequence of that choice. Of course. Yeah, so it's more like, not really personal anymore if you involve, like, a dog or another animal or someone else. Yeah, well, like, it's a personal thing. I just like the... I like meat. And there's somebody who didn't grow up on meat, to be really honest with you. My mum was a vegetarian. She was? She still is? Well, she's dead now, but yeah. But yeah, so, like, I didn't have meat growing up, and then I had chicken, but I didn't have beef because of, like, B.S.E. and all that sort of stuff. And then I, like, got meat later in life. Here's a card, Challenge 22, Vegan Challenge, but on the front here, it's great information. It's cool, I get it, I get it. When you look at that meat... Is it gonna go into Sainsbury's with it? Yeah, they've got all these options in Sainsbury's in their vegan section, vegetarian section, so yeah. Suss it out. Yeah, see you. What's your name? Joey, man. Good to meet you, Carl. So yeah, interesting conversation with Carl, the meat-eating troll who walked past and yelled something out and then said he was only joking. His mum was a vegetarian, but I was gonna leave him with the fact that next time you look at that meat, see an animal.  I think it's amazing, and I hope it kicks right off. And people go, oh my God, it's weird, you know, you're trying to mimic the flesh of an animal with plant-based alternatives. You know, we have to adapt to a meat-eating culture in society, so this is the best sort of strategy we've got to try to transition people away from animal foods and make it mimic the same textures and tastes that they're used to without the violence of a slaughterhouse and the environmental destruction of meat products. I think it's fantastic. Yeah, I know the story behind it, the meat-eating and everything else, you know. Environmental destruction, and what about the animal themselves going through the slaughterhouse processing? Oh, yeah, yeah. Yeah, they have a very short life to make.  What do you say to the people that say, why do vegans need to mimic the taste and look at meat? Because we were grown up in the same meat-eating culture, the same textures and flavours as well for so many years. It's not that we necessarily don't like the taste, it's that we don't like the violence and the environmental destruction that goes with it. How you going, brother? What do you think about this? What do you think about it? It's weird. It's different. It's different? What do you think about meat with our animals being slaughtered? I think it's a good idea. It's good, but it's something different, it's nice. It puts a little bit of colour to the tree. A bit healthier? Definitely, definitely. And we should talk about the number one killer of human beings, which is heart disease and... And what's that caused by? Saturated fat, cholesterol, trans fats, all of these things that are so prominent in meat products. And how come you were there? Whole foods plant-based diet, clinically shown to reverse it. The Esselstynes study that he did? It's way more profitable, way more profitable than it was. Wow! Do you have a restaurant too? It's important there. Do you have any vegan options there? Yeah, quite. And we're working on a new menu, we've got another ten items coming up. Amazing. Are there shrubbles? Most Sainsbury's will have them in the vegan vegetarian section there. No animals. They mince up the animals in the sausages. Kids don't even know they're in there. All right. So this way. Mushrooms. Okay.  Yeah, yeah. What about yourself?  Indeed, I do. You do? How do you feel about it? Great, to be honest. You see a slaughterhouse before? Don't watch it. I've seen for hours and hours of it and it's really horrible to see like them wanting to live and then they get hacked up and... Something that we should all think about. I think we should all. Do you want to take this with you, mate? Right. This is a little box. No worries, brother. Take care. He's got a vegan restaurant down there and he's got a vegan option and he's got... Press it. It's going to open a vegan menu down there too. So what do you think, Robbie? I was very impressed. It looks like meat. It doesn't actually smell like it but it probably tastes close to it but it just doesn't smell like traditional butcher in there. That's for sure. I predict it's going to stay open and they're going to have a lot more. Yeah?  Look at me. Look at me. People come through the door here. Well, that's yes from us. Yes from Robbie? Yes from us. Yes from Plum Boats News. Boom. The world's changing, eh? Let's do it.