Z is for Zombies

5 Responses so far.

1. 

   R Ventro says:

   March 14, 2013 at 4:40 PM

   9)Become an expert Scavenger.

2. 

   R Ventro says:

   March 16, 2013 at 6:36 AM

   10)Find a gardener or a book on gardening, and let the Food Rationing begin!

3. 

   Anonymous says:

   March 26, 2013 at 10:02 PM

   This comment has been removed by the author.
4. 

   Anonymous says:

   March 26, 2013 at 10:15 PM

   I have an addendum to part one of the rules:
   I think we should add 'Learn to let go'. There's something about 'find something worth fighting for', which doesn't encompass that bad things are going to happen, and we survivors should not let the bad outweigh the good. It is essential to survival that we learn to love, but especially in light of the zombie outbreak, we need to train ourselves to let go.

5. 

   "Good fences Make Good Neighbors" says:

   June 23, 2013 at 11:28 AM

   The zombie metaphor for Republicans is closer that we dare believe:
   
   READ "The Federalist Society: How Conservatives Took Back the Law from Liberals"
   
   reviewed here: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/12/books/review/the-federalist-society-by-michael-avery-and-danielle-mclaughlin.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0
   
   Here's a very insightful letter:
   
   Letter (New York Times)
   
   Law and Politics
   
   Published: May 23, 2013
   
   To the Editor:
   
   Jeffrey Rosen’s review of “The Federalist Society” (May 12) fails to state clearly what the book’s authors, Presidents Reagan and both Bushes, and Edwin Meese all clearly understood — that law is just politics by a different name, and that most Supreme Court justices are result-oriented and choose legal theories (originalism, judicial activism and the like) as window dressing while they get where they want to go.
   
   Although these illusory labels can be treated as serious methodologies and may be of interest to law professors, Meese called the American legal system the way he saw it: just another part of the government, neither higher nor lower than the other two branches, and one that must be muscled.
   
   The Federalist Society, contrary to the claims of Rosen and the book’s authors, did not change the law. The Supreme Court justices and the conservative lower-court appointees did. Contrary to Rosen, liberals did not lose out because of the paucity of their ideas. Presidents Clinton and Obama lost their court fights because they have been reluctant to be politically candid in their talk and aggressive in their appointments, underestimating their importance and putting them low on their agendas.
   
   The conservatives, seizing on the backlash to the Warren court, have, except with rare exceptions (the defeat of Robert Bork), won by default. That default, the authors correctly point out, continues today.
   
   MARTIN GARBUS
   
   New York
   
   The writer, a constitutional trial lawyer, is the author of several books on the Supreme Court.