Bad (Non-Legal) Reporting of the Day

I. Cornell fraternity “accused” of hazing…as a lawyer and a person charged with policing a fraternity for hazing, this article is worthless.

a. First of all, au contraire to some of the posted comments, having an “opt-out” is not sufficient, due to the level of peer pressure involved.

b. If you read it, the author has a rather strong bias that seems to be his motive for writing the article. His “journalistic integrity” suffers accordingly.

c. The actual allegations are ludicrous. Yes, there are some “frats” that still do that stuff; not many, but a handful. But the sheer ludicrosity (is that a word?) makes me want to see real proof—not a handful of unverified emails that are missing any of the routing data. “Potentially libelous” is the correct term here.

d. Again (and I do not defend hazing), there are a lot of people who are completely ignorant about what actually takes place within Greek houses. It’s rather easy to tell who they are.

http://www.ivygateblog.com/2010/03/revealed-alpha-delta-phi-hazing-at-cornell-surprise-its-awful/

Line of the Day

Osama bin Laden once said that he wanted to bankrupt the U.S. So we did it ourselves, and beat him to it. That'll show him!

Line of the Day

"Scrooge went to bed a Republican, and woke up a Democrat."

Bad Legal Reporting of the Day

"Ex-New York Police Commissioner Bernard Kerik was sentenced to 48 months in prison Thursday after pleading guilty to charges of lying to Bush administration officials who vetted his unsuccessful 2004 nomination for homeland security secretary."

You have to read to the bottom to realize that the sentence was predominantly tied to his other crimes--the ones he lied about. It's not even clear that he was actually charged for the acts of lying; I'm not sure what the charge for that would actually be, unless the vetting procedure was considered a formal investigation.

Essentially, what really happened was that he was convicted for the underlying crimes, and the judge took the lying into account when deciding on the sentence (and yes, that is within the judge's discretion).

http://www.cnn.com/2010/CRIME/02/18/kerik.sentence/index.html?hpt=Sbin

Best. Ever.

"After a year and a half of exposure to this virulently toxic presence, the question on the table is: In our lifetime, has there ever been a worse human being in American politics than Sarah Palin? For all the morons and criminals and bigots we've been subjected to, has there been anyone else who has combined all of the fetid qualities -- the proud ignorance, the sadistic viciousness, the shameless hypocrisy, the arrogant laziness, the congenital dishonesty, the unctuous sanctimony, the bilious resentment, and whichever others I'm forgetting for the moment -- that this morals-free harridan so relentlessly displays? (Not to mention that atonal bray with which she communicates it all.)"

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/paul-slansky-/the-horror-the-horror_b_455738.html

Highlights from the STrib

I. Couple interesting articles/comments in the STrib today…

II. First, under the heading “I-494: The Twin Cities' highway to Hell?”, we have this hugely-insightful comment:

a. “Let's stop subsidizing the MTC and light rail then take the extra $ to fix the roads that people actually use. Traffic ran so much better when the MTC was out on strike that it was amazing. Limit the MTC to profitable routes and provide subsidized cabs for those unable to drive and we would be way ahead. Cars idling in traffic use far more energy than will ever be saved by the buses that clog the roads.”

b. Fact: light rail usage has exceeded expectations to such an extent that they’ve been scrambling to provide longer trains.

c. Fact: subsidizing cabs would be considerably more expensive than a bus system. Like, not even remotely close.

d. Fact: it’s not buses that clog roads and cause idling; there simply aren’t that many buses on the road, and they account for fewer than one in a thousand vehicles, even during rush hour.

e. Yes, cars idling in traffic consume energy, but you’re relating it to a spurious cause. Traffic gridlock is generally caused by two factors: (1) poor design, as this article claims, and (2) sheer volume of traffic, regardless of the type.

f. If you take out mass transit, far more cars will be on the road, and gridlock will shoot up. Pay attention to the traffic patterns around the Metrodome and Target Center—the city/Met rely on the light rail to clear out large numbers of people. Without it, the traffic would lock up hopelessly.

III. And the other, “Minnesota's 'DWI guy' grew weary of the grind,” about a lawyer who left the field due to exhaustion.

a. It’s actually a good article that doesn’t engage in the DWI blame game.

b. The attorney doesn’t take a moral stance on DWI, but says he got tired of the hopelessness—essentially, the fact that drunks will always drink, and drunk drivers will always drink and drive—and our current laws are completely ineffectual. Which they are.

c. “"We need a paradigm shift, not more nibbling around the edges," he said, adding that enhanced penalties "makes everyone feel better, but aren't really fruitful."”

d. I think anyone who works with chronic alcoholics and chronic drunk drivers would agree with that statement—penalizing an alcoholic is remarkably ineffective.

e. His basic idea is that the bars and alcohol industry should take on some of the costs, which I wholeheartedly agree with; the fact—the great fact—is that just over half of all alcohol sales in the US are to alcoholics. The alcohol industry relies on addiction to pay their bills, and they encourage the addiction and dangerous consumption.

f. If they pass the price on in the cost of alcohol, then, really, is that such a bad thing? Would increasing the cost of a drink really be bad for society?

IV. Finally, on the topic of bars taking responsibility—

a. First, the rule is that a bar cannot serve a “visibly” drunk person, emphasis on “visibly.” Opponents of the rule always claim that a bartender can’t tell; but in some cases, they can, and those are the cases that the rule applies to.

b. Secondly, I have on more than one instance been served when I was visibly, unquestionably, drunk. The rule that most bars use in practice is that they’ll serve you as long as you’re not causing problems or passing out. Really. The bar does know in most cases, and there’s nothing wrong with erring on the side of caution.

c. The vast majority of DWIs do not come from the “there were ten people at the table, and we have no idea who drank what!” They come from “there was one person at the end of the bar, and I tallied every drink he had.”

d. It’s best when I was there by myself, visibly drunk, and they could watch me walk out and get into my car…and then I’d go to the same bar the next day, and they’d repeat. The bar definitely knows when it’s a habitual drunk.

e. There’s also a res ipsa loquitur principle at work—when one bar is racking up multiple serious DWIs, it’s a strong indication that the bar itself is not doing everything it can.

f. And last, Isanti County has been doing a pilot program with this for several years that’s been remarkably effective. They don’t threaten any civil or criminal action; they simply report it to the insurance company. *Then* the bar operates on the “let’s be cautious” principle, and DWIs declined substantially.

Vikes choke

I. You go into a game, knowing that it’ll be decided by turnovers. Then you fumble six times, losing the ball three of them, and throw two interceptions. The Vikes deserved to lose that game, and let’s be fair: it wasn’t Favre’s final baffling interception that lost it. It was the fumbles. The only reason we still held in was Favre.

II. Two weeks in a row, the Saints’ defensive scheme was explicitly to knock the opposing quarterback out of the game. The hits may have been largely legal, but they were shitty. Seriously, does beating up on 38- and 40-year-olds make you a good team?

III. Never mind that, let’s look forward to next year here.

a. On the offense, Berrian, Rice, Harvin, Shiancoe, and Harvin are all returning; Chester Taylor will likely leave, which does hurt. He was the ultimate utility back this year.

b. The problem—repeatedly—was the offensive line. When you look at AP’s dropoff, it really came down to the o-line; when you look at Favre’s handful of bad games, it came down to the o-line. Losing Matt Birk was a big deal. That’s where they need to draft, and draft hard.

c. Quarterback…of course we don’t know, but Favre’s likely done, and neither T-Jack nor Rosenfels is the solution. Here’s a place to look at trading and free agency; with the weapons they have in place, you don’t want to wait for a QB to develop.

d. There’s not a lot of good choices on the market, but what about McNabb? He and Childress should fit together well. His biggest problem is injuries, which brings us back to the o-line.

e. And on that note, we’re stuck with Childress.

f. On the defense, is everyone returning? I think so…Winfield will be back to full health, which is big. They also need to look at middle linebacker; if Henderson comes back at full strength, he’s a great player, but that was one helluva injury.

IV. Super Bowl pick—the Colts. They won’t fumble, and Manning will pick apart the Saints D.

Email is the highest form of reason

Got this jewel in my email yesterday…

I am sending this to my e-mail list and that includes conservatives, liberals, and everybody in between. Even though we disagree on a number of issues, I count all of you as friends. My friend and neighbor wants to promote a "Congressional Reform Act of 2010." It would contain eight provisions, all of which would probably be strongly endorsed by those who drafted the Constitution and the Bill of Rights..

I know many of you will say, "this is impossible." Let me remind you, Congress has the lowest approval of any entity in Government, now is the time when Americans can join together to reform Congress - the entity that "represents" us.

We need to get a Senator to introduce this bill in the U.S. Senate and a Representative to introduce a similar bill in the U.S. House. These people will become American hero's.

Thanks,

A Fellow American

***********************************


Congressional Reform Act of 2010

1. Term Limits: 12 years only, one of the possible options below.

A. Two Six year Senate terms
B. Six Two year House terms
C. One Six year Senate term and three Two Year House terms

Serving in Congress is an honor, not a career. The Founding Fathers envisioned citizen legislators, serve your term(s), then go home and back to work.

2. No Tenure / No Pension:

A congressman collects a salary while in office and receives no pay when they are out of office.
Serving in Congress is an honor, not a career.. The Founding Fathers envisioned citizen legislators, serve your term(s), then go home and back to work.

3. Congress (past, present & future) participates in Social Security:

All funds in the Congressional retirement fund moves to the Social Security system immediately.
All future funds flow into the Social Security system, Congress participates with the American people.
Serving in Congress is an honor, not a career. The Founding Fathers envisioned citizen legislators, server your term(s), then go home and back to work.

4. Congress can purchase their own retirement plan just as all Americans.

Serving in Congress is an honor, not a career. The Founding Fathers envisioned citizen legislators, serve your term(s), then go home and back to work.

5. Congress will no longer vote themselves a pay raise. Congressional pay will rise by the lower of CPI or 3%.

Serving in Congress is an honor, not a career. The Founding Fathers envisioned citizen legislators, serve your term(s), then go home and back to work.

6. Congress loses their current health care system and participates in the same health care system as the American people.

Serving in Congress is an honor, not a career. The Founding Fathers envisioned citizen legislators, serve your term(s), then go home and back to work.

7. Congress must equally abide by all laws they impose on the American people.

Serving in Congress is an honor, not a career. The Founding Fathers envisioned citizen legislators, serve your term(s), then go home and back to work.

8. All contracts with past and present congressmen are void effective 1/1/2011.

The American people did not make this contract with congressmen, congressmen made all these contracts for themselves.
Serving in Congress is an honor, not a career. The Founding Fathers envisioned citizen legislators, serve your term(s), then go home and back to work.

If you agree with the above, pass it on to all in your address list. If not, just delete.

From a fellow American:

I. Term Limits: 12 years only, one of the possible options below.

a. Repeatedly, federal term limits are unconstitutional; they cannot be imposed by an act of Congress. “This would be endorsed by those who drafted the Constitution”? Really? Because they had the chance, and didn’t…

b. Every old guy is not worthless, and every new guy is not great. Seriously, you’d be throwing out some good with some bad, and replacing it with some good and some bad.

c. If a majority of the voters in the district vote for the long-term incumbent, that’s democracy. Imposing term limits effectively does an end-run around democracy; it prevents the voters from voting for the person of their choice. You need a political solution, not a legal one.

d. If you’re unhappy with long-term incumbents, look at the electoral process instead. The vast majority come from uncontested primaries and little-contested general elections, due to extreme gerrymandering. If you really want to hold incumbents accountable, then support legislation to end the rigging of congressional districts and make elections competitive.

II. Congress must equally abide by all laws they impose on the American people.

a. Um, that’s already law… “But they’re not!” So your solution is to tap them on the shoulder and tell them again?

b. How about practical suggestions, like beefed-up anti-corruption laws, ethics investigations, or the granddaddy: if a member of Congress isn’t abiding by the law, vote them out of office!

c. And if a majority of the voters re-elect the member of Congress, guess what? That’s democracy, warts and all.

III. All contracts with past and present congressmen are void effective 1/1/2011.

a. This one is my favorite. What the hell are they even talking about? “This contract?” What contract? This proposal is void due to vagueness…

IV. Financial suggestions:

a. No Tenure / No Pension: A congressman collects a salary while in office and receives no pay when they are out of office.

b. Congress (past, present & future) participates in Social Security, rather than the congressional retirement fund.

c. Congress can purchase their own retirement plan just as all Americans.

d. Congress will no longer vote themselves a pay raise. Congressional pay will rise by the lower of CPI or 3%.

e. The catches:

f. No one runs for Congress for the money and financial benefits. They’re just not that great.

g. Cutting financial benefits has one of two logical consequences:

i. It restricts public office to the independently wealthy, which results in a thoroughly unrepresentative body that lacks an understanding of lower/middle class economic concerns.

ii. It opens them up members of Congress to increased influence from lobbyists who can offer lucrative jobs later on.

h. Lengthy factual history has demonstrated that well-paid public servants tend be less corrupt and more independent from the very industries that they regulate. You do not want to have the head of the Senate Finance Committee dependent on the good will of Wall Street for his future salary (Sen. Chris Dodd…).

V. Congress loses their current health care system and participates in the same health care system as the American people.

a. This is typically a progressive idea, so you’d think I’d support it. But here’s my view:

i. If you put Congress completely in the open market pool, industry companies will give them favorable policies in exchange for favorable legislation.

ii. I think the answer isn’t to strip Congress of their insurance, but it is to reduce their benefits to the average tier for government employees.

VI. Finally, the whole proposal is based on the assertion that “Serving in Congress is an honor, not a career. The Founding Fathers envisioned citizen legislators, serve your term(s), then go home and back to work.” While I agree with the notion that it is an honor, here’s a couple points to consider:

a. The Founders were not monolithic in their beliefs and visions for the country.

b. The Federalist branch—John Adams, Alexander Hamilton, et. al.—did believe in having a class of professionals handling government. The Democratic-Republicans (the Jeffersonian side) was closer to the citizen-legislator ideal, but even they envisioned a “natural aristocracy.”

c. Amateur politicians tend to be more inept; and as it is, a professional class of legislative aides handles the real business of drafting legislation.

d. Citizen-legislators, as detailed above, are easier to buy off with promises of lucrative jobs later on.

e. The Constitution quite simply contains no such statement of principle. None, nada, nilch. And the Constitution is the highest statement of the Founders’ intentions.