Random acts of insanity

Bad (Non-Legal) Reporting of the Day

2010-03-14T04:33:00.000-07:00

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

2010-02-26T05:38:00.000-08:00

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

2010-02-25T03:50:00.000-08:00

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

Bad Legal Reporting of the Day

2010-02-19T04:39:00.001-08:00

"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.

2010-02-10T04:02:00.000-08:00

"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

2010-02-03T05:29:00.000-08:00

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

2010-01-25T04:36:00.000-08:00

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

2010-01-13T14:27:00.000-08:00

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.

Thought of the day

2009-12-27T05:45:00.000-08:00

Abraham Lincoln was not a supporter of "states' rights." That should be rather obvious.

Bad Legal Reporting of the Day

2009-12-09T03:56:00.000-08:00

Headline: "Beware cheaters: Your lover's spouse can sue you"
http://www.cnn.com/2009/LIVING/12/08/cheating.spouses.lawsuits/index.html

(1) You have to read the article to realize that the cause of action (alienation of affection) is on the way out, and now only exists in seven states.

(2) The article references a very real suit that happened in 2008, while neglecting to mention that it was one of only a handful filed that entire year.

(3) It doesn't mention that the suit is nearly impossible for the plaintiff to win. The wronged spouse has to prove that the extra wheel completely seduced the cheating spouse, and thus that the cheating spouse was not predisposed to cheat. And that's almost never the case.

Palingate, take 52

2009-07-04T07:54:00.000-07:00

I. In one of those “are you serious” moments, Sarah Palin decides to resign midway through her governor’s term…

a. Are you serious? She’s going to position herself to run for national office by quitting when the going gets tough? What, being the governor is no longer fun? Is this what she would do as President?

b. She talks about honoring the troops, but this is a full insult to them. Our troops don’t quit. They see it out.

c. She’s complaining about how rough the media, et. al. are on her. Meanwhile, Bill Clinton is…laughing? Like I’ve said before, she has the thinnest skin of any politician we have out there, and a key part of succeeding in politics is having a thick skin. The attacks are going to come: what she’s endured still pales in comparison to what Clinton went through, or even some of the attacks on Bush the Lesser. Her mindset is fascinating: every time someone says something bad about her, she cries foul, like it’s somehow impermissible. It’s part of politics, and a certain degree of it is integral for democracy. This isn’t a beauty contest.

d. She continually has these “how can they not like me?” moments, and the answer is easy: because she has yet to show a sincere interest in the governing portion of politics. The whole concept of “civic duty” is missing. And that’s kinda the key part.

e. Patriotism—her favorite word—is not a matter of waving a flag or giving great speeches. To borrow from Adlai Stevenson, “Patriotism is not a short, frenzied burst of emotion. It is the constant and steady dedication of a lifetime.” She’s great at the short, frenzied burst of emotion. When it came to the constant and steady dedication…she quit.

f. If you’re not having the success you want by working within the system, a true civic-minded person hunkers down and works harder from within. Because they believe that institutions, however flawed, are still the best. And that’s real courage, and real patriotism. Standing in there, day in and day out, working hands-on with the system.

g. She really thinks that she’s going to run for President with a grand experience of 2 ½ years as a governor under her belt?

h. We haven’t even touched the haste and erraticness. Doesn’t speak well of her reasoned judgment, the kind of steady hand a nation needs on its tiller.

i. The sudden decision actually speaks the loudest here. Either she really is that flighty, or something spooked her. Really bad.

II. I don’t like Michael Jackson. There, I said it.

III. Should I say anything about back-to-back Republican sex scandals? Bear in mind, sex isn’t a “Republican” problem, it’s something that dogs all politicians. But it’s a bigger deal when you have family-values politicians, who tend to be Republican (major exception: John Edwards.) I don’t really care about sex scandals, as long as it doesn’t interfere with their job performances. In Senator Ensign’s case, he lost his leadership post with the GOP, and he lost a degree of moral leadership with his constituents, so yes, it did interfere with his job performance. For Governor Sanford, he lost leadership status as well, both within the state government and with his constituents, so yes, it did interfere with his job performance. Solution: start electing bachelors. Or open swingers.

IV. Being the Fourth of July, and considering all of the cultural myths surrounding the founding of our country, I feel obligated to say something. But I won’t. Because really, I’ll cover it another day.

V. I would, however, like to agree that we should replace “The Star-Spangled Banner” with “This Land Is Your Land” as our national anthem.

Palingate, take 27 1/2

2009-06-17T05:29:00.000-07:00

I. The David Letterman-Willow Palin “controversy.” So apparently, instead of attending to the business of Alaska (what a novel concept), Governor Palin was in New York, and they made a family outing to a Yankees game, thus prompting Letterman to joke that Governor Palin’s daughter got knocked up by A-Rod. Lo and behold, a little fact-checking later, we discover that 18-year-old Bristol was not in attendance, but 14-year-old Willow was, raising a question of which daughter Letterman was referring to.

a. Clearly, if he was actually referring to Willow, it was across a line, and the nutcases are eagerly claiming “how could he not have known?” Very easily: it’s called assumptions and poor fact-checking. For the love of God, people, he made a mistake. Unlike others, he admitted it and apologized.

b. Governor Palin has very little room to complain when comedians talk about her family. Contrast her with another example: when Bill Clinton ran in 1992, Chelsea was 13, and the Clintons very deliberately kept her out of the spotlight; they asked the media to respect that, and the media—with a few exceptions from comedians—did just that. Easy, right?

c. Apparently not. Governor Palin has, from day one, thrust her children very much into the spotlight in some of the most egregious ways—this is a woman who has politicized her son’s military service and tried to force Bristol and Levi into a shotgun wedding. Levi’s not even her kid, but it didn’t stop her from forcing him into publicity. As questionable as Letterman’s joke was, Governor Palin brought this on her family.

d. Again, it was a joke! Public figures are subject to comedians. The other butts of jokes—even bad jokes—don’t whine like this.

e. Does this woman have the most sensitive skin in politics? Seriously, she cries foul whenever someone says anything about her! Remember, the relationship between the media and political figures is—theoretically—supposed to be antagonistical. That’s healthy. That’s part of a democratic society. People who thrust themselves in the public spotlight accept that mud will be thrown at them; that’s enshrined in libel and slander laws. If you can’t stand it, go back home. No one—and no one—else who has the brunt of Letterman’s jokes is complaining. You don’t see A-Rod bitching about it, do you?

f. She seems intent on silencing criticism. That’s not healthy! Towards the end of the elections, she appeared on SNL and joked about yanking their license because they made critical jokes about her—why does it seem like she may not have been joking?

g. As there’s always a punch line, a week ago the nutcases where complaining that President Obama traveled to New York on the public dime. Governor Palin also travels to New York—from a much farther distance—on the public dime. What for it…what for it…where’s the complaints again? Isn’t she from the party that opposes profligate spending?

h. And finally, it was a joke!

II. Since I can’t let it pass without mention, NFL player/thinks-he’s-a-star Donte Stallworth plead guilty yesterday to striking and killing a pedestrian while driving under the influence (.128). The judge gave a hefty imposed sentence, but only executed 30 days, with heavy probation.

a. Having been on both sides of the DUI debate, and being versed in the arguments regarding alcohol’s nullification of criminal intent, this is a shockingly low sentence. I don’t know if this is common in Florida—it may be—but this would not happen here in Minnesota.

b. My hunch—as sports reporters cannot report the law accurately—is that Florida doesn’t have a criminal vehicular homicide statute. CVH is designed specifically to address the relevant hole in common law-based homicide statutes. Under CVH, someone who commits homicide while driving under the influence isn’t treated as severely as regular homicide, but it is far more than the usual DUI statutes (which is essentially what Stallworth got).

c. Let me say this: I seriously doubt he got off because of his “athlete-celebrity” status. I really do think that it’s a hole in Florida law.

d. So rest assured, before the self-indignant fireworks begin, that back home in the northlands, he would be spending a minimum of a year and a day in state prison, and likely far more (3-4 years), with the usual bevy of suspended sentence & heavy probation after release.

III. Would it be right to not mention the Iranian debacle? Probably, yes, since the media is covering it ad nauseum. There’s even been some quality reporting, recognizing that the situation doesn’t fit into the pre-set circles and squares used by Fox News, et. al. But here’s the thing: this may have been the valid result. It is politically and mathematically possible. There is an incredible absence of fact behind any of the allegations. The doctrine of res ipsa loquitur fails when one can provide an entirely innocuous explanation for the result. So what’s the point?

a. We need to wait for the evidence.

b. The Iranian people won’t. Democratic legitimacy is as much about appearance as fact. I don’t expect the results to change, and if the protests don’t die off, I expect the Ayatollah will use a harsher hand. When all is said and done, Khamenei will still be in charge, but the veil of religious infallibility will have been pierced.