Congressman Alan Grayson, of Florida's 8th District, wrote the US Attorney General to investigate the website www.MyCongressmanIsNuts.com, because of supposed fraud by the website author.
Apparently Grayson's beef with the website is that the author claims to live in Grayson's district but does not. Grayson thinks this horrible sin is fraud and that the website author is violating the election laws. It surely cannot be that Grayson would be trying to intimidate someone who is critical of him with the weight of the Department of Justice. I mean, surely that's an appropriate punishment for a local critic of a nobody Congressman. Has anyone ever heard of this guy? I didn't think so.
Democrats don't hate free speech at all! They hate people who have the nerve to speak different viewpoints than their own. Alan Grayson, get a pair of balls. You are in politics, and are unnerved by someone challenging you. If anyone should be investigated for breaking the law, it is Grayson, for abuse of process or some false accusation statute that the US Code almost certainly has (yes, lawyers don't know every law).
Tuesday, December 22, 2009
Monday, December 21, 2009
Employment Follies
Since I have taken and passed the Massachusetts bar exam, I have sent out more resumes than I can count. The result of my sending out so many resumes and cover letters makes the effort seem almost wasted: one interview. One freaking interview for a law firm associate job that the firm wanted to pay $42,000/year for. $42,000/year for an employee likely with $150,000 of debt that costs $1400/month to service and that the employer charges $150/hour for their services. In other words, practically indentured servitude (Yes, I'm sure many people would love to make $42,000/year nowadays, but those people don't have the debt new lawyers do).
While I have landed sporadic, part time work for an attorney in Boston, it hasn't changed that resume sending is one of the most perplexing activities in the world. While it is clear that more and more positions are seeing attorneys who last year would have been uninterested in them, there is a lot to wonder when sending out a resume. While cover letters may or may not matter, what should the resume look like? What does the resume reader like/dislike about my resume? If they do not interview me (and they almost always do not), why do they not? Of course, being an attorney now, I am the very reason hiring attorneys will not answer these questions, as they fear litigious applicants.
What makes this all the more perplexing are these two circumstances:
1) My part time work was secured based on an attorney's recommendation to another, and I was given the work before my resume was ever seen by my employer, and;
2) This one temporary job. I applied online for a temporary research position, and after realizing I would be out of town for 1/3 of the position's duration, gave up on it. However, within 45 minutes of applying, I got an email and a phone call. The next day, after responding to neither communication, I got another phone call. The day after this, despite not responding to any communication from the company yet, I get another phone call, and an email telling me I am hired, the policies and the time to arrive on Monday. This morning I receive a call wondering where I am, despite the fact that I did nothing more than send my resume through their website and realize I could not work when they needed. Also I have received an email requesting my availability for when I can work, despite the fact that I treated them differently than most job applicants, ignoring their every request.
The problem is trying to rectify the two odd situations above with sending out tons of resumes. If people are willing to give me opportunities based on the above, what does my resume do wrong that I'm only employed based on a cursory or no look of my resume?
Or if nothing is wrong with my resume, when will my resume get me a job? I'm tired of being one of the 18% or so unemployed or underemployed.
While I have landed sporadic, part time work for an attorney in Boston, it hasn't changed that resume sending is one of the most perplexing activities in the world. While it is clear that more and more positions are seeing attorneys who last year would have been uninterested in them, there is a lot to wonder when sending out a resume. While cover letters may or may not matter, what should the resume look like? What does the resume reader like/dislike about my resume? If they do not interview me (and they almost always do not), why do they not? Of course, being an attorney now, I am the very reason hiring attorneys will not answer these questions, as they fear litigious applicants.
What makes this all the more perplexing are these two circumstances:
1) My part time work was secured based on an attorney's recommendation to another, and I was given the work before my resume was ever seen by my employer, and;
2) This one temporary job. I applied online for a temporary research position, and after realizing I would be out of town for 1/3 of the position's duration, gave up on it. However, within 45 minutes of applying, I got an email and a phone call. The next day, after responding to neither communication, I got another phone call. The day after this, despite not responding to any communication from the company yet, I get another phone call, and an email telling me I am hired, the policies and the time to arrive on Monday. This morning I receive a call wondering where I am, despite the fact that I did nothing more than send my resume through their website and realize I could not work when they needed. Also I have received an email requesting my availability for when I can work, despite the fact that I treated them differently than most job applicants, ignoring their every request.
The problem is trying to rectify the two odd situations above with sending out tons of resumes. If people are willing to give me opportunities based on the above, what does my resume do wrong that I'm only employed based on a cursory or no look of my resume?
Or if nothing is wrong with my resume, when will my resume get me a job? I'm tired of being one of the 18% or so unemployed or underemployed.
Friday, December 11, 2009
Out of Control IRS
The IRS seems to think it should vary the population that it audits. Certain commentators, including some from Forbes who think taxpayers should be paid for an audit to make it more appealing, think the IRS should audit many more taxpayers than it currently does. The theory is that most under-report their taxes, so the more audits the IRS does, the more revenue the IRS receives. In fact, the Forbes article says that on average the underpayment in each audit is $19,000, so that is what an audit is worth to the IRS.
Here's Exhibit A for why this is a bad idea. Meet Rachael Porcaro, a 32 year old single mother of two who makes $19K at Supercuts and lives with her parents for $400/month. Her dealings with the IRS were detailed in the Seattle Times.
She was audited over the course of two years for claiming the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC) for her two children. Why would the IRS audit someone who makes so little money? According to Porcaro, the IRS thought that because she made so little money, she must be hiding income somewhere. Nevermind the fact that there are lots of people living below the poverty line in Seattle, she must be the one person hiding money. According to the IRS, if you are a family of three making less than $36K a year in Seattle, you're stealing or hiding money somewhere. Of course in Porcaro's case, even if she was hiding money, it likely wasn't taxable. She was living with her parents paying rent, but she could still receive $12,500 from each parent each year as a tax-free gift, and the IRS could not do anything about it.
The IRS originally said she could not claim the EITC for 2006 and 2007 nor her children as dependants for those years and assessed her $16,000 in back taxes. Nevermind she only makes $19,000 a year, has no house or car and no real way to pay that assessment. Porcaro's father had to spend $10,000 to hire an accountant to defend Porcaro's tax returns.
The IRS demanded copies of the blueprints of the house Porcaro lives in with her parents, bank statements, and had to prove her children were hers! The IRS decided eventually that she could claim the EITC, but made too little money to claim her children as dependants. So Porcaro had to pay $1500 to the IRS. For someone making $19,000, that probably is not the easiest thing to do, but it likely is easier than having to pay $16,000, or almost a year's salary for her.
What a disaster this situation is. This whole investigation probably cost $25K. The IRS will likely have to pay Porcaro's accountant $8K for his fees because the IRS was wrong to assess Porcaro for the EITC in the first place. So the US government is out about $20K or so to collect $1500. But for those in favor of greating IRS auditing, this is going to happen more and more.
The IRS cannot just audit wealthy people, and the IRS needs to ensure that it does not lose money on these audits, so the IRS will start picking on more and more people who can't afford to defend themselves. Porcaro was lucky in the sense that her parents would pay for an accountant to defend her, but many poor parents of young children do not have families with the income to do such a thing. Those people will have to go before the IRS alone, and the IRS will place liens on everything they have, essentially giving them no hope to ever get out of poverty, and giving poor people another reason to feel the government has it out for them.
The first thing I would do as Porcaro is to tell her parents to claim their grandchildren as a deduction. If the IRS doesn't think Porcaro provides more than half of her children's needs, it almost certainly can't state that her parents don't provide for their grandchildren. Porcaro's parents should file amended returns for all those years claiming their grandchildren as dependants, and dare the IRS to audit them again. Given that Porcaro's parents make more money than Porcaro, the dependent deduction will probably be valuable to them.
If the IRS is going to audit more people, standards need to be in place so that the IRS doesn't use poor people as a piggy bank to make audits worthwhile. Whether you agree or disagree with the EITC, many poor people rely on it, and taking it away years later would be financially crippling to these people. Wealthy people hire armies of attorneys to deal with the IRS because they are ruthless. Poor people don't have that ability, and I'm not saying attorneys should be appointed for them; but the IRS should not be able to increasingly look to poorer people to make audit successes look better.
Here's Exhibit A for why this is a bad idea. Meet Rachael Porcaro, a 32 year old single mother of two who makes $19K at Supercuts and lives with her parents for $400/month. Her dealings with the IRS were detailed in the Seattle Times.
She was audited over the course of two years for claiming the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC) for her two children. Why would the IRS audit someone who makes so little money? According to Porcaro, the IRS thought that because she made so little money, she must be hiding income somewhere. Nevermind the fact that there are lots of people living below the poverty line in Seattle, she must be the one person hiding money. According to the IRS, if you are a family of three making less than $36K a year in Seattle, you're stealing or hiding money somewhere. Of course in Porcaro's case, even if she was hiding money, it likely wasn't taxable. She was living with her parents paying rent, but she could still receive $12,500 from each parent each year as a tax-free gift, and the IRS could not do anything about it.
The IRS originally said she could not claim the EITC for 2006 and 2007 nor her children as dependants for those years and assessed her $16,000 in back taxes. Nevermind she only makes $19,000 a year, has no house or car and no real way to pay that assessment. Porcaro's father had to spend $10,000 to hire an accountant to defend Porcaro's tax returns.
The IRS demanded copies of the blueprints of the house Porcaro lives in with her parents, bank statements, and had to prove her children were hers! The IRS decided eventually that she could claim the EITC, but made too little money to claim her children as dependants. So Porcaro had to pay $1500 to the IRS. For someone making $19,000, that probably is not the easiest thing to do, but it likely is easier than having to pay $16,000, or almost a year's salary for her.
What a disaster this situation is. This whole investigation probably cost $25K. The IRS will likely have to pay Porcaro's accountant $8K for his fees because the IRS was wrong to assess Porcaro for the EITC in the first place. So the US government is out about $20K or so to collect $1500. But for those in favor of greating IRS auditing, this is going to happen more and more.
The IRS cannot just audit wealthy people, and the IRS needs to ensure that it does not lose money on these audits, so the IRS will start picking on more and more people who can't afford to defend themselves. Porcaro was lucky in the sense that her parents would pay for an accountant to defend her, but many poor parents of young children do not have families with the income to do such a thing. Those people will have to go before the IRS alone, and the IRS will place liens on everything they have, essentially giving them no hope to ever get out of poverty, and giving poor people another reason to feel the government has it out for them.
The first thing I would do as Porcaro is to tell her parents to claim their grandchildren as a deduction. If the IRS doesn't think Porcaro provides more than half of her children's needs, it almost certainly can't state that her parents don't provide for their grandchildren. Porcaro's parents should file amended returns for all those years claiming their grandchildren as dependants, and dare the IRS to audit them again. Given that Porcaro's parents make more money than Porcaro, the dependent deduction will probably be valuable to them.
If the IRS is going to audit more people, standards need to be in place so that the IRS doesn't use poor people as a piggy bank to make audits worthwhile. Whether you agree or disagree with the EITC, many poor people rely on it, and taking it away years later would be financially crippling to these people. Wealthy people hire armies of attorneys to deal with the IRS because they are ruthless. Poor people don't have that ability, and I'm not saying attorneys should be appointed for them; but the IRS should not be able to increasingly look to poorer people to make audit successes look better.
Sunday, December 6, 2009
Esquire, Officially
Having been sworn in to the Massachusetts Bar and a bona fide attorney, I added the disclaimer at the top just to be on the safe side.
Not that anyone reads these to begin with (except the UMass posts, which seem to really bother SNESL people for some reason), but it is better to be extremely safe than sorry, as one of those SNESL people might try to report me for some reason.
For the foreseeable future, I am a Brookline solo practitioner in general practice, so if by some reason you need legal advice or a referral to someone who can give you better legal advice, I can be reached at sam @ samuel-miller.com. I've already successfully assisted one client, and I can probably do the same for you.
One more disclaimer: This post may be considered advertising as the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court defines it for attorneys.
Not that anyone reads these to begin with (except the UMass posts, which seem to really bother SNESL people for some reason), but it is better to be extremely safe than sorry, as one of those SNESL people might try to report me for some reason.
For the foreseeable future, I am a Brookline solo practitioner in general practice, so if by some reason you need legal advice or a referral to someone who can give you better legal advice, I can be reached at sam @ samuel-miller.com. I've already successfully assisted one client, and I can probably do the same for you.
One more disclaimer: This post may be considered advertising as the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court defines it for attorneys.
Wednesday, December 2, 2009
Bad Idea Continued: UMass Law School Passes Hurdle
The proposed transformation of unaccredited mess of a law school Southern New England Law into a supposedly new and improved UMass Law School passed another hurdle today.
The UMass "Board of Trustees' Committee on Administration and Finance", whatever that is, passed a resolution to take over SNESL by a 12-4 vote. Now the proposal goes to the Finance Committee, the UMass Board of Trustees, and finally the Mass Board of Education. The first time SNESL tried to sucker UMass into assuming control of it, it went all the way to the Board of Education, so this is not necessarily a sign that UMass will take the school over. However, Gov. Deval Patrick, of Harvard Law, is in favor of the law school, so the Board of Education may be more supportive.
Of course, the press release states that UMass is this much closer to providing a "low cost" $24K/year law school education, and offering half tuition off for four years of public employment after that. Of course, if this were such a good idea, SNESL, with its tuition of about $22K, would have public interest hopeful lawyers lining up. However, that is not the case.
While law schools are a prestige item and a cash cow for universities, the costs of running a law school are high. Professors, who would make mid six figure and higher salaries in the private sector, are very expensive and very fickle. The SNESL professors are what you would expect from a school with a lower cost, not as impressive. If SNESL is to get accredited, it needs to wildly expand its library, physical plant and professors, and raising tuition and student class size is not going to make it happen without a bailout from Massachusetts, despite that SNESL and UMass say that is not necessary.
The strategy by SNESL and UMass is to keep repeating the no-cost line ad naseum until the Board finally breaks down and approves the SNESL bailout. Of course, once the law school is approved and UMass takes it over, magically these "unexpected costs" of complying with the ABA accreditation standard are "found", and one of two things will need to be done: either raise tuition or get state aid. Of course, since the supposed purpose of the law school is to get lawyers "interested" in public service, UMass will seek its bailout then, hoping the state economic situation and tax revenues are better situated than currently.
It is a total sham, represented perfectly by this fact: If SNESL could get accredited by raising tuition and adding students, why have they not done it already? Why would they forfeit their assets to UMass in return for ZERO? Because they cannot do it. SNESL could sell its buildings, assets and cash for something, but the law school is worthless. No one creates a private law school in the hope the state will take it over some day. If SNESL could be accredited on the terms UMass says they could be accredited on, there would be absolutely no need for this takeover.
Why does UMass want a law school? Prestige. Plain and simple. It also, coincidentally of course, gives them another school to stock full of patronage hires who are unqualified to teach at any current law school. Another layer of bureaucracy at a university full of bureaucracy, for the next generation of political hacks.
A very bad idea, the UMass Law School.
The UMass "Board of Trustees' Committee on Administration and Finance", whatever that is, passed a resolution to take over SNESL by a 12-4 vote. Now the proposal goes to the Finance Committee, the UMass Board of Trustees, and finally the Mass Board of Education. The first time SNESL tried to sucker UMass into assuming control of it, it went all the way to the Board of Education, so this is not necessarily a sign that UMass will take the school over. However, Gov. Deval Patrick, of Harvard Law, is in favor of the law school, so the Board of Education may be more supportive.
Of course, the press release states that UMass is this much closer to providing a "low cost" $24K/year law school education, and offering half tuition off for four years of public employment after that. Of course, if this were such a good idea, SNESL, with its tuition of about $22K, would have public interest hopeful lawyers lining up. However, that is not the case.
While law schools are a prestige item and a cash cow for universities, the costs of running a law school are high. Professors, who would make mid six figure and higher salaries in the private sector, are very expensive and very fickle. The SNESL professors are what you would expect from a school with a lower cost, not as impressive. If SNESL is to get accredited, it needs to wildly expand its library, physical plant and professors, and raising tuition and student class size is not going to make it happen without a bailout from Massachusetts, despite that SNESL and UMass say that is not necessary.
The strategy by SNESL and UMass is to keep repeating the no-cost line ad naseum until the Board finally breaks down and approves the SNESL bailout. Of course, once the law school is approved and UMass takes it over, magically these "unexpected costs" of complying with the ABA accreditation standard are "found", and one of two things will need to be done: either raise tuition or get state aid. Of course, since the supposed purpose of the law school is to get lawyers "interested" in public service, UMass will seek its bailout then, hoping the state economic situation and tax revenues are better situated than currently.
It is a total sham, represented perfectly by this fact: If SNESL could get accredited by raising tuition and adding students, why have they not done it already? Why would they forfeit their assets to UMass in return for ZERO? Because they cannot do it. SNESL could sell its buildings, assets and cash for something, but the law school is worthless. No one creates a private law school in the hope the state will take it over some day. If SNESL could be accredited on the terms UMass says they could be accredited on, there would be absolutely no need for this takeover.
Why does UMass want a law school? Prestige. Plain and simple. It also, coincidentally of course, gives them another school to stock full of patronage hires who are unqualified to teach at any current law school. Another layer of bureaucracy at a university full of bureaucracy, for the next generation of political hacks.
A very bad idea, the UMass Law School.
Monday, November 30, 2009
Throw the Indian State Dinner Crashers in Jail
And here's how.
18 U.S.C. 1001 allows prosecution of those who “in any matter within the jurisdiction of the executive, legislative, or judicial branch of the Government of the United States, knowingly and willfully falsifies, conceals, or covers up by any trick, scheme, or device a material fact” or “makes any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or representation."
Sounds like those stupid wannabe-reality TV stars to me.
The link above to the Law Blog post states that the defendants would put the blame on the gatekeepers at the event for not keeping them out or asking them questions to cause the defendants to make a false statement or cover up. Nonetheless, it would be impossible for the defendant couple to explain away what they did without using a cover up by trick. The statute was used on those in the Jack Abramoff scandal, so the statute is not a relic of the Alien and Sedition Acts.
Prosecuting the stupid Balloon family in Colorado and these wannabe-socialites in Virginia will serve as a lesson that just because Bravo or one of the myriad of stupid cable channels want to make you a "reality star," you're still nobody.
18 U.S.C. 1001 allows prosecution of those who “in any matter within the jurisdiction of the executive, legislative, or judicial branch of the Government of the United States, knowingly and willfully falsifies, conceals, or covers up by any trick, scheme, or device a material fact” or “makes any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or representation."
Sounds like those stupid wannabe-reality TV stars to me.
The link above to the Law Blog post states that the defendants would put the blame on the gatekeepers at the event for not keeping them out or asking them questions to cause the defendants to make a false statement or cover up. Nonetheless, it would be impossible for the defendant couple to explain away what they did without using a cover up by trick. The statute was used on those in the Jack Abramoff scandal, so the statute is not a relic of the Alien and Sedition Acts.
Prosecuting the stupid Balloon family in Colorado and these wannabe-socialites in Virginia will serve as a lesson that just because Bravo or one of the myriad of stupid cable channels want to make you a "reality star," you're still nobody.
Wednesday, November 18, 2009
Anti-Bullying Statutes Won't Work
The Boston Globe, of the "shove a UMass Law School down peoples' throats crowd", has written two articles this week about a "push" for an anti-bullying statute in Massachusetts to protect students in schools and online. The most popular anti-bullying statute making the rounds in Massachusetts would ban bullying on school grounds and make bullying a mandatory reporting activity for teachers, similar to how child abuse concerns are treated. Who the teachers would report bullying to is another matter.
Yesterday there was a hearing in the Massachusetts State House where bullies, the bullied and "experts" got to talk about the supposed effect bullying has on students. My favorite quotes:
A girl who left Swampscott schools because of supposed bullying: ""I was pushed out of the town I spent my whole life in. I found a school that I feel comfortable in, but I wonder if the school had reacted in an appropriate way, would I still be a student in Swampscott schools?" she said."
Ignore the fact that her mother likely wrote her statement that she read from. Also ignore the fact that some teacher probably gave her extra credit for reading this statement at the hearing. She plays the victim well. I was pushed out... blah blah blah. Where were her parents? Where were her teachers? When I was in grade school and kids picked on other kids or me, the kids fought back or told their teacher, who put a stop to it. If that failed, the parents got involved, and it eventually stopped. Children don't interact anymore, they are allowed to speak to each other, but every type of interaction is micromanaged. Whereas twenty years ago, kids would have dealt with this reasonably, now the parents have conditioned the kids to think that if someone bothers them, to run away. Now on to what a bully says.
A "reformed bully": ""Last year, I was part of the problem. I was insensitive and I treated my peers without consideration,'' said the student..."
This kid cannot be serious. His statement reads like a court-ordered essay a kid convicted as a juvenile of shoplifting or some minor crime might be required to write to show remorse. This is faux remorse. Likely also written by the parents. However, these are still more believable than the professor's statement.
A Northeastern University prof: ""Bullying should be a red flag," he said. "The Virginia Tech killer was bullied and harassed and no one offered a helping hand. The origins of the Virginia Tech massacre can be seen in the killer's life, long before he got to college."
Professors, particularly the sociologists who love grouping people, have decided, based on specious examples and reasoning, that bullies are likely to cause mass murder. The Columbine killers were bullied, the Fort Hood sociopath was bullied because he was a Muslim, and so on. If only teachers had been able to find these troubled youngsters while they were getting bullied, and the world would be spared these cold-blooded killers, created by the taunts they received as youths. The professor also testified that bullying can make this happen, but does not always happen.
This is similar to claims that video games are responsible for violent activities. It sounds logical right? Bullying is hurtful to the bullied and they build up rage and eventually pop. Just as logical as the idea that growing up playing violent video games makes people want to be violent. Except studies do not show this to be true. The link between bullying and snapping just is not there. Sure, kids who get bullied may eventually fight back at those who are bullying them, but there's an argument to be made that fighting back is healthy behavior, at least 15-20 years ago the argument would have been made. Today, people isolate the children not getting along and make sure there is no conflict, because nobody's children should deal with interpersonal conflict... until it's too late, and they have to deal with conflict but have no clue how to act like a normal person. It is not that bullying is appropriate, it is that it is human, and depriving children the opportunity to learn and adjust to these behaviors through legislating away activity just makes for weaker children overall.
What good would the legislation do? Nothing. Bullying likely is not allowed on any school grounds currently. Making it against the law does nothing for anyone involved. Mandatory reporting requirements by teachers are also useless. Who do they report to? Social services? A school psychologist? Are parents going to have to go to behavioral training with their children? Nothing a statute accomplishes will be of any use of all.
This is just one more attempt to legislate everything away that might possibly be harmful. Even though they are kids, they should learn to grow up and accept that not everyone in life is going to be very nice, no matter what their parents say. If they pass anti-bullying statutes, why not force kids to play football in plastic bubbles? After all, it's just for their protection, just like protecting them from bullies.
Yesterday there was a hearing in the Massachusetts State House where bullies, the bullied and "experts" got to talk about the supposed effect bullying has on students. My favorite quotes:
A girl who left Swampscott schools because of supposed bullying: ""I was pushed out of the town I spent my whole life in. I found a school that I feel comfortable in, but I wonder if the school had reacted in an appropriate way, would I still be a student in Swampscott schools?" she said."
Ignore the fact that her mother likely wrote her statement that she read from. Also ignore the fact that some teacher probably gave her extra credit for reading this statement at the hearing. She plays the victim well. I was pushed out... blah blah blah. Where were her parents? Where were her teachers? When I was in grade school and kids picked on other kids or me, the kids fought back or told their teacher, who put a stop to it. If that failed, the parents got involved, and it eventually stopped. Children don't interact anymore, they are allowed to speak to each other, but every type of interaction is micromanaged. Whereas twenty years ago, kids would have dealt with this reasonably, now the parents have conditioned the kids to think that if someone bothers them, to run away. Now on to what a bully says.
A "reformed bully": ""Last year, I was part of the problem. I was insensitive and I treated my peers without consideration,'' said the student..."
This kid cannot be serious. His statement reads like a court-ordered essay a kid convicted as a juvenile of shoplifting or some minor crime might be required to write to show remorse. This is faux remorse. Likely also written by the parents. However, these are still more believable than the professor's statement.
A Northeastern University prof: ""Bullying should be a red flag," he said. "The Virginia Tech killer was bullied and harassed and no one offered a helping hand. The origins of the Virginia Tech massacre can be seen in the killer's life, long before he got to college."
Professors, particularly the sociologists who love grouping people, have decided, based on specious examples and reasoning, that bullies are likely to cause mass murder. The Columbine killers were bullied, the Fort Hood sociopath was bullied because he was a Muslim, and so on. If only teachers had been able to find these troubled youngsters while they were getting bullied, and the world would be spared these cold-blooded killers, created by the taunts they received as youths. The professor also testified that bullying can make this happen, but does not always happen.
This is similar to claims that video games are responsible for violent activities. It sounds logical right? Bullying is hurtful to the bullied and they build up rage and eventually pop. Just as logical as the idea that growing up playing violent video games makes people want to be violent. Except studies do not show this to be true. The link between bullying and snapping just is not there. Sure, kids who get bullied may eventually fight back at those who are bullying them, but there's an argument to be made that fighting back is healthy behavior, at least 15-20 years ago the argument would have been made. Today, people isolate the children not getting along and make sure there is no conflict, because nobody's children should deal with interpersonal conflict... until it's too late, and they have to deal with conflict but have no clue how to act like a normal person. It is not that bullying is appropriate, it is that it is human, and depriving children the opportunity to learn and adjust to these behaviors through legislating away activity just makes for weaker children overall.
What good would the legislation do? Nothing. Bullying likely is not allowed on any school grounds currently. Making it against the law does nothing for anyone involved. Mandatory reporting requirements by teachers are also useless. Who do they report to? Social services? A school psychologist? Are parents going to have to go to behavioral training with their children? Nothing a statute accomplishes will be of any use of all.
This is just one more attempt to legislate everything away that might possibly be harmful. Even though they are kids, they should learn to grow up and accept that not everyone in life is going to be very nice, no matter what their parents say. If they pass anti-bullying statutes, why not force kids to play football in plastic bubbles? After all, it's just for their protection, just like protecting them from bullies.
Monday, November 16, 2009
4th and F
What a kick in the teeth, Belichick.
It is one thing to show confidence in your offense to get the job done, but it is completely another to show such a lack of faith in your defense that you will do something so risky. Why risk giving an offense with so much momentum such a short field?
This could be the Colts Baltimore Ravens game, when the Patriots in 2007 continued their undefeated season by beating the Ravens by the skin of their teeth thanks to a poor time-out call at the end by the Ravens. Here, Belichick threw the game away to the Colts.
If the Colts are going to go undefeated (which I sincerely doubt... their defense is just horrible), here's hoping they do just as well in the playoffs as the 2007 Pats.
It is one thing to show confidence in your offense to get the job done, but it is completely another to show such a lack of faith in your defense that you will do something so risky. Why risk giving an offense with so much momentum such a short field?
This could be the Colts Baltimore Ravens game, when the Patriots in 2007 continued their undefeated season by beating the Ravens by the skin of their teeth thanks to a poor time-out call at the end by the Ravens. Here, Belichick threw the game away to the Colts.
If the Colts are going to go undefeated (which I sincerely doubt... their defense is just horrible), here's hoping they do just as well in the playoffs as the 2007 Pats.
Monday, November 9, 2009
Bad Idea: A UMass Law School
The Boston Globe, doing the best it can to support UMass-Dartmouth's heist of Southern New England School of Law, has another article about UMass-Dartmouth's plan to turn a fourth rate college into a fourth rate college with a fifth rate law school.
Here, Southern New England School of Law is trying to say it really is not the horrible law school that the ABA purports it is. They found 18 alumni who were successful attorneys and would vouch for the school. SNESL states that they started a law review to show that their students are serious, but then states that the tuition is too low at SNESL for them to provide rigorous bar study curricula for the students and that in the last three years, 43% of SNESL bar takers passed, at a time where the average pass rate has been around 85%.
The big argument for the UMass Law School is that keeping the tuition low will allow attorneys into public service. The problem with this argument is that SNESL's current tuition is lower than the planned UMass Law School tuition. Currently the tuition at SNESL is $21,800. The planned UMass Law School tuition is about $24,000. If there really are students who want to go into public service, they can already attend SNESL or Mass School of Law and take the bar in Massachusetts or Connecticut.
SNESL could continue the mission it claims that UMass could only provide. SNESL could increase enrollment to pay for better teachers, better curricula and better facilities without giving itself away to UMass. All the plans for the UMass Law School could be accomplished by SNESL without sticking UMass with any of the mess. SNESL will not undertake this plan because it knows it will fail, and it hopes that by merging with UMass that UMass will finance the millions needed to save their unaccredited school.
When someone comes up with a good, legitimate reason for a UMass Law School, they'll be the first.
Here, Southern New England School of Law is trying to say it really is not the horrible law school that the ABA purports it is. They found 18 alumni who were successful attorneys and would vouch for the school. SNESL states that they started a law review to show that their students are serious, but then states that the tuition is too low at SNESL for them to provide rigorous bar study curricula for the students and that in the last three years, 43% of SNESL bar takers passed, at a time where the average pass rate has been around 85%.
The big argument for the UMass Law School is that keeping the tuition low will allow attorneys into public service. The problem with this argument is that SNESL's current tuition is lower than the planned UMass Law School tuition. Currently the tuition at SNESL is $21,800. The planned UMass Law School tuition is about $24,000. If there really are students who want to go into public service, they can already attend SNESL or Mass School of Law and take the bar in Massachusetts or Connecticut.
SNESL could continue the mission it claims that UMass could only provide. SNESL could increase enrollment to pay for better teachers, better curricula and better facilities without giving itself away to UMass. All the plans for the UMass Law School could be accomplished by SNESL without sticking UMass with any of the mess. SNESL will not undertake this plan because it knows it will fail, and it hopes that by merging with UMass that UMass will finance the millions needed to save their unaccredited school.
When someone comes up with a good, legitimate reason for a UMass Law School, they'll be the first.
Saturday, November 7, 2009
Unemployment
Think 10.2% is bad?
Consider 17.5%. That is the unemployment rate when those who have given up looking for employment or are working part time and looking for full time employment are included as unemployed.
Supposedly the unemployment rate for college graduates fell to 4.7% from 4.9%. It certainly does not feel like it from my perspective. Interviewing for an entry-level attorney position, the interviewer suggested that because of the economy the firm would be able to offer a salary in the low $40K range and attract a qualified law graduate. This is in metro Boston, with the average law graduate over $100K in debt and making substantial other payments (rent, utilities, etc).
The problem is, even if an attorney accepts the low wage, he/she will continue to look for employment. This essentially keeps the attorney in the 17.5% of unemployed/underemployed and does nothing for the economy, as his entire salary is paying off his education. And no matter whether the college graduate unemployment rate is 5%, 15% or 0%, unless the 17.5% rate comes down, salaries will keep going down.
It could be worse though. The teenage unemployment rate is 27.6%. At least for their sake, many of them don't have monthly expenses of adults.
Consider 17.5%. That is the unemployment rate when those who have given up looking for employment or are working part time and looking for full time employment are included as unemployed.
Supposedly the unemployment rate for college graduates fell to 4.7% from 4.9%. It certainly does not feel like it from my perspective. Interviewing for an entry-level attorney position, the interviewer suggested that because of the economy the firm would be able to offer a salary in the low $40K range and attract a qualified law graduate. This is in metro Boston, with the average law graduate over $100K in debt and making substantial other payments (rent, utilities, etc).
The problem is, even if an attorney accepts the low wage, he/she will continue to look for employment. This essentially keeps the attorney in the 17.5% of unemployed/underemployed and does nothing for the economy, as his entire salary is paying off his education. And no matter whether the college graduate unemployment rate is 5%, 15% or 0%, unless the 17.5% rate comes down, salaries will keep going down.
It could be worse though. The teenage unemployment rate is 27.6%. At least for their sake, many of them don't have monthly expenses of adults.
Wednesday, November 4, 2009
Simpsons Aptitude > Legal Aptitude
Duke Law 2L Andrew Blumberg knows his Simpsons. So much so that he was able to point out an error in a Simpsons trivia question to none other than Yeardley Smith, the voice of Lisa.
Blumberg was participating with a pastry chef in a Simpsons cake challenge on the show Food Network Challenge, oddly enough, on the Food Network.
When Smith asked a trivia question about who Lisa's tap dance teacher was and Smith stated Blumberg's answer was wrong, Blumberg started reciting the episode dialogue from memory to prove that his answer was correct and that the tap dancing teacher was known as Little Vicki.
Blumberg stated that he was happy to use his only marketable skill, Simpsons knowledge. As a law graduate, I can certainly tell him that Simpsons knowledge is much more marketable than legal knowledge, particularly now. Since his team won the Food Network Challenge, the $10K prize makes Simpsons knowledge more lucrative as well.
Blumberg was participating with a pastry chef in a Simpsons cake challenge on the show Food Network Challenge, oddly enough, on the Food Network.
When Smith asked a trivia question about who Lisa's tap dance teacher was and Smith stated Blumberg's answer was wrong, Blumberg started reciting the episode dialogue from memory to prove that his answer was correct and that the tap dancing teacher was known as Little Vicki.
Blumberg stated that he was happy to use his only marketable skill, Simpsons knowledge. As a law graduate, I can certainly tell him that Simpsons knowledge is much more marketable than legal knowledge, particularly now. Since his team won the Food Network Challenge, the $10K prize makes Simpsons knowledge more lucrative as well.
Tuesday, November 3, 2009
The Colbert US Speedskating Team
The US Speedskating Team must be very hard up for donations. Stephen Colbert is having the "Colbert Nation" sponsor the team, and the sponsorship idea seems to be that Colbert will solicit donations for the team and not contribute anything himself.
On the one hand, people may not give the team as much money as the previous sponsor DSB Bank.
On the other hand, Colbert is going to beat the Speedskating team like a dead horse on his show. Speedskating is in the middle of the road in terms of popularity in the Winter Olympics. Colbert's show gets 1-2 million viewers a night, and likely in a different demographic compared to those who watch the Winter Olympics.
But no publicity is bad publicity, and public donations are probably better than sponsorship by an insolvent Dutch bank, so the Speedskating Team is probably better off for it. Large sponsors of sporting teams or events are not easy to find, sponsors are much more likely to be backing out than willing to support teams in this economy. When Colbert showed interest, the Speedskating Team probably jumped at it, realizing it was probably their most lucrative opportunity.
But hopefully they do not become too much of a joke because of it.
On the one hand, people may not give the team as much money as the previous sponsor DSB Bank.
On the other hand, Colbert is going to beat the Speedskating team like a dead horse on his show. Speedskating is in the middle of the road in terms of popularity in the Winter Olympics. Colbert's show gets 1-2 million viewers a night, and likely in a different demographic compared to those who watch the Winter Olympics.
But no publicity is bad publicity, and public donations are probably better than sponsorship by an insolvent Dutch bank, so the Speedskating Team is probably better off for it. Large sponsors of sporting teams or events are not easy to find, sponsors are much more likely to be backing out than willing to support teams in this economy. When Colbert showed interest, the Speedskating Team probably jumped at it, realizing it was probably their most lucrative opportunity.
But hopefully they do not become too much of a joke because of it.
Don't Flip off a Judge
Unless you want to spend six months in jail.
Kane Kellett was appearance at a pre-trial hearing related to the criminal home invasion and assault charges against him. When Kellett took the stand at the hearing, he decided that was the proper time to flip off and swear at the judge. The judge found him in contempt and gave him six months in jail.
Clearly, considering that he faces multiple charges of assault and a home invasion, another six months in jail was likely the least of his worries.
But why risk it? Even if the defendant is unwilling to respect the court, not taking the stand is a much better option than flipping off the judge. Even the worst defense lawyer would probably be able to explain why flipping a judge off is a bad idea. I guess he has six months to see what a stupid thing he did before he goes back to jail for years.
Kane Kellett was appearance at a pre-trial hearing related to the criminal home invasion and assault charges against him. When Kellett took the stand at the hearing, he decided that was the proper time to flip off and swear at the judge. The judge found him in contempt and gave him six months in jail.
Clearly, considering that he faces multiple charges of assault and a home invasion, another six months in jail was likely the least of his worries.
But why risk it? Even if the defendant is unwilling to respect the court, not taking the stand is a much better option than flipping off the judge. Even the worst defense lawyer would probably be able to explain why flipping a judge off is a bad idea. I guess he has six months to see what a stupid thing he did before he goes back to jail for years.
Wednesday, October 28, 2009
Esquire
In one short (actually, really long) month, I'll get sworn in as an attorney in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.
The bar exam in Massachusetts is one long horrible wait. Most other states hear their results shortly after the National Conference of Bar Examiners releases the results of the Multistate Bar Examination to the states. But at least it's over!
Soon enough, I can put up my shingle and offer legal services. Kind of like a plumber. Just not as well paid.
The bar exam in Massachusetts is one long horrible wait. Most other states hear their results shortly after the National Conference of Bar Examiners releases the results of the Multistate Bar Examination to the states. But at least it's over!
Soon enough, I can put up my shingle and offer legal services. Kind of like a plumber. Just not as well paid.
Thursday, October 22, 2009
How Does Law and TV's The Office Mix? That's What She Said
It may be the best legal blog in the world. That's What She Said.
As in the blog, That's What She Said. A blog that recaps each new episode of The Office and calculates the value of any litigation resulting from the activities from each episode.
For example, according to That's What She Said, Stanley would be able to recover $100K for tortious invasion of privacy from Michael Scott and Dunder-Mifflin in the Season 6 premiere Office Scuttlebutt. The blog also has helpful hints for employers on how not to commit the tortious violations that Michael Scott seems to have a particular affinity for.
As in the blog, That's What She Said. A blog that recaps each new episode of The Office and calculates the value of any litigation resulting from the activities from each episode.
For example, according to That's What She Said, Stanley would be able to recover $100K for tortious invasion of privacy from Michael Scott and Dunder-Mifflin in the Season 6 premiere Office Scuttlebutt. The blog also has helpful hints for employers on how not to commit the tortious violations that Michael Scott seems to have a particular affinity for.
Tuesday, October 20, 2009
What Not to Do With Reality TV Prize Winnings
Don't invest your winnings in oxycodone for resale. Or at least, don't sell it to an undercover DEA agent.
That is what the DEA accuses Adam Jasinski of doing with his Big Brother 9 TV winnings. Jasinski apparently took his winnings and rolled it into oxycodone, then became the 21st century equivalence of the 19th century traveling medicine show, going up and down the East Coast selling it.
Now he finds himself with a court-appointed lawyer because all his money is in pill form. He should have followed his fellow Reality "star" Richard Hatch from survivor, who showed that if you break the law, break it by evading taxes on your winnings. Then you can use your winnings to hire a decent lawyer, or at least one of the not-court-appointed variety.
Of course, with the jail term for selling 2000 oxycodone pills about 20 years and the US Attorney's office's near undefeated track record in drug prosecutions, Jasinski won't be heard from anytime soon. And by then, Reality TV will hopefully be a long lost memory.
Adding insult to injury to Jasinski, given the ratings for Big Brother, most people will know Jasinski as "that idiot who turned his winnings into Federal prison" as opposed to "that idiot who won Big Brother".
That is what the DEA accuses Adam Jasinski of doing with his Big Brother 9 TV winnings. Jasinski apparently took his winnings and rolled it into oxycodone, then became the 21st century equivalence of the 19th century traveling medicine show, going up and down the East Coast selling it.
Now he finds himself with a court-appointed lawyer because all his money is in pill form. He should have followed his fellow Reality "star" Richard Hatch from survivor, who showed that if you break the law, break it by evading taxes on your winnings. Then you can use your winnings to hire a decent lawyer, or at least one of the not-court-appointed variety.
Of course, with the jail term for selling 2000 oxycodone pills about 20 years and the US Attorney's office's near undefeated track record in drug prosecutions, Jasinski won't be heard from anytime soon. And by then, Reality TV will hopefully be a long lost memory.
Adding insult to injury to Jasinski, given the ratings for Big Brother, most people will know Jasinski as "that idiot who turned his winnings into Federal prison" as opposed to "that idiot who won Big Brother".
Monday, October 19, 2009
More UMass Law School Madness
Today the Boston Globe has an article purportedly explaining the critics of a UMass law school. However, the article then speaks about how the new low priced UMass law school would help lawyers who wouldn't otherwise be able to pursue public interest law into public interest. A couple more points on why a UMass law school is a bad idea.
1. Despite the fact that Southern New England would "become" UMass law and despite the fact that it sounds like this would not really create a new law school, Massachusetts would in fact be creating a new law school through ABA accreditation. There are two tiers of law schools, ABA and non-ABA. The ABA ones count, the non-ABA ones do not. Right now, Southern NE grads can only take the bar exam in MA and CT. A UMass law school would seek ABA accreditation and would be in effect be adding a law school to the list of "real" law schools in Massachusetts.
2. A $24,000 tuition will drive ZERO more lawyers into public interest law. If UMass is serious about driving public interest students to its law school it should do what Cal-Irvine did, give free tuition to its entire opening class. $24,000 tuition means that after three years of tuition and expenses, a UMass graduate will likely have $80-100K in law school debt at graduation.
3. Assuming that these grads have undergrad debt, and UMass law students will be just in need of real jobs as every other law graduate in Massachusetts, and unless UMass law were to raise the millions of dollars needed to finance loan repayment, the only way UMass law accomplishes that is by using tax money. The UMass people are adamant that their plan won't cost public money, but there is no chance it won't. If not on loan repayment, on scholarships or capital contributions or anything to drive people to UMass.
4. Massachusetts already have law schools dedicated to public interest law. Harvard and Northeastern specially, but the other Massachusetts law schools already turn out hundreds of public interest lawyers every year. The restriction on the amount of public interest jobs out there has nothing to do with the number of lawyers, it has to do with the amount of money that public interest employers have. If the state really were interested in the number of public interest lawyers, they would put money in the budget for hiring public defenders, not take over a 5th rate law school.
5. Criticism of the UMass law school by legislators is not just because they went to private law schools supposedly "threatened" by a UMass law school. It is because it is a bad idea. In this economy, a new law school makes no sense, especially when the motivation behind it is as a profit center to UMass-Dartmouth. It will be selling false hope to prospective lawyers that a low debt load will be more help to them than internship opportunities and a thriving alumni community.
Obviously, these are but a few reasons for not adding a UMass law school, but these are clearly some of the most obvious.
1. Despite the fact that Southern New England would "become" UMass law and despite the fact that it sounds like this would not really create a new law school, Massachusetts would in fact be creating a new law school through ABA accreditation. There are two tiers of law schools, ABA and non-ABA. The ABA ones count, the non-ABA ones do not. Right now, Southern NE grads can only take the bar exam in MA and CT. A UMass law school would seek ABA accreditation and would be in effect be adding a law school to the list of "real" law schools in Massachusetts.
2. A $24,000 tuition will drive ZERO more lawyers into public interest law. If UMass is serious about driving public interest students to its law school it should do what Cal-Irvine did, give free tuition to its entire opening class. $24,000 tuition means that after three years of tuition and expenses, a UMass graduate will likely have $80-100K in law school debt at graduation.
3. Assuming that these grads have undergrad debt, and UMass law students will be just in need of real jobs as every other law graduate in Massachusetts, and unless UMass law were to raise the millions of dollars needed to finance loan repayment, the only way UMass law accomplishes that is by using tax money. The UMass people are adamant that their plan won't cost public money, but there is no chance it won't. If not on loan repayment, on scholarships or capital contributions or anything to drive people to UMass.
4. Massachusetts already have law schools dedicated to public interest law. Harvard and Northeastern specially, but the other Massachusetts law schools already turn out hundreds of public interest lawyers every year. The restriction on the amount of public interest jobs out there has nothing to do with the number of lawyers, it has to do with the amount of money that public interest employers have. If the state really were interested in the number of public interest lawyers, they would put money in the budget for hiring public defenders, not take over a 5th rate law school.
5. Criticism of the UMass law school by legislators is not just because they went to private law schools supposedly "threatened" by a UMass law school. It is because it is a bad idea. In this economy, a new law school makes no sense, especially when the motivation behind it is as a profit center to UMass-Dartmouth. It will be selling false hope to prospective lawyers that a low debt load will be more help to them than internship opportunities and a thriving alumni community.
Obviously, these are but a few reasons for not adding a UMass law school, but these are clearly some of the most obvious.
Thursday, October 15, 2009
No Public Massachusetts Law Schools
Tim Cahill is right, Massachusetts does not need a public law school. Sure, the idea of getting to go to law school without incurring that much more debt is appealing, but students to the proposed UMass law school would not be getting much for their dollar.
For one, Massachusetts should not be spending tens of millions of dollars to get the Southern New England School of Law up to snuff for ABA accreditation. UMass-Dartmouth says it won't be spending state money, only university money to get the law school improved, but university money comes from the state one way or another. Massachusetts does not need to spend the money because there are already a myriad of choices of law schools in Massachusetts, whether they are Harvard, Boston College, Suffolk, Western New England or the others. If a student can't spend the money for law school and does not care about ABA accreditation, Mass School of Law in Andover is an option to go to law school inexpensively without sacrificing the ability to take the bar exam in Massachusetts. For the first few years, the proposed law school would likely not be even provisionally accredited by the ABA, a status given to most new law schools like Drexel and Cal-Irvine that are likely to be accredited on the standard ABA timetable.
The UMass law school is not needed because there is no need for more lawyers than the current law schools provide. A UMass law school would be a patronage dump for legislator/attorneys who leave office. UMass claims that the $24,000 tuition would more than cover the cost of attendance, and would turn the law school into a profit center, which would create more patronage hires in UMass. If students have a legitimate financial need in attending law school, the current private law schools already have many aid packages available for qualified students, from need based grants to zero interest loans to loan repayment assistance. A UMass law school is likely to not offer any of these options. People who go to law school have many options to cut their tuition expenses down, and don't need to resort to going to a public law school.
The UMass law school will be in Dartmouth. This will put the students at a severe disadvantage. All other ABA accredited Massachusetts law schools are in major population centers, either Boston or Springfield, giving law students ample opportunity to supplement their education with internships and employment after the first year. A law school in Dartmouth will be too far from the Boston market and the Providence market to give the students any real chance to participate in meaningful clinics, clerkships and other externships. UMass law students will graduate with fewer skills than current law students because of this.
It is a huge red flag that the law school UMass wants to acquire, Southern New England School of Law, is willing to turn over all its assets to UMass, including its cash, for $0. This makes clear that the administration, the physical plant, the facilities and the people clearly are nowhere close to making the law school ABA ready, and it will cost much more than the tens of millions that UMass claims will take to get the school accredited. Accreditation will still make the law school the worst ABA law school in Massachusetts, and without replacing almost the entire faculty and facilities, will ensure that a UMass law school will be a symbol of mediocrity. A mediocre UMass law school would bring down the reputation of all other UMass schools, from UMass-Amherst to UMass Medical School.
As a UMass-Boston and Suffolk Law School graduate, a UMass law school will cause much more damage to the UMass name than challenge Suffolk Law for law students. A Suffolk Law school will thrive even if UMass creates a law school because of its location, faculty and huge alumni base located within Massachusetts. UMass-Boston will only be lumped in with another mediocre school and will be guilty of mediocrity by association with a UMass law school. A public law school in Massachusetts is a mistake for these, and many other, reasons.
For one, Massachusetts should not be spending tens of millions of dollars to get the Southern New England School of Law up to snuff for ABA accreditation. UMass-Dartmouth says it won't be spending state money, only university money to get the law school improved, but university money comes from the state one way or another. Massachusetts does not need to spend the money because there are already a myriad of choices of law schools in Massachusetts, whether they are Harvard, Boston College, Suffolk, Western New England or the others. If a student can't spend the money for law school and does not care about ABA accreditation, Mass School of Law in Andover is an option to go to law school inexpensively without sacrificing the ability to take the bar exam in Massachusetts. For the first few years, the proposed law school would likely not be even provisionally accredited by the ABA, a status given to most new law schools like Drexel and Cal-Irvine that are likely to be accredited on the standard ABA timetable.
The UMass law school is not needed because there is no need for more lawyers than the current law schools provide. A UMass law school would be a patronage dump for legislator/attorneys who leave office. UMass claims that the $24,000 tuition would more than cover the cost of attendance, and would turn the law school into a profit center, which would create more patronage hires in UMass. If students have a legitimate financial need in attending law school, the current private law schools already have many aid packages available for qualified students, from need based grants to zero interest loans to loan repayment assistance. A UMass law school is likely to not offer any of these options. People who go to law school have many options to cut their tuition expenses down, and don't need to resort to going to a public law school.
The UMass law school will be in Dartmouth. This will put the students at a severe disadvantage. All other ABA accredited Massachusetts law schools are in major population centers, either Boston or Springfield, giving law students ample opportunity to supplement their education with internships and employment after the first year. A law school in Dartmouth will be too far from the Boston market and the Providence market to give the students any real chance to participate in meaningful clinics, clerkships and other externships. UMass law students will graduate with fewer skills than current law students because of this.
It is a huge red flag that the law school UMass wants to acquire, Southern New England School of Law, is willing to turn over all its assets to UMass, including its cash, for $0. This makes clear that the administration, the physical plant, the facilities and the people clearly are nowhere close to making the law school ABA ready, and it will cost much more than the tens of millions that UMass claims will take to get the school accredited. Accreditation will still make the law school the worst ABA law school in Massachusetts, and without replacing almost the entire faculty and facilities, will ensure that a UMass law school will be a symbol of mediocrity. A mediocre UMass law school would bring down the reputation of all other UMass schools, from UMass-Amherst to UMass Medical School.
As a UMass-Boston and Suffolk Law School graduate, a UMass law school will cause much more damage to the UMass name than challenge Suffolk Law for law students. A Suffolk Law school will thrive even if UMass creates a law school because of its location, faculty and huge alumni base located within Massachusetts. UMass-Boston will only be lumped in with another mediocre school and will be guilty of mediocrity by association with a UMass law school. A public law school in Massachusetts is a mistake for these, and many other, reasons.
Sunday, October 11, 2009
Tinfoil Hat Patrol, Vol. 1
In the first of what is likely an irregular series, I bring you The Tin-Foil Hat Patrol. This will place the spotlight on those conspiracy theories who use the legal system against the government in ways that show these pro se patriots clearly are a few eggs short of a dozen.
Meet Anthony P. Keyter. He has sued and sought criminal charges, among other things, from the following: George W. Bush; Bush, John Roberts, Alberto Gonzales and Robert Mueller; John McCain; Boeing; 230 Government Officers; John Ashcroft; Maureen Keyter (his likely ex-wife); Air India; Ford Motor Company; "443 Known Insurgents"; and the 535 members of the 110th Congress. According to him, 14,589 conspirators have conspired against him, 14,535 government officials and 54 others.
Now I know you must be thinking, "Just think of the legal fees he must be generating?" Alas, he is going pro se, partially because he likely cannot afford the fees and partially because no lawyer outside of a sanitarium would give Keyter the time of day.
Why not give Keyter the time of day? Well, he claims that George Bush ordered no action to be taken on this conspiracy to murden him despite Keyser's 64 letters to Bush regarding it. Keyter claims that the Supreme Court illegally removed evidence and failed to recuse all of its justices in the criminal complaint he filed with the Supreme Court against all of the justices for the supposed crimes the Court committed against him related to the attempt on Keyser's life.
These are just the tip of the iceberg. Keyser complains that on the eve of his Supreme Court filing against Bush, White House aides contacted Boeing with a scheme to kidnap him. The kidnapping failed, so they tried again, and in doing so ruined Keyser's career at Boeing. Somehow he also mentions that he was assigned to train Air India pilots to fly Boeing planes, and because he pointed out that the Indian pilots were lax on safety regulations, Air India told Boeing what had happened and Boeing and the US Government got together to attempt to kill him. Yikes.
Keyser claims that all law and order organizations in the government have refused to investigate his attempted kidnapping, so this means that the President, Congress and the heads of all Executive Agencies were involved in a Seditious Conspiracy to refuse to enforce the laws on the books. Keyser claims that President Obama was informed of the government's murder plot against Keyser in a meeting on January 7.
Yes, this is all a pretty rambling, silly synopsis of what he claims is the conspiracy directed by the tens of thousands of government officials against him. However, please understand that I take this information from his own synposis of his cases, and they are written by someone who clearly writes without regard for brevity or clarity.
Why does he sue everyone? Well, according to a judicial order in the Western District of Washington, it has all snowballed from the original divorce lawsuit against his ex-wife. When he got an unfavorable ruling, he appeared to take it out on an increasing number of people who were causing him problems in his divorce case. As the judge in Washington says:
Mr. Keyter was dissatisfied with the result of his divorce, and blamed the presiding judge, his former wife, and her attorney for the outcome. He then embarked on a campaign of communicating with government officials in an effort to correct what he believed to be a miscarriage of justice. When his efforts were unsuccessful, he named each of the officials with whom he communicated as a coconspirator. Numerous iterations of this process have led to Mr. Keyter’s current allegations, contained in a three volume “Dossier of Crimes” which he has filed in each of these cases.
As the court illustrates, it is evidently a natural progession from a divorce dispute gone wrong to an international conspiracy to kidnap and murder him at the highest levels of government. The judge also noted that Keyser's case could not be transferred to another judge in the district because every other judge in the district was already a co-conspirator in one of Keyser's lawsuits. Keyser continued to file these lawsuits despite the fact that the the Western District of Washington has barred him from filing these suits in the district any longer, and this order issued by the judge in August may have been the last straw.
Keyser seems to have figured out that his welcome was worn out in Washington, so he has filed criminal charges against all his conspirators now in the District of Massachusetts. This is despite the fact that a judge in Washington has told him private citizens cannot privately file criminal charges against others, even if they are not of the baseless sort that Keyser files.
What exactly does Keyser want to accomplish? I fail to believe even that the likely insane such as Keyser think that the same very courts who Keyser claims to be engaged in a conspiracy against him will grant him the relief that he seeks. If Keyser really believes that the Supreme Court is out to get him and that they destroy his filings and evidence and give the executive branch information about him, does he really think that the Supreme Court would allow Keyser to win a suit, either criminal or civil, in a district court? Or that Obama would not pardon anyone convicted in an attempt to kidnap Keyser. After all, Obama has knowledge and is complicit in all of this, according to Keyser. I fail to see what it is Keyser thinks he is accomplishing. He may be missing a few eggs, but he isn't completely clueless.
That may be the most insane part of Keyser. All governmental institutions are against Keyser, so he seeks redress in another governmental institution? Keyser thinks the judiciary is against him! It sounds like he is just going to go from jurisdiction to jurisdiction filing the same tired complaints until someone issues him a Bar Order. The problem is that the places he file suit just transfers the suits back to Washington, where the judges there have incredible restraint.
Keyser clearly needs to be doing something else with his time, but as long as he continues to file criminal charges against his past-employer, he likely won't be working any time soon.
Meet Anthony P. Keyter. He has sued and sought criminal charges, among other things, from the following: George W. Bush; Bush, John Roberts, Alberto Gonzales and Robert Mueller; John McCain; Boeing; 230 Government Officers; John Ashcroft; Maureen Keyter (his likely ex-wife); Air India; Ford Motor Company; "443 Known Insurgents"; and the 535 members of the 110th Congress. According to him, 14,589 conspirators have conspired against him, 14,535 government officials and 54 others.
Now I know you must be thinking, "Just think of the legal fees he must be generating?" Alas, he is going pro se, partially because he likely cannot afford the fees and partially because no lawyer outside of a sanitarium would give Keyter the time of day.
Why not give Keyter the time of day? Well, he claims that George Bush ordered no action to be taken on this conspiracy to murden him despite Keyser's 64 letters to Bush regarding it. Keyter claims that the Supreme Court illegally removed evidence and failed to recuse all of its justices in the criminal complaint he filed with the Supreme Court against all of the justices for the supposed crimes the Court committed against him related to the attempt on Keyser's life.
These are just the tip of the iceberg. Keyser complains that on the eve of his Supreme Court filing against Bush, White House aides contacted Boeing with a scheme to kidnap him. The kidnapping failed, so they tried again, and in doing so ruined Keyser's career at Boeing. Somehow he also mentions that he was assigned to train Air India pilots to fly Boeing planes, and because he pointed out that the Indian pilots were lax on safety regulations, Air India told Boeing what had happened and Boeing and the US Government got together to attempt to kill him. Yikes.
Keyser claims that all law and order organizations in the government have refused to investigate his attempted kidnapping, so this means that the President, Congress and the heads of all Executive Agencies were involved in a Seditious Conspiracy to refuse to enforce the laws on the books. Keyser claims that President Obama was informed of the government's murder plot against Keyser in a meeting on January 7.
Yes, this is all a pretty rambling, silly synopsis of what he claims is the conspiracy directed by the tens of thousands of government officials against him. However, please understand that I take this information from his own synposis of his cases, and they are written by someone who clearly writes without regard for brevity or clarity.
Why does he sue everyone? Well, according to a judicial order in the Western District of Washington, it has all snowballed from the original divorce lawsuit against his ex-wife. When he got an unfavorable ruling, he appeared to take it out on an increasing number of people who were causing him problems in his divorce case. As the judge in Washington says:
Mr. Keyter was dissatisfied with the result of his divorce, and blamed the presiding judge, his former wife, and her attorney for the outcome. He then embarked on a campaign of communicating with government officials in an effort to correct what he believed to be a miscarriage of justice. When his efforts were unsuccessful, he named each of the officials with whom he communicated as a coconspirator. Numerous iterations of this process have led to Mr. Keyter’s current allegations, contained in a three volume “Dossier of Crimes” which he has filed in each of these cases.
As the court illustrates, it is evidently a natural progession from a divorce dispute gone wrong to an international conspiracy to kidnap and murder him at the highest levels of government. The judge also noted that Keyser's case could not be transferred to another judge in the district because every other judge in the district was already a co-conspirator in one of Keyser's lawsuits. Keyser continued to file these lawsuits despite the fact that the the Western District of Washington has barred him from filing these suits in the district any longer, and this order issued by the judge in August may have been the last straw.
Keyser seems to have figured out that his welcome was worn out in Washington, so he has filed criminal charges against all his conspirators now in the District of Massachusetts. This is despite the fact that a judge in Washington has told him private citizens cannot privately file criminal charges against others, even if they are not of the baseless sort that Keyser files.
What exactly does Keyser want to accomplish? I fail to believe even that the likely insane such as Keyser think that the same very courts who Keyser claims to be engaged in a conspiracy against him will grant him the relief that he seeks. If Keyser really believes that the Supreme Court is out to get him and that they destroy his filings and evidence and give the executive branch information about him, does he really think that the Supreme Court would allow Keyser to win a suit, either criminal or civil, in a district court? Or that Obama would not pardon anyone convicted in an attempt to kidnap Keyser. After all, Obama has knowledge and is complicit in all of this, according to Keyser. I fail to see what it is Keyser thinks he is accomplishing. He may be missing a few eggs, but he isn't completely clueless.
That may be the most insane part of Keyser. All governmental institutions are against Keyser, so he seeks redress in another governmental institution? Keyser thinks the judiciary is against him! It sounds like he is just going to go from jurisdiction to jurisdiction filing the same tired complaints until someone issues him a Bar Order. The problem is that the places he file suit just transfers the suits back to Washington, where the judges there have incredible restraint.
Keyser clearly needs to be doing something else with his time, but as long as he continues to file criminal charges against his past-employer, he likely won't be working any time soon.
Monday, October 5, 2009
FTC Mandating Blogger Disclosure
The Federal Trade Commission, known for going after scan artists around the country, has taken on another scourge: bloggers. The FTC, through amending the myriad of regulations that they maintain, has stated that blogs must disclose when reviews of products are paid or when bloggers talk about items given to them free from companies. Naturally, they use the threat of fines that could total $11K for failing to disclose freebies.
What a waste of regulatory paper. People don't need to see a disclosure when determining whether there is bias in a review. People are smart enough to think that something may be unusual when someone is gushing about a product. Even if someone can't determine when one review may be biased, reading a blogger's aggregate work makes it very unlikely anyone has ever been fooled by a paid-off blogger.
However, those who complain to the FTC fall in two groups: stupid and lonely. Those are the people the FTC seeks to protect. So some idiot is now saved from believing a review.
The problem is that lots of legitimate bloggers have to worry that they aren't sufficiently disclosing. Take Christopher Elliott, of www.elliott.org. He reviews hotels and resorts in Florida and other places around the country, as well as acting as a consumer travel advocate. It's quite obvious that the places he reviews either comp his stay or discount it. Over the years, it is clear it does not influence him. Now he has to place a disclaimer, quite possibly on every blog he writes that reviews something, specifying that he received a discount or free stay.
Another reason bureaucracy just makes things worse.
What a waste of regulatory paper. People don't need to see a disclosure when determining whether there is bias in a review. People are smart enough to think that something may be unusual when someone is gushing about a product. Even if someone can't determine when one review may be biased, reading a blogger's aggregate work makes it very unlikely anyone has ever been fooled by a paid-off blogger.
However, those who complain to the FTC fall in two groups: stupid and lonely. Those are the people the FTC seeks to protect. So some idiot is now saved from believing a review.
The problem is that lots of legitimate bloggers have to worry that they aren't sufficiently disclosing. Take Christopher Elliott, of www.elliott.org. He reviews hotels and resorts in Florida and other places around the country, as well as acting as a consumer travel advocate. It's quite obvious that the places he reviews either comp his stay or discount it. Over the years, it is clear it does not influence him. Now he has to place a disclaimer, quite possibly on every blog he writes that reviews something, specifying that he received a discount or free stay.
Another reason bureaucracy just makes things worse.
Wednesday, September 23, 2009
Idiot Fan Gets Refund From Oregon Coach
Many people have been to a sporting event and felt that the team underperformed and that their ticket money was wasted. One fan took action:
Tony Seminary traveled to Boise for Oregon's opening game against Boise State. He was apparently so disappointed in Oregon's performance that he e-mailed this to the coach of the Ducks, Chip Kelly:
"I was so angry with the game (even before the post-game melee) I am sending you an invoice for my trip to Boise. The product on the field Thursday night is not something I was at all proud of, and I feel as though I’m entitled to my money back for the trip. Please see my invoice attached in this email. I will happily send along receipts if need be." (from everydayshouldbesaturday.com)
So what does Coach Kelly do when he gets this e-mail? He responds with a request for his address, and then sends a personal check (click on the quote above to see) to Seminary for the amount of his expenses, $439. Well, this apparently caused quite an impression on Seminary, because he not only returned the check but is now Kelly's biggest fan.
Sure, you want to say that Kelly is a great man for actually sending a check to Seminary, but clearly the problem is that Seminary is a real idiot. For one, it's college sports. No matter how much you complain about Oregon's effort, none of the students are getting paid for their performance. No, the scholarship doesn't count, because the scholarship is a rouse to get the players on the team and the colleges don't graduate the players. The players play because they love football and because they would love to play in the NFL, as unlikely as it may be. College sports, great as they are, shouldn't be taken so seriously by idiots like Seminary.
As Seminary is happy to say "it's really hard to shut me up." He clearly should learn how, and quit taking college sports so seriously. Just because college athletes playing for zero money had a bad game doesn't mean you need to whine so much that you feel as if you deserve a refund from the exorbitant amount of money he likely can't afford following a bunch of college kids around the Pacific Northwest.
Tony Seminary traveled to Boise for Oregon's opening game against Boise State. He was apparently so disappointed in Oregon's performance that he e-mailed this to the coach of the Ducks, Chip Kelly:
"I was so angry with the game (even before the post-game melee) I am sending you an invoice for my trip to Boise. The product on the field Thursday night is not something I was at all proud of, and I feel as though I’m entitled to my money back for the trip. Please see my invoice attached in this email. I will happily send along receipts if need be." (from everydayshouldbesaturday.com)
So what does Coach Kelly do when he gets this e-mail? He responds with a request for his address, and then sends a personal check (click on the quote above to see) to Seminary for the amount of his expenses, $439. Well, this apparently caused quite an impression on Seminary, because he not only returned the check but is now Kelly's biggest fan.
Sure, you want to say that Kelly is a great man for actually sending a check to Seminary, but clearly the problem is that Seminary is a real idiot. For one, it's college sports. No matter how much you complain about Oregon's effort, none of the students are getting paid for their performance. No, the scholarship doesn't count, because the scholarship is a rouse to get the players on the team and the colleges don't graduate the players. The players play because they love football and because they would love to play in the NFL, as unlikely as it may be. College sports, great as they are, shouldn't be taken so seriously by idiots like Seminary.
As Seminary is happy to say "it's really hard to shut me up." He clearly should learn how, and quit taking college sports so seriously. Just because college athletes playing for zero money had a bad game doesn't mean you need to whine so much that you feel as if you deserve a refund from the exorbitant amount of money he likely can't afford following a bunch of college kids around the Pacific Northwest.
Woot-Off
Woot.com, the one item a day internet superstore, is having a Woot-Off, where instead of selling one thing a day, they sell one thing until it sells out, and then another.
The big hit of the Woot-Off is "Random Crap", where for $3 + $5 shipping, you agree to buy any three items Woot will sell you. Sometimes it's screws, sometimes it's an LCD television.
Bargain hunters flock to Woot during Woot-Offs, and their servers crash when they offer Random Crap, so the chances of actually getting to buy crap are not so good. But it's a mindless diversion to see what items are up for sale during the Woot-Off, and there's always a chance.
The big hit of the Woot-Off is "Random Crap", where for $3 + $5 shipping, you agree to buy any three items Woot will sell you. Sometimes it's screws, sometimes it's an LCD television.
Bargain hunters flock to Woot during Woot-Offs, and their servers crash when they offer Random Crap, so the chances of actually getting to buy crap are not so good. But it's a mindless diversion to see what items are up for sale during the Woot-Off, and there's always a chance.
Tuesday, September 22, 2009
Funny the Way Edwards Is
Most likely the funniest part of this New York Times story on Sunday detailing John Edwards' affair with Riele Hunter is this:
"In the proposal, which The New York Times examined, Mr. Young says that he assisted the affair by setting up private meetings between Mr. Edwards and Ms. Hunter. He wrote that Mr. Edwards once calmed an anxious Ms. Hunter by promising her that after his wife died, he would marry her in a rooftop ceremony in New York with an appearance by the Dave Matthews Band."
Who knew John Edwards and/or Riele Hunter loved the Dave Matthews Band? While I can say with extreme certainty that I don't stand for anything that Edwards does, I do love DMB. However, given that Edwards was trying to convince Hunter that after his current wife kicked the bucket he would marry her, it's likely that Hunter really likes DMB and Edwards is a sleazebag.
Edwards, the king of plaintiffs lawyers, purportedly planned his second wedding while his first wife was recovering from cancer. Nevermind that his presidential campaign spent over $100K on "video services" that Hunter supposedly provided, that he convinced a long-time friend to take the fall for Edwards' love child, or that he has refused to admit that he fathered the kid even after the National Enquirer caught Edwards in a hotel that Hunter was staying it. Telling your mistress that you'll marry her while your wife dies from cancer is truly despicable.
But hey, he might like DMB. Unfortunately, the bass player for DMB, Stefan Lessard, had this to say on his Twitter page:
"We don't play weddings. Period. Ridiculous and wrong."
Tough break for Edwards. Edwards probably shouldn't have been a Gravedigger Digging a Ditch for his first wife prematurely, instead waiting until she was Lying in the Hands of God. Cause when you do that stuff, You Might Die Trying. Definitely not a Typical Situation. His plan clearly wasn't the Best of What's Around.
That said, any world where Edwards is getting exposed for being a sleazebag is One Sweet World. Everyday.
"In the proposal, which The New York Times examined, Mr. Young says that he assisted the affair by setting up private meetings between Mr. Edwards and Ms. Hunter. He wrote that Mr. Edwards once calmed an anxious Ms. Hunter by promising her that after his wife died, he would marry her in a rooftop ceremony in New York with an appearance by the Dave Matthews Band."
Who knew John Edwards and/or Riele Hunter loved the Dave Matthews Band? While I can say with extreme certainty that I don't stand for anything that Edwards does, I do love DMB. However, given that Edwards was trying to convince Hunter that after his current wife kicked the bucket he would marry her, it's likely that Hunter really likes DMB and Edwards is a sleazebag.
Edwards, the king of plaintiffs lawyers, purportedly planned his second wedding while his first wife was recovering from cancer. Nevermind that his presidential campaign spent over $100K on "video services" that Hunter supposedly provided, that he convinced a long-time friend to take the fall for Edwards' love child, or that he has refused to admit that he fathered the kid even after the National Enquirer caught Edwards in a hotel that Hunter was staying it. Telling your mistress that you'll marry her while your wife dies from cancer is truly despicable.
But hey, he might like DMB. Unfortunately, the bass player for DMB, Stefan Lessard, had this to say on his Twitter page:
"We don't play weddings. Period. Ridiculous and wrong."
Tough break for Edwards. Edwards probably shouldn't have been a Gravedigger Digging a Ditch for his first wife prematurely, instead waiting until she was Lying in the Hands of God. Cause when you do that stuff, You Might Die Trying. Definitely not a Typical Situation. His plan clearly wasn't the Best of What's Around.
That said, any world where Edwards is getting exposed for being a sleazebag is One Sweet World. Everyday.
Monday, September 21, 2009
One Man = One Vote?
One of the tenets of our political system is the (inaccurate) concept that one person in Illinois has the same vote as one person in Mississippi. Of course, the Electoral College and the Senate make this a complete facade, but the concept is still one of the great myths of our democracy.
Now a group is trying to attack it based on unequal voter distribution by Congressional district. A group called Apportionment.US has found filed a lawsuit on behalf of a voter in five states, Mississippi, Montana, Delaware, South Dakota and Utah, claiming that these states have a Congressional apportionment that is inferior to other states, specifically Wyoming, Rhode Island, Nebraska, Iowa and West Virginia. They state that while a US House district in Rhode Island has 525K or so people in it, a district in Mississippi has 713K or so.
Apportionment.US argues that the deviation in populations between US House seats is much wider than deviations that the Supreme Court have found unconstitutional in local elections. They cite Karcher v. Daggett, and argue that if the Supreme Court in Karcher found a deviation in district populations of 0.6984% unconstitutional, the deviation currently in US House seats of 5.75% is also unconstitutional.
To remedy this, Apportionment.US would like to vastly increase the size of the US House. They offer two plans, either making the House have 932 members or 1,761 members and claim that this could cut the deviation in House seats from 5.75% to 1.48% if there were 1,761 members of the House.
Adding members of the US House is a great idea. 600K+ residents per US House District is much too high. Great Britain, a country of about 61 million people, has a House of Commons with 646 members, and they will add 4 members to the Commons by the next election. If Britain can have a legislature of 650 members for a country that size, the US House could easily double or triple its membership. Adding members to the US House would not only fix this apparent discrepancy between state populations and representation, but it would also cut the costs of elections. With fewer constituents, US House members could do more retail politicking and have less of a need to spend money on television, particularly when any television campaign will be directed at more people who are not in their district than in their district. It will make national politics more local, and cut the entry cost for new candidates. Here's hoping Apportionment.US succeeds.
Now a group is trying to attack it based on unequal voter distribution by Congressional district. A group called Apportionment.US has found filed a lawsuit on behalf of a voter in five states, Mississippi, Montana, Delaware, South Dakota and Utah, claiming that these states have a Congressional apportionment that is inferior to other states, specifically Wyoming, Rhode Island, Nebraska, Iowa and West Virginia. They state that while a US House district in Rhode Island has 525K or so people in it, a district in Mississippi has 713K or so.
Apportionment.US argues that the deviation in populations between US House seats is much wider than deviations that the Supreme Court have found unconstitutional in local elections. They cite Karcher v. Daggett, and argue that if the Supreme Court in Karcher found a deviation in district populations of 0.6984% unconstitutional, the deviation currently in US House seats of 5.75% is also unconstitutional.
To remedy this, Apportionment.US would like to vastly increase the size of the US House. They offer two plans, either making the House have 932 members or 1,761 members and claim that this could cut the deviation in House seats from 5.75% to 1.48% if there were 1,761 members of the House.
Adding members of the US House is a great idea. 600K+ residents per US House District is much too high. Great Britain, a country of about 61 million people, has a House of Commons with 646 members, and they will add 4 members to the Commons by the next election. If Britain can have a legislature of 650 members for a country that size, the US House could easily double or triple its membership. Adding members to the US House would not only fix this apparent discrepancy between state populations and representation, but it would also cut the costs of elections. With fewer constituents, US House members could do more retail politicking and have less of a need to spend money on television, particularly when any television campaign will be directed at more people who are not in their district than in their district. It will make national politics more local, and cut the entry cost for new candidates. Here's hoping Apportionment.US succeeds.
Monday, September 14, 2009
Twitter: My New Favorite Thing
For the longest time I thought Twitter was pointless. In my head it was people spouting gibberish in 160 characters or less. Since most people on Twitter lack followers, I assumed they were all just wasting their own time, talking to no one in particular. Compound all of this with the fact that most Twitter users are fairly old, and I just figured that it was a user-friendly social network for people who didn't want to set up the time to sign onto another social network.
Then I discovered a few things:
1) Twitter is an incredibly useful device for media personalities and celebrities to connect with fans in an interesting way. For instance, if you are a follower of football, you probably read Peter King on SI.com or watch Adam Schefter on ESPN. However, they also maintain Twitter accounts and send out numerous messages, particularly when events are going on. I watched the Thursday night opening season kickoff between Pittsburgh and Tennessee, and both King and Schefter were sending out messages full of analysis and injury updates. It sounds cliche, but it really did add to the game experience. I also like the Dave Matthews band, and a fan group called Ants Marching sends out a message every time they play a song on their tour, so people can see what they are playing.
2) I am one of those people with too much time on my hands.
3) I enjoy talking to myself, and broadcasting my useless thoughts to no one in particular. Otherwise, what am I doing with this blog?
The twittering may even be good practice for when I have a job and a career and may have something worth saying. As for now, it kills time and makes me feel less worthless.
Now I just need to get people to follow my worthless comments.
Then I discovered a few things:
1) Twitter is an incredibly useful device for media personalities and celebrities to connect with fans in an interesting way. For instance, if you are a follower of football, you probably read Peter King on SI.com or watch Adam Schefter on ESPN. However, they also maintain Twitter accounts and send out numerous messages, particularly when events are going on. I watched the Thursday night opening season kickoff between Pittsburgh and Tennessee, and both King and Schefter were sending out messages full of analysis and injury updates. It sounds cliche, but it really did add to the game experience. I also like the Dave Matthews band, and a fan group called Ants Marching sends out a message every time they play a song on their tour, so people can see what they are playing.
2) I am one of those people with too much time on my hands.
3) I enjoy talking to myself, and broadcasting my useless thoughts to no one in particular. Otherwise, what am I doing with this blog?
The twittering may even be good practice for when I have a job and a career and may have something worth saying. As for now, it kills time and makes me feel less worthless.
Now I just need to get people to follow my worthless comments.
Friday, September 11, 2009
Shout-Out
If anyone needs jewelry or other wonderful gifts out in Colorado, check out Princess Penguin Studios.
Check out my friend Diana's blog about what she's up to at princesspenguin.wordpress.com
Thursday, September 10, 2009
Rapture Insurance - Eternal Earthbound Pets
I fear the rapture like anyone else (but likely for different reasons than all the born agains...), and it's nice to know that if Biscuit doesn't get called to Heaven, there's a heathen to take care of her.
Eternal Earthbound Pets
$110 for ten years of rapture protection for the cat? A steal!
Eternal Earthbound Pets
$110 for ten years of rapture protection for the cat? A steal!
Banana Republic
In 2004, the MA legislature changed the law that had previously allowed the governor to appoint an interim senator because they were worried that Mitt Romney would appoint a Republican if John Kerry won. Thankfully, John Kerry didn't win, but his run for President is still causing trouble five years later.
The MA legislature's law allows for a special election between 145-160 days after the resignation/death of a Senator. There is no provision for an interim Senator because the legislature was worried Romney would have appointed a Republican. Now the Democrats have decided that laws are to be changed depending on who will best benefit from them. If the Republicans are going to benefit, they change the law. If they want to benefit, they'll make sure they do. Like most acts of the MA legislature, this sets a horrible precedent; why have rules and laws on what to do in certain situations when the legislature can just decide to change the law because it will advantage the majority.
The Democrats do this under the guise of "needing full representation". Garbage. When Kerry ran for President in 2004, he missed almost every vote. From the time Ted Kennedy was diagnosed with cancer to his death, he missed almost every vote. If the Democrats were serious about this, they could have convinced Kennedy to resign upon his diagnosis, and they almost certainly would have won a special election that would have been held over a year ago. MA needs two Senators because of Obama's "historical change agenda?" Garbage.
Acts like this make it clear that Massachusetts needs a second political party. Even though I'd like it to be a conservative party, even if it were the Green Party or the Libertarian Party or any other group that became viable, the majority party would be held in check. If there is a substantial opposition, the Democrats would be more likely to play by rules that they would want used if the Democrats were a minority party. Right now, that's impossible, and they can change the laws at their whim.
When a US Representative resigns or dies, they hold a special election. One vote in the Senate isn't much more important, even if there are one-fourth the Senators as Representatives. Hopefully the MA legislature shows some ethics that aren't in the mold of Wilkerson or DiMasi and leaves the law the way it is. But we know they won't.
The MA legislature's law allows for a special election between 145-160 days after the resignation/death of a Senator. There is no provision for an interim Senator because the legislature was worried Romney would have appointed a Republican. Now the Democrats have decided that laws are to be changed depending on who will best benefit from them. If the Republicans are going to benefit, they change the law. If they want to benefit, they'll make sure they do. Like most acts of the MA legislature, this sets a horrible precedent; why have rules and laws on what to do in certain situations when the legislature can just decide to change the law because it will advantage the majority.
The Democrats do this under the guise of "needing full representation". Garbage. When Kerry ran for President in 2004, he missed almost every vote. From the time Ted Kennedy was diagnosed with cancer to his death, he missed almost every vote. If the Democrats were serious about this, they could have convinced Kennedy to resign upon his diagnosis, and they almost certainly would have won a special election that would have been held over a year ago. MA needs two Senators because of Obama's "historical change agenda?" Garbage.
Acts like this make it clear that Massachusetts needs a second political party. Even though I'd like it to be a conservative party, even if it were the Green Party or the Libertarian Party or any other group that became viable, the majority party would be held in check. If there is a substantial opposition, the Democrats would be more likely to play by rules that they would want used if the Democrats were a minority party. Right now, that's impossible, and they can change the laws at their whim.
When a US Representative resigns or dies, they hold a special election. One vote in the Senate isn't much more important, even if there are one-fourth the Senators as Representatives. Hopefully the MA legislature shows some ethics that aren't in the mold of Wilkerson or DiMasi and leaves the law the way it is. But we know they won't.
Wednesday, August 26, 2009
The Law Firm Hiring Oxymoron
As I look for a job as an attorney, it is hard not to be discouraged with all the news. While the national news highlights the fact that the economy may be turning the corner at every speck of positive news they get, the news for law firm hiring gets worse and worse, even in light of the positive (perhaps false) news.
The New York Times has an article detailing the debt and the problems law students are having securing employment while in law school. It details the amount of debt some students took to enter law school, and how they are full of regret and wish they had gone to a less expensive school. However, many seem to go to law school to make money, with the law secondary:
“It was thought to be this green pasture of stability, a more comfortable life,” said Mr. Fanciullo, who had heard that 90 percent of N.Y.U. law graduates land jobs at firms, and counted on that to repay his loans. “It was almost written in stone that you’ll end up in a law firm, almost like a birthright.”
It is easy to attack them as misguided because they should have known the debt load they were going to accumulate. I knew the debt I was going to take on going to law school, and I do not regret doing so, as hard as it seems to pay off now. I'll pay it off somehow.
It also seems as if most who complain about their decision to the press went to law school for the wrong reasons. You go to law school because you want to be a lawyer, or are interested in law, not because you want to make a lot of money. Law is like any other trade, hard work will get you money with a little luck, regardless of where you work after law school. It is not, however, the license to print money that a lot of students think it is.
I just hope the opportunities to work hard start showing up soon.
The New York Times has an article detailing the debt and the problems law students are having securing employment while in law school. It details the amount of debt some students took to enter law school, and how they are full of regret and wish they had gone to a less expensive school. However, many seem to go to law school to make money, with the law secondary:
“It was thought to be this green pasture of stability, a more comfortable life,” said Mr. Fanciullo, who had heard that 90 percent of N.Y.U. law graduates land jobs at firms, and counted on that to repay his loans. “It was almost written in stone that you’ll end up in a law firm, almost like a birthright.”
It is easy to attack them as misguided because they should have known the debt load they were going to accumulate. I knew the debt I was going to take on going to law school, and I do not regret doing so, as hard as it seems to pay off now. I'll pay it off somehow.
It also seems as if most who complain about their decision to the press went to law school for the wrong reasons. You go to law school because you want to be a lawyer, or are interested in law, not because you want to make a lot of money. Law is like any other trade, hard work will get you money with a little luck, regardless of where you work after law school. It is not, however, the license to print money that a lot of students think it is.
I just hope the opportunities to work hard start showing up soon.
Monday, August 24, 2009
Class Action Stupidity - Vol. 1: iPhone MMS Class Action
People are suing AT&T because iPhones are still not able to send MMS messages. Notwithstanding the fact that AT&T and Apple have said ever since the 3.0 software was announced that MMS would not be available until later in the summer, some enterprising attorney has decided to jump the gun. Clearly, the only thing he's worried about is Autumn coming and a better law firm filing a slightly less frivolous lawsuit.
The lawsuit claims that:
Meeker bought an iPhone 3G on March 13 at an AT&T store in Fairview Heights, Ill., and asked if MMS was provided. The store representative "misrepresented and/or concealed, suppressed, or omitted facts as to the iPhone and MMS functionality," according to the complaint. When he tried to download MMS with the 3.0 upgrade, the MMS did not work. He was told by an Apple customer service rep that AT&T had not upgraded its towers and would not do so until late summer. (from http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9136743/Despite_two_lawsuits_AT_T_still_says_MMS_coming_by_late_summer_to_iPhone)
Naturally, Meeker never saw the disclaimer available on AT&T or Apple's website, and clearly saw nothing about the iPhone 3.0 announcement in the media. So he claims he's been damaged because the Apple store associate's "misrepresented and/or concealed, suppressed or omitted material facts as the to iPhone having MMS functionality." Of course he has, and it just so happens that his attorney claims over 100,000 others have been similarly damaged, all by devious sales reps at the Apple and AT&T stores.
Let's see. Apple and AT&T claim MMS will be out in late summer, and because MMS isn't out yet but it is still summer, a class action suit arises because of what a store associate supposedly said. And of course Meeker only wanted the iPhone for MMS. Not the browser or apps or e-mail, just the MMS. Not the touchscreen or the iPod or anything else, just the MMS.
If Apple or AT&T had stones, they'd make Meeker and his class prove it. They won't, and Meeker's attorney will be millions of dollars better for it, with the "class" getting perhaps a free download on iTunes. In that case, has anyone bought a Palm Pre and can't get access to iTunes? Did the person at the Sprint store tell you the phone could drive a car? I've got a feeling I can make a great case for me... I mean you.
The lawsuit claims that:
Meeker bought an iPhone 3G on March 13 at an AT&T store in Fairview Heights, Ill., and asked if MMS was provided. The store representative "misrepresented and/or concealed, suppressed, or omitted facts as to the iPhone and MMS functionality," according to the complaint. When he tried to download MMS with the 3.0 upgrade, the MMS did not work. He was told by an Apple customer service rep that AT&T had not upgraded its towers and would not do so until late summer. (from http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9136743/Despite_two_lawsuits_AT_T_still_says_MMS_coming_by_late_summer_to_iPhone)
Naturally, Meeker never saw the disclaimer available on AT&T or Apple's website, and clearly saw nothing about the iPhone 3.0 announcement in the media. So he claims he's been damaged because the Apple store associate's "misrepresented and/or concealed, suppressed or omitted material facts as the to iPhone having MMS functionality." Of course he has, and it just so happens that his attorney claims over 100,000 others have been similarly damaged, all by devious sales reps at the Apple and AT&T stores.
Let's see. Apple and AT&T claim MMS will be out in late summer, and because MMS isn't out yet but it is still summer, a class action suit arises because of what a store associate supposedly said. And of course Meeker only wanted the iPhone for MMS. Not the browser or apps or e-mail, just the MMS. Not the touchscreen or the iPod or anything else, just the MMS.
If Apple or AT&T had stones, they'd make Meeker and his class prove it. They won't, and Meeker's attorney will be millions of dollars better for it, with the "class" getting perhaps a free download on iTunes. In that case, has anyone bought a Palm Pre and can't get access to iTunes? Did the person at the Sprint store tell you the phone could drive a car? I've got a feeling I can make a great case for me... I mean you.
Lame Blog 2.0 - now with Twitter
I deleted the first blog because I did not want legal employers to see any independent thought I might have, thinking anything they knew about me would only hurt my quest for employment. Well, that worked out well! Law school and bar exam done and I don't have a legal job, so clearly the blog can't make anything worse for me.
So I'll start giving commentary on some things; probably not legal. While no one reads it, the use of blogs has lost public interest to Twitter, so I'll also send tweets to no one in particular. These fancy blogs will also go out via Twitter as well. This whole exercise is mostly to give me something to do that doesn't involve reading a book or applying for a job. There's no better time than now, considering the Red Sox won't be going anywhere.
The old blog had profiles of obscure presidential candidates, reviews of bad television, and lots of other useless information. And lots of posts from The Onion. Tons of them.
If somehow people start reading it, I might start focusing on something. But let's just say I don't think I'll need to start thinking about it any time soon.
So I'll start giving commentary on some things; probably not legal. While no one reads it, the use of blogs has lost public interest to Twitter, so I'll also send tweets to no one in particular. These fancy blogs will also go out via Twitter as well. This whole exercise is mostly to give me something to do that doesn't involve reading a book or applying for a job. There's no better time than now, considering the Red Sox won't be going anywhere.
The old blog had profiles of obscure presidential candidates, reviews of bad television, and lots of other useless information. And lots of posts from The Onion. Tons of them.
If somehow people start reading it, I might start focusing on something. But let's just say I don't think I'll need to start thinking about it any time soon.
Sunday, August 23, 2009
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
