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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
