Yet another reason America's two party system doesn't work:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/mcclatchy/20090305/pl_mcclatchy/3182084
Exactly what I said before here:
In fact, Democrats like Reich and Krugman are stealing a page from the GOP's playbook. In the old days, Republicans would spend trillions of dollars on wasteful defense projects and then scapegoat poor single mothers on welfare. Now, Democrats are demonizing bankers and Wall Street to divert the public's focus from their own act of generational theft (America's future generations will be paying for the recent stimulus package). So while Republicans ran up deficits to increase the military, Democrats are running up deficits to send taxpayer money to their core constituents--education, local and state governments, and unionized interests. In the end, government gets bigger under either administration--it's just a matter of where the dollars go.
"And if an epitaph be my story, I'd have a short one ready for my own: I had a lover's quarrel with the world." -- Robert Frost
Saturday, March 7, 2009
Friday, March 6, 2009
Religious Biases Coming Back?
Brad Greenberg writes a great article on racism and religious bias:
http://www.csmonitor.com/2009/0227/p09s01-coop.html
Though some Jewish money managers have proved to be scoundrels at best, like Shylock, it is not because they are Jewish – just as Christianity did not inspire Ken Lay to cheat Enron's shareholders. Indeed, Jews may be the easy historical target, but scapegoating misses the moral of our own failures. The real responsibility lies with all of us.
More from Mr. Greenberg can be found here.
Also, from the NYT, here are some interesting survey results about American Muslims:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/02/us/02muslims.html
One excerpt, showing the diversity within Islam:
But American Muslims are not one homogeneous group, the study makes clear. Asian-American Muslims (from countries like India and Pakistan) have more income and education and are more likely to be thriving than other American Muslims. In fact, their quality of life indicators are higher than for most other Americans, except for American Jews...
American Muslims are generally very religious, saying that religion is an important part of their daily lives (80 percent), more than any other group except Mormons (85 percent). The figure for Americans in general is 65 percent.
By political ideology, Muslims were spread across the spectrum from liberal to conservative, with about 4 in 10 saying they were moderates. By party identification, Muslims resembled Jews more than any other religious group, with small minorities registered as Republicans, roughly half Democrats and about a third independents.
The poll shows that American Muslims tend to be diverse, highly educated, religious, and Democratic.
http://www.csmonitor.com/2009/0227/p09s01-coop.html
Though some Jewish money managers have proved to be scoundrels at best, like Shylock, it is not because they are Jewish – just as Christianity did not inspire Ken Lay to cheat Enron's shareholders. Indeed, Jews may be the easy historical target, but scapegoating misses the moral of our own failures. The real responsibility lies with all of us.
More from Mr. Greenberg can be found here.
Also, from the NYT, here are some interesting survey results about American Muslims:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/02/us/02muslims.html
One excerpt, showing the diversity within Islam:
But American Muslims are not one homogeneous group, the study makes clear. Asian-American Muslims (from countries like India and Pakistan) have more income and education and are more likely to be thriving than other American Muslims. In fact, their quality of life indicators are higher than for most other Americans, except for American Jews...
American Muslims are generally very religious, saying that religion is an important part of their daily lives (80 percent), more than any other group except Mormons (85 percent). The figure for Americans in general is 65 percent.
By political ideology, Muslims were spread across the spectrum from liberal to conservative, with about 4 in 10 saying they were moderates. By party identification, Muslims resembled Jews more than any other religious group, with small minorities registered as Republicans, roughly half Democrats and about a third independents.
The poll shows that American Muslims tend to be diverse, highly educated, religious, and Democratic.
Thursday, March 5, 2009
Wednesday, March 4, 2009
The 4th Amendment and the Exclusionary Rule
Philip Kushner's letter on the 4th Amendment is one of the best legal letters I've seen--thanks in advance to the WSJ:
Paul H. Rubin complains that the exclusionary rule "hinders" law enforcement in detecting and prosecuting suspected crimes ("The Exclusionary Rule's Hidden Costs," op-ed, Feb. 28). He is probably right. The Bill of Rights contains many such provisions that restrict government's ability to detect and punish crime, including the right to be secure against unreasonable searches and seizures, the right to be arrested only upon probable cause, the bar against double jeopardy, the right to counsel, the right against self-incrimination, and the right to due process of law. Evidently, the Founding Fathers believed that there is a higher value than efficient law enforcement.
Paul H. Rubin complains that the exclusionary rule "hinders" law enforcement in detecting and prosecuting suspected crimes ("The Exclusionary Rule's Hidden Costs," op-ed, Feb. 28). He is probably right. The Bill of Rights contains many such provisions that restrict government's ability to detect and punish crime, including the right to be secure against unreasonable searches and seizures, the right to be arrested only upon probable cause, the bar against double jeopardy, the right to counsel, the right against self-incrimination, and the right to due process of law. Evidently, the Founding Fathers believed that there is a higher value than efficient law enforcement.
As for Prof. Rubin's claim that the exclusionary rule "encourages criminals to increase their illegal activity," that is far-fetched. Exclusion of evidence is extremely rare; exclusion of evidence that prevents prosecution and conviction is even rarer. Who engages in criminal conduct based on the assumption that the exclusionary rule will prevent their prosecution? Few citizens, including criminals, can predict when evidence will be suppressed. After the Supreme Court's recent decision in Herring v. U.S., which instructs lower court judges to engage in a kind of cost-benefit analysis in deciding whether to exclude evidence, no judge can say with confidence when evidence will be excluded either.
We have constitutional rights, many of which protect us from the government, also called law enforcement. Either we have remedies for violations of these rights or we do not. A right without a remedy is worthless.
Philip S. Kushner
Cleveland
Mr. Kushner, I have just one question: when is President Obama going to appoint you as a federal judge?
Interactive Unemployment Chart (2009)
The NYT published this interactive unemployment chart, showing rates of unemployment nationwide:
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2009/03/03/us/20090303_LEONHARDT.html
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2009/03/03/us/20090303_LEONHARDT.html
The Steve Nash Paper
I love basketball. As an attorney, I handle discrimination claims. What do these two things have in common? Well, some researchers just answered that question:
Using data from the National Basketball Association (NBA), we examine whether patterns of workplace cooperation occur disproportionately among workers of the same race. We find that, holding constant the composition of teammates on the floor, basketball players are no more likely to complete an assist to a player of the same race than a player of a different race. Our confidence interval allows us to reject even small amounts of same-race bias in passing patterns. Our findings suggest that high levels of interracial cooperation can occur in a setting where workers are operating in a highly visible setting with strong incentives to behave efficiently.
http://www.nber.org/papers/w14749
In other words, it's the Larry Bird/John Stockton/Steve Nash paper. But was there enough of a sample size to create credible results? Other than Steve Nash, Kevin Love, Kyle Korver, and the Gasol brothers, who else would they have covered? Surprisingly, The Arsenalist--a site named after the popular soccer team--answers my question (click on "The Arsenalist"). I can't believe I left out AK-47.
Speaking of interracial cooperation, here is a post featuring a must-see link--it leads to a video featuring "twins" Steve Nash and Baron Davis. Enjoy.
Credit goes to Marginal Revolution for the NBER paper link.
Using data from the National Basketball Association (NBA), we examine whether patterns of workplace cooperation occur disproportionately among workers of the same race. We find that, holding constant the composition of teammates on the floor, basketball players are no more likely to complete an assist to a player of the same race than a player of a different race. Our confidence interval allows us to reject even small amounts of same-race bias in passing patterns. Our findings suggest that high levels of interracial cooperation can occur in a setting where workers are operating in a highly visible setting with strong incentives to behave efficiently.
http://www.nber.org/papers/w14749
In other words, it's the Larry Bird/John Stockton/Steve Nash paper. But was there enough of a sample size to create credible results? Other than Steve Nash, Kevin Love, Kyle Korver, and the Gasol brothers, who else would they have covered? Surprisingly, The Arsenalist--a site named after the popular soccer team--answers my question (click on "The Arsenalist"). I can't believe I left out AK-47.
Speaking of interracial cooperation, here is a post featuring a must-see link--it leads to a video featuring "twins" Steve Nash and Baron Davis. Enjoy.
Credit goes to Marginal Revolution for the NBER paper link.
Tuesday, March 3, 2009
A Smart Counterargument to Libertarians
The Green Bag, a legal journal, just published a fantastic Almanac and Reader (2008). Law students and lawyers should read the excerpt, "Making Your Case--The Art of Persuading Judges," by Justice Antonin Scalia and Bryan Garner. Although I majored in English and took legal writing courses in law school, Scalia's excerpt is a must-read for anyone who wants to write effectively.
The entire book can be found here.
The Almanac has other wonderful articles, including one by J. Harvie Wilkinson III, "Toward One America--A Vision in Law." [page 296] Although I am inclined towards libertarianism, Wilkinson made me see why others are against the view that individual rights and self-interest reign supreme:
Let's restore a constitutional respect for community. It is futile to expect a healthy nation in the absence of a health sense of community. Community instills within us the sense that we live for something larger and more meaningful than just ourselves... Communities are built around shared purposes and values, one of which is surely a respect and appreciation for individual rights. But there must likewise be the sense that individuals contribute to, as well as take from, this larger whole of which we as single persons are but parts...
It must still be asked whether the notion of free-floating, i.e. non-textual, constitutional rights of personal autonomy has not helped to deprive us of a sense of connectedness that is indispensable to the formation of a collective identity. There is a limit to which individual intimacies should be at the sufferance of majorities, but there are likewise limits to the extent that democratic majorities in a state or nation can be deprived of the communal right to promote cherished values. To enshrine a sanctity of self in our founding charter without textual or historical warrant may be just as pernicious as the attempt to enshrine discrimination against those whose personal choices may for good and legitimate reason fail to conform to the majority's own...
When we next drive through the countryside or take a moment's pause, we might reflect on what we get from living in society. We did not build our own home; make our own car or clothes; or invent the computers, phones, lights, or appliances we not take so much for granted. Left alone, we could not enjoy a concert, educate our children, put out a fire, raise capital, or take a trip. We would, in short, be miserable and helpless. [Green Bag Almanac and Reader, 2008, at 303-304]
Wilkinson makes some good points and ultimately claims the middle ground. Continuing on the topic of good writing, he demonstrates the most effective writing style--moving your audience to a reasonable middle ground. However, I still disagree with the idea that communal rights should trump individual rights. The foundation of freedom is built upon two principles: 1) limitation of government power against its own citizens/residents; and 2) respect for the minority. Establishing a community sounds fine in theory, but when push comes to shove, the minority view is usually drowned out, and the government may run roughshod over their rights. Yet, that's precisely when the law and the courts should enter--at the inconvenient time when the majority, already backed by their elected representatives, are attempting to limit the individual's or the minority's freedom.
The law is designed for inconvenient times. When it's heart-wrenching and difficult, that's when the court's pen should be unsheathed to calm the masses and to protect the individual. When the Jehovah's Witnesses are being persecuted and beaten in the schools for not taking the oath of allegiance, that's when the Court should intervene. When a political party is castigating a minority group for a nation's troubles, that's when a strong judge must use the law and remind citizens to let others alone. When the government and the majority see outside threats and want to use torture, that's when the courts should immediately remember why they exist--to use the consistent, steadying rule of law to prevent individual oppression. (By the way, federal judge Jay Bybee and UC Berkeley Professor John Woo encouraged the Bush II administration to define torture as "equivalent in intensity to the pain accompanying serious physical injury, such as organ failure, impairment of bodily function, or even death." [p. 545] I'll take my individual rights now, please--I don't want any part of that community.)
Viewing his ideas in this light, Wilkinson sounds more like he's arguing for fascism than freedom when he talks about courts respecting the community. In times of prosperity, I would agree with him; however, it's when stress and conflict enter the picture that the rights of the individual are too often ignored in the interests of community and safety. Sadly, in almost every major conflict between community and the individual, courts have initially sided with the majority at the expense of the individual. See segregation (Plessy v. Ferguson); refusing to take the pledge of allegiance (Minersville School District v. Gobitis); Guantanamo Bay (it took seven(!) years for a court to finally reject this executive order); Chinese Exclusion Act (1882); and free speech rights (Dennis v. United States). In tough times, I wouldn't put my faith in the community--not with that historical record.
Speaking of the middle ground, Judge Henry Friendly apparently embodied it. He was said to have the "gift of moderation," the "silken string running through the pearl-chain of all virtues." [Id. at 379, Michael Boudin, "Judge Henry Friendly and the Mirror of Constitutional Law."] As an attorney, Judge Friendly seems like my kind of judge--someone who personifies moderation. We have a local judge who embodies this moderation principle, too. I have never seen him lose his temper. Even when he has gotten irritated with my inexperience, his irritation has been swift and has not prevented him from briefly explaining what I am doing wrong. I don't like to name names when it comes to judges, but Santa Clara County is lucky to have a judge like him.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)