Maybe I'm missing something, but what's the big deal about privacy? I know I shouldn't feel this way, but ... I guess I feel ambivalent about the 4th Amendment.
The Christmas day bombing has reignited the debate between privacy advocates and security wonks who want to put in full-body scanners.
What's the big deal? So you get scanned. It's a "digital strip search." I don't really agree, but maybe I don't know enough about the technology. Whatever. Even if it is. If it deters some form of explosives or weapons-carrying, then great. Digital strip search. Fine with me. When women go to the gynecologist, the doctor looks at our privates and stucks a speculum up there. What's the big deal. It's a professional. Same with security.
Whether it's cost-effective or effective is a different question. But whether privacy concerns should trump security concerns? In my book, ... it's not much of a debate.
Wednesday, December 30, 2009
Monday, December 14, 2009
So It Goes
A repost, from my other blog:
Following my supervisor, MA's advice, I went to bed early the night before the hearing. 11:30pm, a new first. Even then, I could barely sleep and woke up several times during the night to find myself reciting lines from the closing statement. In the morning, we trudged through disgusting slush to have some last quick prep sessions with two of our experts, packed up our box of documents, and drove through the rain to Hartford for the hearing.
The hearing itself was an adrenaline-packed whirlwind. We caught so many lucky breaks, starting from the government attorney who walked through the door. (Instead of Spawn of the Devil Bitch, who we'd been expecting, it was Much More Reasonable Dude, who at times seemed unsure that he even wanted to contest this case.) The judge unexpectedly let all four of our witnesses testify without much complaint. Our client gave an incredibly compelling, genuine, and sympathetic testimony on cross-examination. "[client] = awesome," I wrote to MA on a Post-It note, to vigorous nodding. Our experts all came through for us, for the most part. Our psychologist ripped apart opposing counsel's cross-examination questions and turned each one to our benefit. Even the expert we were worried about managed to limit the damage on cross.
And then at the end of the hearing, the judge turned to the government to ask whether it had conducted a background check and to ask what its position was -- both unusual moves, as background checks are usually done prior to release, and the Respondent usually gives the closing first. Taken off guard, the government attorney gave their closing first. Then I gave our closing, the judge told the law students we had done a great job, and the case was over. An incredibly intense four hours.
Much to our surprise, everything had gone exactly as we had planned -- in fact, way better than we had planned. (The only ridiculous occurence was that ICE had decided not to bring my client to his own hearing, owing to the slush. My client was not present at his own fucking hearing. Due process violation, anyone?) I had been told repeatedly to expect to lose, and I tried to tell myself that to lower my expectations. MW (another clinical professor) had been overheard saying something along the lines of, "Those guys are pouring in hundreds of hours into that hearing and they have zero chance of winning." Our judge has one of the lowest asylum grant rates in the country and had only recently denied a similar claim to ours.
But the damage had been done. The hearing had gone better than our expectations. The judge's unorthodox behavior at the end of trial had kindled a spark of hope. He had almost seemed to be turning to the government to ask if they were going to concede. For two days I was completely jittery and could think of nothing but the hearing. I dared to hope.
Two days later, my clinic partners and I sat in MA's office sitting through forty-five agonizing minutes as the judge dictated his oral decision. (In a cruel twist of irony, ICE had finally gotten its shit together and brought my client to his hearing, but we had been unable to drive up to Hartford and were only present by phone.) For most of that time, we could not tell which way the judge was going to rule. There were facts the judge picked up on, and facts that the judge completely overlooked. We had won the judge over on specific intent. But when the judge started to get into severity, things took a long dive downhill. In another cruel jab, the judge ended his decision with a shoutout/nod to how the case had been "exceptionally well litigated" by Respondent's counsel.
But we'd lost, and our client had been all alone in the courtroom as the judge read to him his fate. We had put our best case forward and put all the pieces there for the judge to pick up. If he had wanted to rule our way, he had all the parts he needed. But MW had been right, I guess. Zero chance. Refugee roulette--a losing game. And perhaps because I'd dared to hope, I had fallen that much harder.
It's hard to describe the aftermath of the decision. I tried not to cry in front of MA, but in the end he was the one who teared. I felt shock, anger, devastation. Like the bottom had dropped out of my stomach. Like injustice was served. Like I could at once understand: (a) how those who had worked in immigration for a long time could see the actors as so polarized, so black and white, and see immigration law as completely unjust and inhuman; (b) how the nuances in the middle ground where I currently see myself would fall away with repeated interactions with the harshness of the law; and (c) how I would probably never have the emotional fortitude to survive a long career in immigration law.
Expressions of sympathy were welcomed, for the most part, I guess, though I'm not sure I quite felt anything. Assurances that we would appeal were made. But by an empty, shell-shocked law student who felt she's just had the rug pulled out from under her. Instead, I retreated to my clinic partners and sought commiseration with MA or JP (the clinical professor who had lost a similar case in front of the same judge). I went home and cried. At random times. I felt cut off and alienated from anyone who had not shared such an experience.
I'm still in that lonely aftermath. I've been trying to make sense of it, but there is no sense to be made. I've been trying to think of how we could have done things differently, but there isn't anything I would change. I've been trying to figure out what lessons there are to be learned, but I'm not sure there are any. In the meantime, my team has spent this entire weekend digging in and working on other parts of the client's case (in a different forum). I would say not all hope is lost, but that would be a mischaracterization. What I mean to say is: not all avenues of relief are closed to us, but hope has nothing to do with it anymore.
Following my supervisor, MA's advice, I went to bed early the night before the hearing. 11:30pm, a new first. Even then, I could barely sleep and woke up several times during the night to find myself reciting lines from the closing statement. In the morning, we trudged through disgusting slush to have some last quick prep sessions with two of our experts, packed up our box of documents, and drove through the rain to Hartford for the hearing.
The hearing itself was an adrenaline-packed whirlwind. We caught so many lucky breaks, starting from the government attorney who walked through the door. (Instead of Spawn of the Devil Bitch, who we'd been expecting, it was Much More Reasonable Dude, who at times seemed unsure that he even wanted to contest this case.) The judge unexpectedly let all four of our witnesses testify without much complaint. Our client gave an incredibly compelling, genuine, and sympathetic testimony on cross-examination. "[client] = awesome," I wrote to MA on a Post-It note, to vigorous nodding. Our experts all came through for us, for the most part. Our psychologist ripped apart opposing counsel's cross-examination questions and turned each one to our benefit. Even the expert we were worried about managed to limit the damage on cross.
And then at the end of the hearing, the judge turned to the government to ask whether it had conducted a background check and to ask what its position was -- both unusual moves, as background checks are usually done prior to release, and the Respondent usually gives the closing first. Taken off guard, the government attorney gave their closing first. Then I gave our closing, the judge told the law students we had done a great job, and the case was over. An incredibly intense four hours.
Much to our surprise, everything had gone exactly as we had planned -- in fact, way better than we had planned. (The only ridiculous occurence was that ICE had decided not to bring my client to his own hearing, owing to the slush. My client was not present at his own fucking hearing. Due process violation, anyone?) I had been told repeatedly to expect to lose, and I tried to tell myself that to lower my expectations. MW (another clinical professor) had been overheard saying something along the lines of, "Those guys are pouring in hundreds of hours into that hearing and they have zero chance of winning." Our judge has one of the lowest asylum grant rates in the country and had only recently denied a similar claim to ours.
But the damage had been done. The hearing had gone better than our expectations. The judge's unorthodox behavior at the end of trial had kindled a spark of hope. He had almost seemed to be turning to the government to ask if they were going to concede. For two days I was completely jittery and could think of nothing but the hearing. I dared to hope.
Two days later, my clinic partners and I sat in MA's office sitting through forty-five agonizing minutes as the judge dictated his oral decision. (In a cruel twist of irony, ICE had finally gotten its shit together and brought my client to his hearing, but we had been unable to drive up to Hartford and were only present by phone.) For most of that time, we could not tell which way the judge was going to rule. There were facts the judge picked up on, and facts that the judge completely overlooked. We had won the judge over on specific intent. But when the judge started to get into severity, things took a long dive downhill. In another cruel jab, the judge ended his decision with a shoutout/nod to how the case had been "exceptionally well litigated" by Respondent's counsel.
But we'd lost, and our client had been all alone in the courtroom as the judge read to him his fate. We had put our best case forward and put all the pieces there for the judge to pick up. If he had wanted to rule our way, he had all the parts he needed. But MW had been right, I guess. Zero chance. Refugee roulette--a losing game. And perhaps because I'd dared to hope, I had fallen that much harder.
It's hard to describe the aftermath of the decision. I tried not to cry in front of MA, but in the end he was the one who teared. I felt shock, anger, devastation. Like the bottom had dropped out of my stomach. Like injustice was served. Like I could at once understand: (a) how those who had worked in immigration for a long time could see the actors as so polarized, so black and white, and see immigration law as completely unjust and inhuman; (b) how the nuances in the middle ground where I currently see myself would fall away with repeated interactions with the harshness of the law; and (c) how I would probably never have the emotional fortitude to survive a long career in immigration law.
Expressions of sympathy were welcomed, for the most part, I guess, though I'm not sure I quite felt anything. Assurances that we would appeal were made. But by an empty, shell-shocked law student who felt she's just had the rug pulled out from under her. Instead, I retreated to my clinic partners and sought commiseration with MA or JP (the clinical professor who had lost a similar case in front of the same judge). I went home and cried. At random times. I felt cut off and alienated from anyone who had not shared such an experience.
I'm still in that lonely aftermath. I've been trying to make sense of it, but there is no sense to be made. I've been trying to think of how we could have done things differently, but there isn't anything I would change. I've been trying to figure out what lessons there are to be learned, but I'm not sure there are any. In the meantime, my team has spent this entire weekend digging in and working on other parts of the client's case (in a different forum). I would say not all hope is lost, but that would be a mischaracterization. What I mean to say is: not all avenues of relief are closed to us, but hope has nothing to do with it anymore.
Tuesday, November 24, 2009
Monday, November 23, 2009
Rurouni Kenshin: Series Review
I have a pattern of being uncontrollably addicted to TV shows. It's the potato chip problem. Once you watch one, you have to keep watching. And then I rationalize it all to myself -- if I finish sooner, I will waste less time later. Well tonight, I finally finished my one week blast-through of the entire 95-episode (plus 1 movie and 2 OVA) anime series, Rurouni Kenshin. Overall, I guess I liked it, but it's hard to put an "overall" to this very uneven series. Below is my attempt at a review.
Samurai X: Trust and Betrayal
I start my review with the original video animation, Samurai X: Trust and Betrayal because it makes the most chronological sense. This OVA is set in the Bakumatsu, in the years directly preceding the Meiji Restoration.
First, the storyline was great. Kenshin's origin story is very well done. But the historical backstory was a little bit confusing, even though I had studied this very period of Japanese history in college. I thought it was very cool that the OVA attempted to include as characters real historical figures like Kido Koin, who was known as Katsura Kogoro in the anime. And overall, I thought the OVA did a fantastic job of capturing the chaos of the era.
The art was amazing. Absolutely beautiful. Because Kenshin was the Battousai during this time in his life, the OVA was wonderfully bloody. The fight scene in the snow was simply stunning. Kenshin's character design in Samurai X: Trust and Betrayal is more effeminate than the one in the TV series, but I sort of prefer it. Overall, this OVA was really fantastic and got me hooked on the show.
Season 1Season 1 of the show (episodes 1-27) starts off a little shaky, but has a few gems throughout. I was a little impatient with the first few episodes, which introduce the series' major characters. I was immediately annoyed by Kaoru, the female lead, and remained irritated by her through the rest of the series. I also initially had trouble getting used to what I call "sissy Kenshin," the one that says "oro" and gets pushed around and is generally passive, although by the end of the show I grew to appreciate that Kenshin.
The finest of the episodes must be the ones with Jinei, the former hitokiri (manslayer), and the ones with Aoshi Shinomori. That's when I started to fall in love with the show's action sequences, even though they are extremely unrealistic. The rest of the episodes in the season were for the most part kind of blase, but overall, the first season is a strong one.
Oh, and regarding the art of the TV series, it's actually pretty good. The colors are not as dark as I tend to like (as in Samurai X: Trust and Betrayal), but are still well done. The characters' eyes are styled in traditional anime style (so, abnormally huge), but I don't mind that so much. Too many of the characters had too much hair, IMHO, but overall I was a fan of the character design, despite the brightness of the show. Again, I have a slight preference for Kenshin's OVA character design, versus his appearance in the TV show, but whenever Kenshin was in fight scenes in the TV shows, I was perfectly satisfied.
Season 2
Season 2 of the show (episodes 28-62) is phenomenal. 
Seriously phenomenal. Immediately, the season opens with fantastic episodes in which Hajime Saito, a former leader of the Shinsengumi and rival of the Battousai's during the revolution, is introduced. Saito is one of my favorite characters, and the episode in which he and Kenshin fight in the Kammiya dojo (and in which Kenshin reverts to his kickass battousai self) is one of my favorites of the entire series.
Seriously phenomenal. Immediately, the season opens with fantastic episodes in which Hajime Saito, a former leader of the Shinsengumi and rival of the Battousai's during the revolution, is introduced. Saito is one of my favorite characters, and the episode in which he and Kenshin fight in the Kammiya dojo (and in which Kenshin reverts to his kickass battousai self) is one of my favorites of the entire series. And then just when things couldn't get more exciting, the series embarks on its Kyoto arc, featuring the evil machinations of the awesome villain, Makoto Shishio. There are SO MANY awesome fight scenes. One of my favorites has to be between Kenshin and Sojiro the Tenken, oh, and the one between Kenshin and Aoshi Shinomori, and I guess also the final fight between Kenshin and Shishio. Oh, plus you get to see Kenshin learn the final attack of the Hiten-Mitsurugi style. SO KICKASS.
Anyway, I can't say enough good things about this action-packed, awesome season of the TV series. Definitely the heart of the show, in my opinion.
The only letdowns of this season, I would say, are that (a) another irritating female character, Misao Makimachi, is introduced; (b) most of the members of Shishio's Juppongatana (except for Sojiro, the monk, the blind guy) end up sucking and being extremely disappointing; (c) it had to end and give way to the sucky third season of the show!
Season 3
Season 3 of the show (episodes 63-95) pretty much sucked. Apparently, the anime caught up with the manga and then didn't have the manga author's ideas to go off of anymore, so they came up with their own crap. There were a few sort of okay episodes (i.e., the comedic engagement ring episode, the other comedic episode with the fake Battousai). But most of the individual stand-alone episodes SUCKED. Particularly the one with the stupid dog. Ugh.
The Shimabara story arc, whose historical roots like in the actual Shimabara Rebellion and are based on Japanese persecution of Christians, was okay, I guess. But I found the primary antagonist - the other Hiten-Mitsurugi style user - annoying. His sister was also really annoying. Plus all the land of God stuff was really annoying too. But this story arc at least was okay.
The divine medicine / Yutaro mini story arc was tolerable, I guess. I liked the return of Yutaro and the relationship he had with Yahiko. But I found both the Black Knights and the Sanada Ninja to be extremely retarded and weak characters. Lieutenant Melder was a lame main villain. Extremely lame: his power came from a weird-ass lance, armor, and a horse that he somehow brought underground. I thought it was pathetic that Kenshin was that badly injured in his fight against the stupid foreigner.
The final story arc, the Feng Shui story arc, was so awful that it was virtually unwatchable. In fact, even though I technically watched through most of them and got the gist of the storyline, towards the end I had to skip forward in order to not strangle myself from disgust. I also opened Samurai X: Trust and Betrayal on the side and watched that instead. No words can describe how bad that last story arc was, which is an unfortunate way to end an otherwise great series.
Samurai X: The Movie
The movie was done in the style of the TV show, but had some kickass Battousai sword fight scenes, so it was cool. I watched it a while ago and don't really remember, but I think mostly I thought it was fine. Although ... there was yet another annoying female character - the sister of the guy who Kenshin killed.
Samurai X: Reflections
This OVA is done in the same artistic style as Trust and Betrayal, but is overall really disorganized and disappointing. I liked that all the characters got older -- particularly Yahiko -- and that Kenshin and Kaoru finally got together and had a son, Kenji, who then went to train with Kenshin's master. But I was dissatisfied with the movie overall, although again the art was gorgeous.
Mostly, I didn't like how it ended. And I didn't like the revenge story arc. My internet research reveals that the revenge story arc in the manga is supposed to be awesome -- even more awesome than the Kyoto story arc. It makes me want to go read the manga.
Overall
Again, it's hard to give an overall rating to an uneven series, but I'd say I still come out with positive impressions of Rurouni Kenshin. But again, Season 3 sucked, and the Reflections OVA was not great either. Still, Season 2. SO GOOD. And Trust and Betrayal: seriously beautiful animation.
I think I'm looking to own Seasons 1 & 2 and Samurai X: Trust and Betrayal. Eventually. After I get the complete Avatar: The Last Airbender. Eventually. After I start making some money...
Monday, November 16, 2009
Why Do Anime Women Generally Suck?
I really like animation. I think the only reason, then, that I'm not more into Japanese anime is that the women in them generally suck. They're annoying. They're weak. They've got ridiculously irritating voices and personalities. They basically serve no useful purpose other than to be cutesy and delicate beings. Eye candy and love interests. But why would any cool, kickass male character fall in love with these intensely annoying females?
I'm not saying I need a strong female character in every single animated cup o' tea. I like plenty of animated shows and movies that lack a strong female lead or villain (notably, most of the PIXAR films to date focus on male protagonists). But where there have been strong females, I've generally been quite taken: San or the Lady Eboshi, from Princess Mononoke, for example. In fact, Miyazaki has a whole parade of strong female leads. And Avatar: The Last Airbender has a whole host of awesome (or at least kickass, if not awesome) female characters: Azula!!, Katara, Toph!!!, Mai, Ty Lee.
It's really too bad, because I'm sure I'd watch a whole lot more anime if there were appealing female heroines and villainesses. But... there aren't. Or at least I haven't found them yet.
I'm not saying I need a strong female character in every single animated cup o' tea. I like plenty of animated shows and movies that lack a strong female lead or villain (notably, most of the PIXAR films to date focus on male protagonists). But where there have been strong females, I've generally been quite taken: San or the Lady Eboshi, from Princess Mononoke, for example. In fact, Miyazaki has a whole parade of strong female leads. And Avatar: The Last Airbender has a whole host of awesome (or at least kickass, if not awesome) female characters: Azula!!, Katara, Toph!!!, Mai, Ty Lee.
It's really too bad, because I'm sure I'd watch a whole lot more anime if there were appealing female heroines and villainesses. But... there aren't. Or at least I haven't found them yet.
Tuesday, November 10, 2009
Fort Hood and the Muslim Islamist Terrorist
This was an interesting and provocative article from the WSJ, arguing that the Fort Hood killer's terrorist motive is obvious to everyone by the press and the army brass. It definitely made me think, although I'm not sure where I fall on things yet.
It bothers me that the press has been framing the Fort Hood murder as an army major disturbed about the horrors of warfare and afraid to be deployed soon. In that sense, I agree that the "victimisation" of the alleged murderer has gone too far. At some point, you have to put your foot down and make an argument that this guy is just a hateful sonuvabitch.
But it also bothers me that certain press always makes a point to put in the Major's full, foreign-sounding name. (Sort of like how certain press sources will use Barack Hussein Obama's full name. Not a factual issue, of course. Such is his name. But it's a connotational issue. What are they trying to get at when they print the person's full name?) It bothers me that the fact that he allegedly shouted "Allahu akbar" before he opened fire is repeatedly emphasized. Even if that is true, it bothers me. The phrase Islamic terrorist bothers me. Throwing around the jihad word bothers me too. It strikes me as a crude show-off demonstration (i.e., "Oh look, I know a foreign word.") of an overly used word (like "hero," overuse of which has diluted its core meaning).
Maybe I've been brainwashed by the NY Times and by my own left of center leanings. Maybe it IS absolutely relevant if he is a Muslim. And maybe there's no mental illness that can explain this kind of rampage. I don't know. For me, the religion creeping in there bothers me. But so does the excuse-making. Seems to me that people who go around mass-shooting people are just serious jackesses . . . no labels needed, religious or otherwise.
It bothers me that the press has been framing the Fort Hood murder as an army major disturbed about the horrors of warfare and afraid to be deployed soon. In that sense, I agree that the "victimisation" of the alleged murderer has gone too far. At some point, you have to put your foot down and make an argument that this guy is just a hateful sonuvabitch.
But it also bothers me that certain press always makes a point to put in the Major's full, foreign-sounding name. (Sort of like how certain press sources will use Barack Hussein Obama's full name. Not a factual issue, of course. Such is his name. But it's a connotational issue. What are they trying to get at when they print the person's full name?) It bothers me that the fact that he allegedly shouted "Allahu akbar" before he opened fire is repeatedly emphasized. Even if that is true, it bothers me. The phrase Islamic terrorist bothers me. Throwing around the jihad word bothers me too. It strikes me as a crude show-off demonstration (i.e., "Oh look, I know a foreign word.") of an overly used word (like "hero," overuse of which has diluted its core meaning).
Maybe I've been brainwashed by the NY Times and by my own left of center leanings. Maybe it IS absolutely relevant if he is a Muslim. And maybe there's no mental illness that can explain this kind of rampage. I don't know. For me, the religion creeping in there bothers me. But so does the excuse-making. Seems to me that people who go around mass-shooting people are just serious jackesses . . . no labels needed, religious or otherwise.
Thursday, November 5, 2009
Tuesday, October 27, 2009
Civil or Criminal - PICK One!
I don't have time to fully flesh this out, but I just wanted to note it down while it was still in my head. A common refrain regarding illegal immigrants is that they are all criminals, because they broke the law in coming here or overstaying their visas, so they should all be deported. Because they are criminals.
I've been pondering about whether all illegal immigrants really are criminals, in the real sense of the word. And, if they are, shouldn't they get all the process that real alleged criminals get?
Basically, in all other parts of law, there is a dichotomy between civil and criminal. To illustrate, I start with the difference between a traffic violation and a traffic crime. A traffic violation is a civil infraction, and the penalty is usually a fee. Classic examples would be speeding, or driving without insurance. You've broken the law, technically, but you haven't really endangered anyone else. A traffic crime is a criminal offense for which the punishment could include jail time (though often also includes fines). Examples would include a hit and run, drunk driving, or reckless driving. The difference seems to be the higher degree of potential harm to society. Criminal defendants are entitled to all sorts of procedural protections, including the right to counsel at the government's expense.
It seems to me that in immigration, the civil/criminal distinction has been completely lost. In far right rhetoric, technically civil violators (I'm not talking about the ones who perpetrate fraud, or engage in illegal re-entry, which are, indeed, crimes) like visa overstayers are now criminals. A person who sneaks across the border is a criminal. They've broken our laws! Even if they haven't hurt anyone, they are criminals!
Yet these "criminals" lack all the procedural protections that criminals have. And, unlike the norm with respect to civil violators, they are subject to oftentimes prolonged detention (and infringement of their personal liberty -- frequently thrown into jails next to real criminals), and torn apart from the families that they have established here.
This is major shaft-age! Illegal immigrants get none of the criminal protections, and all of the criminal punishment, oftentimes for mere civil violations, which are supposedly not punitive.
It seems to me that the right approach to this should be to truly institute the civil/criminal dichotomy in immigration law. Violations that pose little harm to society -- overstaying your visa, sneaking across the border -- would be truly civil, and treated as such. They would be subject to a fine - you could make it heftier to increase the deterrence factor. On the other hand, there could be criminal immigration violations (committing a crime while out of status, etc.), the penalty for which would be detention, and deportation, but with the full panoply of criminal protections.
As it is, the civil/criminal distinction is completely lost, and law is completely divorced from both reality and from normative considerations.
How about that?
I've been pondering about whether all illegal immigrants really are criminals, in the real sense of the word. And, if they are, shouldn't they get all the process that real alleged criminals get?
Basically, in all other parts of law, there is a dichotomy between civil and criminal. To illustrate, I start with the difference between a traffic violation and a traffic crime. A traffic violation is a civil infraction, and the penalty is usually a fee. Classic examples would be speeding, or driving without insurance. You've broken the law, technically, but you haven't really endangered anyone else. A traffic crime is a criminal offense for which the punishment could include jail time (though often also includes fines). Examples would include a hit and run, drunk driving, or reckless driving. The difference seems to be the higher degree of potential harm to society. Criminal defendants are entitled to all sorts of procedural protections, including the right to counsel at the government's expense.
It seems to me that in immigration, the civil/criminal distinction has been completely lost. In far right rhetoric, technically civil violators (I'm not talking about the ones who perpetrate fraud, or engage in illegal re-entry, which are, indeed, crimes) like visa overstayers are now criminals. A person who sneaks across the border is a criminal. They've broken our laws! Even if they haven't hurt anyone, they are criminals!
Yet these "criminals" lack all the procedural protections that criminals have. And, unlike the norm with respect to civil violators, they are subject to oftentimes prolonged detention (and infringement of their personal liberty -- frequently thrown into jails next to real criminals), and torn apart from the families that they have established here.
This is major shaft-age! Illegal immigrants get none of the criminal protections, and all of the criminal punishment, oftentimes for mere civil violations, which are supposedly not punitive.
It seems to me that the right approach to this should be to truly institute the civil/criminal dichotomy in immigration law. Violations that pose little harm to society -- overstaying your visa, sneaking across the border -- would be truly civil, and treated as such. They would be subject to a fine - you could make it heftier to increase the deterrence factor. On the other hand, there could be criminal immigration violations (committing a crime while out of status, etc.), the penalty for which would be detention, and deportation, but with the full panoply of criminal protections.
As it is, the civil/criminal distinction is completely lost, and law is completely divorced from both reality and from normative considerations.
How about that?
Friday, October 9, 2009
Premature
I'd just like to state for the record that I think it's ridiculous that Obama won a Nobel Peace prize. Just what has he accomplished exactly? Apparently we get prizes for intending to do things now.
Wednesday, September 23, 2009
Job Search
So it's time to hit the job market! I've been submitting applications to various companies looking for a job in finance. I'd thought it might be therapeutic to blog about my search. Last year I looked for a bit and had no luck - hopefully this year will be better. I've submitted 12 applications so far - hopefully some of those will yield an interview.
Congrats to XX who landed at least one summer offer! Hopefully that will relieve some of her stress :).
Congrats to XX who landed at least one summer offer! Hopefully that will relieve some of her stress :).
Tuesday, September 15, 2009
Monday, September 14, 2009
Voters in America!
Oh my god, this video of a Tea Party protest in DC is friggin hilarious. Also quite terrifying.
Some choice quotes:
"There won't be enough doctors to take care of the people that he wants to bring on. I mean, we're going to be 200,000 doctors short. Q: What should happen to these people without care? A: A different plan. Q: Could a different plan produce more doctors? A: Uh, no?"
"His mother was white, so he's not an African American! But he's going that way because that pays off for 'im!"
"Well... fascism is a form of socialism, I would believe. I mean, they're all intertwined. Communism, Fascism, Socialism... They all have a little bit of each. They borrowed from each other."
"I don't even know why Obama appointed a czar. What are they doing? Czar came from Caesar... in the Roman times... and then the Russian czar. This is America, we don't have czars in America." "... are they going to be given land?"
The left-wing propaganda message at the end is a little much, but ... it's just ... really funny to laugh at people who don't know what they're talking about. Sorry, I know I'm on an elitist high horse here...
Some choice quotes:
"There won't be enough doctors to take care of the people that he wants to bring on. I mean, we're going to be 200,000 doctors short. Q: What should happen to these people without care? A: A different plan. Q: Could a different plan produce more doctors? A: Uh, no?"
"His mother was white, so he's not an African American! But he's going that way because that pays off for 'im!"
"Well... fascism is a form of socialism, I would believe. I mean, they're all intertwined. Communism, Fascism, Socialism... They all have a little bit of each. They borrowed from each other."
"I don't even know why Obama appointed a czar. What are they doing? Czar came from Caesar... in the Roman times... and then the Russian czar. This is America, we don't have czars in America." "... are they going to be given land?"
The left-wing propaganda message at the end is a little much, but ... it's just ... really funny to laugh at people who don't know what they're talking about. Sorry, I know I'm on an elitist high horse here...
http://reason.com/news/show/136044.html
I just wanted to share that article: "The Republican Health Care Failure." I really liked the author's point, and there were some great lines: "[Republicans] did worse than miss an opportunity. They stimulated the public appetite for lavish federal spending on health care while catering to the illusion that it can be provided painlessly."
I just wanted to share that article: "The Republican Health Care Failure." I really liked the author's point, and there were some great lines: "[Republicans] did worse than miss an opportunity. They stimulated the public appetite for lavish federal spending on health care while catering to the illusion that it can be provided painlessly."
Thursday, September 10, 2009
Obama's speech
Obama delivered his speech to the American public on healthcare last night and I just wanted to put down a few thoughts. He began by talking about the economy, which I thought was very telling. Do we really want to implement huge reforms when there are other problems looming? I was not convinced by Obama who appealed to a moral imperative to do things now. The reforms he's talking about are expensive. Expanding coverage and reforming coverage are both going to cost a lot of money. This will either be higher premiums or come from the government. The idea that it won't add to the deficit seems like some very sneaky and convenient accounting. I don't buy it for a second. That said, the expense of the these reforms and universal coverage do not change the fact that it's a worthy goal. I agree with the president that it is a moral imperative to provide greater access to healthcare.
I don't think we should be blinded by that fact. There are a lot of worthy goals in the world, poverty in the US, poverty in the world, human rights violations, etc. You can use such idealism to promote this reform, but you could use it to promote dozens of other worthy causes. In the end it comes down to cost-benefit analysis. No matter how good something is, we can't do it or buy it if it's too expensive. If the expense is reasonable then we can go ahead.
Herein lies the rub. Finding out the exact expense is almost impossible because the administration keeps combining the expansion of coverage with "cost-reductions" that will save billions. I can't speak to the veracity of these claims, because I don't know the details, and perhaps those details don't exist at this point.
Obviously if we can save billions, that's something we should do whether or not we reform health insurance or expand coverage. But that seems separate from the issue of expanding coverage. I thought it was telling that the president's anecdotes often focused on insured people who had insurance and were denied claims. This was a calculated appeal to the public to support his reforms, which in theory would improve their coverage. Again he's combining reforms on current coverage with expanding coverage to appeal to more people. These are separate things and should be treated as such. Why they are taking this approach seems obvious - expansion of coverage is very expensive.
Finally, the speech showed a rather deep divide on party lines. I don't think Republicans walked away convinced, and I didn't see any substantial concessions made by the administration. I don't necessarily fault him for that, but if these reforms make it through it's because Obama convinced people in his own party to stand with him.
I don't think we should be blinded by that fact. There are a lot of worthy goals in the world, poverty in the US, poverty in the world, human rights violations, etc. You can use such idealism to promote this reform, but you could use it to promote dozens of other worthy causes. In the end it comes down to cost-benefit analysis. No matter how good something is, we can't do it or buy it if it's too expensive. If the expense is reasonable then we can go ahead.
Herein lies the rub. Finding out the exact expense is almost impossible because the administration keeps combining the expansion of coverage with "cost-reductions" that will save billions. I can't speak to the veracity of these claims, because I don't know the details, and perhaps those details don't exist at this point.
Obviously if we can save billions, that's something we should do whether or not we reform health insurance or expand coverage. But that seems separate from the issue of expanding coverage. I thought it was telling that the president's anecdotes often focused on insured people who had insurance and were denied claims. This was a calculated appeal to the public to support his reforms, which in theory would improve their coverage. Again he's combining reforms on current coverage with expanding coverage to appeal to more people. These are separate things and should be treated as such. Why they are taking this approach seems obvious - expansion of coverage is very expensive.
Finally, the speech showed a rather deep divide on party lines. I don't think Republicans walked away convinced, and I didn't see any substantial concessions made by the administration. I don't necessarily fault him for that, but if these reforms make it through it's because Obama convinced people in his own party to stand with him.
Monday, August 24, 2009
Death Penalty
This Texas judge refused to hold open the clerk's office for a last-minute death row inmate appeal, based on the Supreme Court's announcement earlier that day that it would consider a case with potential ramifications for this inmate. The appeal was not filed in time, and the inmate was executed later that night.
That judge is now on trial for her job. The NYTimes argues that she is unfit for the job: "Judge Keller’s callous indifference in a case where the stakes could not have been higher makes her unfit for office."
I'm not sure I agree. Certainly, I think the judge showed a callousness and lack of compassion in refusing to hold the office open. A man's life was at stake, fercryinoutloud, and you couldn't keep the office open for, what, 30 more minutes? But on the other hand, random last-minute appeals are filed all the time. I'm betting the majority of them have no chance of actually changing the outcome. I don't think the refusal to bend the rules makes a person unfit to be a judge...
Of course, there are other issues here as well - something about the court not following its own procedures. But that's the court, not the judge, right? The cynical side of me says, yeah, she's a heartless bastard, but . . . he probably would've lost his appeal anyway, even if his lawyers had filed it on time. C'est la vie. Or, peut-être, la mort.
That judge is now on trial for her job. The NYTimes argues that she is unfit for the job: "Judge Keller’s callous indifference in a case where the stakes could not have been higher makes her unfit for office."
I'm not sure I agree. Certainly, I think the judge showed a callousness and lack of compassion in refusing to hold the office open. A man's life was at stake, fercryinoutloud, and you couldn't keep the office open for, what, 30 more minutes? But on the other hand, random last-minute appeals are filed all the time. I'm betting the majority of them have no chance of actually changing the outcome. I don't think the refusal to bend the rules makes a person unfit to be a judge...
Of course, there are other issues here as well - something about the court not following its own procedures. But that's the court, not the judge, right? The cynical side of me says, yeah, she's a heartless bastard, but . . . he probably would've lost his appeal anyway, even if his lawyers had filed it on time. C'est la vie. Or, peut-être, la mort.
Saturday, August 22, 2009
Review: "Sozin's Comet"
I recently finished watching all of Nickolodeon's Avatar: The Last Airbender. Overall, I loved it; it's definitely on my list of my top animated series of all time. It was a fantastic series - something I never expected from a channel like Nickolodeon. Everything from the animation (especially the animation), to the writing, to the music, to the characters was superbly done. Although the dialogue was, at times, juvenile, that quickly fell away as the story matured. As a Miyazaki fan, I very much appreciated the clear Miyazaki influences (such as the Owl in the episode "The Library" and Koh the face-stealer). Also, as a Batman: The Animated Series fan, I also appreciated the generally excellent voice acting -- particularly Mark Hamill (the Joker in BTAS) as Fire Lord Ozai, and Dante Basco (who I only know as Rufio from "Hook") as Zuko.
A four-part two-hour movie, "Sozin's Comet," functioned as the series finale, tying together all of the loose ends and showcasing all of the characters on their way to fulfilling their destinies. All I can say is, "Sozin's Comet" was absolutely amazing, possibly the best two hours of TV (animated or not) I've ever watched. So, what was so amazing about it?
(1) First off, the animation. Some of the action sequences - particularly the agni kai between Zuko and Azula - were breathtakingly beautiful. The pacing in that fight scene was just stunning, and the music was perfect as well. 
Really, just everything was perfect. The use of color. The interplay of light and dark. The use of shadows. Certainly, the animation style was fantastic throughout the whole show, but in "Sozin's Comet" three scenes totally blew me away: the scene when Ozai and the airships light the world on fire, the aforementioned Zuko v. Azula fight; and the Ozai v. Avatar fight. Seriously, the Zuko v. Azula fight scene ... best animated sequence EVER. (I think it's superior to even the Ozai v. Avatar fight, although that fight is also superbly done.)
Really, just everything was perfect. The use of color. The interplay of light and dark. The use of shadows. Certainly, the animation style was fantastic throughout the whole show, but in "Sozin's Comet" three scenes totally blew me away: the scene when Ozai and the airships light the world on fire, the aforementioned Zuko v. Azula fight; and the Ozai v. Avatar fight. Seriously, the Zuko v. Azula fight scene ... best animated sequence EVER. (I think it's superior to even the Ozai v. Avatar fight, although that fight is also superbly done.)
(2) Second, the character development. The series was fantastic about developing its characters (including the villains) overall. But even in the series finale, the writers took time to flesh out Azula's character. I won't spoil it, but Azula's scenes are picture perfect. And you really see characters like Zuko and Sokka come into their own, see how far they've come. You even see Toph shed a tear.
(3) Third, the writing. Other reviewers have written this as well, but every scene in "Sozin's Comet" seems to have a purpose. There's nothing extra, and every scene is doing work in adding value to the show. There are some comical scenes (like the birthday party in the bomb bay) which are probably unnecessary, but because they're well written, they fit in well with the rest of the movie. There were some great one-liners, and some really moving scenes (like the Zuko and Uncle reunion, and the Zuko and Aang talk & hug at the very end). There were also great (though sometimes cryptic) scenes that showed Aang's struggle with his pre-ordained mission.
(4) Fourth, the music. Actually, now that I've watched "Sozin's Comet" something like 4 or 5 times, I've really noticed how much work the music does in the movie. Three sequences where the music is just chillingly EXCELLENT are: the aforementioned agni kai scene (the slow music there is just stunning, a beautiful contrast against the flames that are swirling on the screen), the scene where Aang redirects Ozai's lightning strike, and, of course, the energybending scene.
That's all I've got, really. I can't say enough about how "Sozin's Comet" really just blew me away. The series was great overall, with only a few episodes that were blah-dee-blah, but I don't think I would be as enamored with Avatar: The Last Airbender if "Sozin's Comet" hadn't been so well executed. (To a lesser extent, I think I feel the same way about Batman Beyond: Return of the Joker, in relation to Batman Beyond, though I think I like Avatar more.)
In any case, that's my review of "Sozin's Comet." Just, really really fantastic. I don't even know if I have any complaints!
Thursday, August 20, 2009
Misinformation or disinformation
In discussing the Obama administration's healthcare plan, it seems like a lot of false details have been proliferated. I've heard from various sources that the plan would include plans to encourage euthanasia of the elderly and the ability of the government to stop treatment of the elderly who have expensive treatments but not a long life-expectancy. CNN has a "Truth Squad" whose sole goal is to measure the veracity of such claims and has been busy investigating one false rumor after another about the health plan.
I'm wondering who is to blame for these misconceptions, and worse whether it's misinformation or deliberate disinformation. I think it's easy to jump to the conclusion that opponents of the health plan have tried to create a climate of fear surrounding the reforms. At the same time, I can't help but think that the administration has done a very poor job in giving the facts to the people. This is complicated by the fact that this reform is HUGE. Getting the government involved directly in healthcare and in determining appropriate treatments for various diagnoses creates an entirely new role for the government. Also remember that healthcare represents a large and growing percentage of the entire economy (I think around 10%).
I think the truth is that no one really knows what the reforms will ultimately look like, so it's difficult for the legislators to convey what will happen to the public. When there is such uncertainty, people are understandably scared and prone to misinformation and disinformation. In my opinion, the reforms should be much more narrow in scope. For example, programs to encourage preventive medicine through government agencies or subsidies to healthcare providers. That would narrow the conversation down to the merit of preventive medicine, which has often come up in discussions of the health plan, without conflating it with the myriad of other changes that are occurring. In the end, I'm personally skeptical of government involvement when it's not clearly delineated. The biggest reason for intervention seems to be rising healthcare costs and to provide universal coverage. I'd prefer to see plans to address those issues separately so I could better understand the logic of the reforms. The bogus rumors are just a result of the fact that no one, including a lot of the legislators, really knows what this plan will do.
I'm wondering who is to blame for these misconceptions, and worse whether it's misinformation or deliberate disinformation. I think it's easy to jump to the conclusion that opponents of the health plan have tried to create a climate of fear surrounding the reforms. At the same time, I can't help but think that the administration has done a very poor job in giving the facts to the people. This is complicated by the fact that this reform is HUGE. Getting the government involved directly in healthcare and in determining appropriate treatments for various diagnoses creates an entirely new role for the government. Also remember that healthcare represents a large and growing percentage of the entire economy (I think around 10%).
I think the truth is that no one really knows what the reforms will ultimately look like, so it's difficult for the legislators to convey what will happen to the public. When there is such uncertainty, people are understandably scared and prone to misinformation and disinformation. In my opinion, the reforms should be much more narrow in scope. For example, programs to encourage preventive medicine through government agencies or subsidies to healthcare providers. That would narrow the conversation down to the merit of preventive medicine, which has often come up in discussions of the health plan, without conflating it with the myriad of other changes that are occurring. In the end, I'm personally skeptical of government involvement when it's not clearly delineated. The biggest reason for intervention seems to be rising healthcare costs and to provide universal coverage. I'd prefer to see plans to address those issues separately so I could better understand the logic of the reforms. The bogus rumors are just a result of the fact that no one, including a lot of the legislators, really knows what this plan will do.
Friday, August 7, 2009
Book Review
Title: A Drink Before the War
Author: Dennis Lehane
I thought it might be fun to put up book reviews as I read. I have a strange relationship with books. Growing up, I didn't read that much. I preferred watching cartoons and playing computer games. I read an odd book every couple of months but most of my reading was confined to assigned books for school. Now it seems a bit odd, because I enjoy science fiction and fantasy fiction so reading in those genres would have been a great outlet. Surprisingly, this changed post college, and I have been reading a lot for pleasure the last 6 years.
What drew me to A Drink Before the War? XX and I are fans of the movie "Gone, Baby, Gone" which is based on Dennis Lehane's novel. I absolutely love that movie and thought it had a great blend of suspense and twists. My one complaint is that I didn't find necessarily find Casey Affleck to be quite believable as the lead character. He's a bit scrawny and I didn't necessarily think that his wise-cracking was suitable to the character. At the time, I assumed that the Patrick Kenzie character would be a more hard-nosed tough guy and that his portrayal strayed from the book. Rather than pick up the book of the same title I started started with the first book of the series.
Patrick Kenzie and Angela Gennaro are private detectives who are hired by a state politician to track down a person and certain "documents" that she has. This leads to the detectives discovering some pretty dark secrets involving the nature of these documents and the persons involved. The book has a few twists, but none that are particularly mind-blowing. I'm not the type who tries to guess things ahead in the novel but I think observant readers would not find the twists surprising either. The subject nature is definitely dark, I don't want to give away too much of the content of the book but I was surprised by how evil some of the characters are.
The book does make me re-evaluate Casey Affleck's performance. He absolutely nailed it. The novel is written fron Kenzie's perspective, and he has the same wise-cracking wit and sarcasm that he portrayed in the movie. In retrospect, his performance, which I always thought was good, was actually great.
The most appealling parts of the book for me are the details of Boston. I grew up in the suburbs and am very familiar with the city, but not the poorer neighborhoods where a lot of the story takes place. I love how scenes take place in South Station or at Downtown Crossing, mentioning stores and locations that I personally am familiar with. It added a lot of background and visualization to the story.
Overall a very solid book, if not spectacular. I give it a B+.
Author: Dennis Lehane
I thought it might be fun to put up book reviews as I read. I have a strange relationship with books. Growing up, I didn't read that much. I preferred watching cartoons and playing computer games. I read an odd book every couple of months but most of my reading was confined to assigned books for school. Now it seems a bit odd, because I enjoy science fiction and fantasy fiction so reading in those genres would have been a great outlet. Surprisingly, this changed post college, and I have been reading a lot for pleasure the last 6 years.
What drew me to A Drink Before the War? XX and I are fans of the movie "Gone, Baby, Gone" which is based on Dennis Lehane's novel. I absolutely love that movie and thought it had a great blend of suspense and twists. My one complaint is that I didn't find necessarily find Casey Affleck to be quite believable as the lead character. He's a bit scrawny and I didn't necessarily think that his wise-cracking was suitable to the character. At the time, I assumed that the Patrick Kenzie character would be a more hard-nosed tough guy and that his portrayal strayed from the book. Rather than pick up the book of the same title I started started with the first book of the series.
Patrick Kenzie and Angela Gennaro are private detectives who are hired by a state politician to track down a person and certain "documents" that she has. This leads to the detectives discovering some pretty dark secrets involving the nature of these documents and the persons involved. The book has a few twists, but none that are particularly mind-blowing. I'm not the type who tries to guess things ahead in the novel but I think observant readers would not find the twists surprising either. The subject nature is definitely dark, I don't want to give away too much of the content of the book but I was surprised by how evil some of the characters are.
The book does make me re-evaluate Casey Affleck's performance. He absolutely nailed it. The novel is written fron Kenzie's perspective, and he has the same wise-cracking wit and sarcasm that he portrayed in the movie. In retrospect, his performance, which I always thought was good, was actually great.
The most appealling parts of the book for me are the details of Boston. I grew up in the suburbs and am very familiar with the city, but not the poorer neighborhoods where a lot of the story takes place. I love how scenes take place in South Station or at Downtown Crossing, mentioning stores and locations that I personally am familiar with. It added a lot of background and visualization to the story.
Overall a very solid book, if not spectacular. I give it a B+.
Thursday, July 9, 2009
NY State Politics
I've never been a very big politico, so to speak - especially not one with respect to local politics. I followed national political issues and major developments, but by no means did I have any comfort with who's the junior senator from where, and who was sponsoring what bill, and all that jazz. But by virtue of where I'm working this summer, I've been closely following the hoopla in the NY state senate. And it's just made me feel completely disgusted with politics. I had no idea NY was so goddamn dysfunctional.
After a month of unbelievably childish power-wrangling, the stalemate finally ended with the Dems pretty much bribing the despicable Espada back into the Dem caucus. Absolutely DISGUSTING. I suppose a lot was at stake, with the 2010 Census coming up, and the margins so razor close. But Dems and Republicans alike were just shameless in their ridiculous behavior.
Meanwhile, excellent bills like the Domestic Workers Bill of Rights and the Farm Workers Fair Labor Practices Bill were left to the wayside, not to mention local budget bills and other routine legislation that needed to be passed to ensure smooth sailing in the state. And same sex marriage, too. Many people had worked hard to lobby for these bills, build up support for them, and it seemed as if the time was finally ripe for something to be done about the exclusion of domestic workers and farm laborers from basic worker protections (like a day of a rest per week, overtime pay, the right to organize).
I just ... can't stomach that the entire month of June was laid to waste with this Albany circus. Bronx voters, show your displeasure! Kick Espada off his power-hungry high horse.
After a month of unbelievably childish power-wrangling, the stalemate finally ended with the Dems pretty much bribing the despicable Espada back into the Dem caucus. Absolutely DISGUSTING. I suppose a lot was at stake, with the 2010 Census coming up, and the margins so razor close. But Dems and Republicans alike were just shameless in their ridiculous behavior.
Meanwhile, excellent bills like the Domestic Workers Bill of Rights and the Farm Workers Fair Labor Practices Bill were left to the wayside, not to mention local budget bills and other routine legislation that needed to be passed to ensure smooth sailing in the state. And same sex marriage, too. Many people had worked hard to lobby for these bills, build up support for them, and it seemed as if the time was finally ripe for something to be done about the exclusion of domestic workers and farm laborers from basic worker protections (like a day of a rest per week, overtime pay, the right to organize).
I just ... can't stomach that the entire month of June was laid to waste with this Albany circus. Bronx voters, show your displeasure! Kick Espada off his power-hungry high horse.
Thursday, June 18, 2009
FISA
Back to this same old topic...
I know I'm supposed to, you know, like constitutional rights 'n civil liberties 'n all, and want the government to respect the people's right to be free from unreasonable search & seizure and all that. And in certain contexts, I do.
But for some strange reason, things like FISA don't really bug me all that much. Even though my current company line, of course, takes the Very Opposite Approach. I guess this is where my political outlook collapses in contradictions. In, say, the national security context I'm okay with the gov't eavesdropping and wiretapping, but in other context, I want to suppress evidence illegally obtained!
Strangeness abounds... I guess I don't have much respect for the rule of law. Yikes.
I know I'm supposed to, you know, like constitutional rights 'n civil liberties 'n all, and want the government to respect the people's right to be free from unreasonable search & seizure and all that. And in certain contexts, I do.
But for some strange reason, things like FISA don't really bug me all that much. Even though my current company line, of course, takes the Very Opposite Approach. I guess this is where my political outlook collapses in contradictions. In, say, the national security context I'm okay with the gov't eavesdropping and wiretapping, but in other context, I want to suppress evidence illegally obtained!
Strangeness abounds... I guess I don't have much respect for the rule of law. Yikes.
Saturday, May 23, 2009
When the Going Gets Tough...
People say that you show your true colors when the going gets tough. Well, the going is tough. And apparently, our colors are xenophobic.
This was the case historically, and it is the case now. Trouble comes, and we turn inward. Up the tariffs, restrict trade from foreign countries, turn out the foreigners within, close off the borders, listen to more Lou Dobbs...
And this WSJ article, "Job Fight: Immigrants vs. Locals" sure ain't gonna help.
I'm not sure where I stand with this. Certainly, I understand the frustration of locals who see their local jobs being "stolen" by immigrants. But I can see no reason why locals should be preferred. Unless they're manifestly more productive, work at lower costs, are more valuable workers, etc. So long as the immigrants are in the country, the negative externalities seem to be the same whoever gets their feet in the door, and whoever gets left out in the cold...
Rough times in America... --> xenophobia!
This was the case historically, and it is the case now. Trouble comes, and we turn inward. Up the tariffs, restrict trade from foreign countries, turn out the foreigners within, close off the borders, listen to more Lou Dobbs...
And this WSJ article, "Job Fight: Immigrants vs. Locals" sure ain't gonna help.
I'm not sure where I stand with this. Certainly, I understand the frustration of locals who see their local jobs being "stolen" by immigrants. But I can see no reason why locals should be preferred. Unless they're manifestly more productive, work at lower costs, are more valuable workers, etc. So long as the immigrants are in the country, the negative externalities seem to be the same whoever gets their feet in the door, and whoever gets left out in the cold...
Rough times in America... --> xenophobia!
Wednesday, May 20, 2009
Parents v. Judges
Should a judge be able to order parents to give their child medical care? The judge in Danny Hauser's case said yes, and ordered the reluctant parents to pick an oncologist and get an X-ray so that the doctor could formulate a chemo treatment plan for his cancer.
Apparently, medical treatment is not the only thing these parents have been denying him. This article claims the kid is illiterate and can't even read the word "the."
Apparently, medical treatment is not the only thing these parents have been denying him. This article claims the kid is illiterate and can't even read the word "the."
Tuesday, May 19, 2009
I'm Sorry, Maybe I Missed Something Here
This WSJ opinion article says Obama's Auto Plan is Capitalism At Work, and that "Not a single creditor right has been altered during this process."
I'm sorry, maybe I missed something here. But I thought the hoopla was because the unions/employees were getting a cut, when the creditors had not been fully compensated?
Also, my bankruptcy professor was arguing that in all this talk about restructuring the auto industry, no one is realistically looking at the future demand for cars in the country. Apparently, the numbers indicate that we've been selling some 16-17 million cars per year, but that number will drop to some 9-10 million per year going forward. (I don't have a cite for that, other than Class Notes.) And all the car companies are already struggling with the 16-17 figure. What makes anyone think that the car industry is worth saving? That we should be propping up supply when there is no demand....?
I'm sorry, maybe I missed something here. But I thought the hoopla was because the unions/employees were getting a cut, when the creditors had not been fully compensated?
Also, my bankruptcy professor was arguing that in all this talk about restructuring the auto industry, no one is realistically looking at the future demand for cars in the country. Apparently, the numbers indicate that we've been selling some 16-17 million cars per year, but that number will drop to some 9-10 million per year going forward. (I don't have a cite for that, other than Class Notes.) And all the car companies are already struggling with the 16-17 figure. What makes anyone think that the car industry is worth saving? That we should be propping up supply when there is no demand....?
Tuesday, May 12, 2009
If Only I'd Waited
There's been so much news today about Medicare and health policy -- stuff that would have been useful had I waited just one more day to take my exam. Oh well.
This WSJ editorial, for instance, argues against ObamaCare. And this NYT article predicts insolvency for Medicare by 2017. And this WSJ article points out the stupidity of the health care industry's "promise" to churn out savings.
Cost-control, people. Cost-control.
Also, why do Americans persist in the ridiculous notion that health care is not rationed (and should not be)?
This WSJ editorial, for instance, argues against ObamaCare. And this NYT article predicts insolvency for Medicare by 2017. And this WSJ article points out the stupidity of the health care industry's "promise" to churn out savings.
Cost-control, people. Cost-control.
Also, why do Americans persist in the ridiculous notion that health care is not rationed (and should not be)?
Sunday, May 10, 2009
Insanity and Religion
[Can you tell it's exam period? My posting frequency has skyrocketed...]
This article in the Post tracks a discussion that my classmates and I were having after my crim law class. There can sometimes be a blurry line between insanity and religious beliefs. (What does that say about religion...?)
This article in the Post tracks a discussion that my classmates and I were having after my crim law class. There can sometimes be a blurry line between insanity and religious beliefs. (What does that say about religion...?)
The Big Three
This WSJ article discusses how "we live in a world where wisdom can be punished and where foolishness can be rewarded" -- i.e., how Ford has managed to avoid having to get government rescue, and may ultimately be left at a competitive disadvantage while its government-spoon-fed competitors get their debts wiped clean and have a bankruptcy restructuring plan crammed down by sheer government clout. Over the objections of creditors. And in violation of the absolute priority rule.
Saturday, May 9, 2009
Supreme Court Favorites
Oh, fyi, since you asked, the consensus around my school seems to be that Sonia Sotomayer and Elena Kagan top the list of Supreme Court picks to replace Souter.
Policy Question
HYPOTHETICAL: The consumer finance companies introduce a program called ParentSupport®, which allows the adult children of the elderly to mortgage their own homes to help pay for parents’ care. ParentSupport® also allows individuals to pledge payments of ten to fifty percent of after-tax income for five to twenty-five years in order to collateralize a loan to pay for their parents’ care.
Should such contracts be enforced?
Tuesday, May 5, 2009
Health Care for America
At some point, I'd like to blog about health care reform in America. Oh, you know, that very simple subject that can easily be blogged about in one tiny entry. Specifically, I'd like to evaluate
Prof. Jacob Hacker's Health Care for America proposal, which we are discussing in my health care class.
Of course, per usual, this super Left class does not really present the other side to the story, so I went and pulled up the Heritage Foundation's criticisms of the proposal. Pretty standard Republican retorts, all in all.
Except that I find that more and more, I agree with them. Except I still think we should go to a national health insurance system. Very very weird.
I'd love to write about why, except... I should really finish my reading for class tomorrow first...
Oh, but I'd like to note that I find this blog's very rosy depiction of Taiwan's National Health Insurance program quite intriguing. It certainly accords with many of my dad's boasts about the system. Another similar view, with more air-time to the system's ills: here.
[update] WSJ criticizes the public health plan option here.
Prof. Jacob Hacker's Health Care for America proposal, which we are discussing in my health care class.
Of course, per usual, this super Left class does not really present the other side to the story, so I went and pulled up the Heritage Foundation's criticisms of the proposal. Pretty standard Republican retorts, all in all.
Except that I find that more and more, I agree with them. Except I still think we should go to a national health insurance system. Very very weird.
I'd love to write about why, except... I should really finish my reading for class tomorrow first...
Oh, but I'd like to note that I find this blog's very rosy depiction of Taiwan's National Health Insurance program quite intriguing. It certainly accords with many of my dad's boasts about the system. Another similar view, with more air-time to the system's ills: here.
[update] WSJ criticizes the public health plan option here.
Monday, April 20, 2009
Amnesty
I'm impressed with this WSJ article and the author's take on illegal immigration and the distraction of the "amnesty" debate.
XY comment: While I'm right of center, I agree with that article. Having more open borders would alleviate the flow of illegal immigrants which is the long-term problem. However, I disagree with the idea that the illegal immigrants already in the country is a `self-correcting' problem. The fact remains that they circumvented the laws and rules of our country and that has to be dealt with. This is a belief in justice and the rule of law that is separate from economic arguments. Personally I'm not sure amnesty is the right solution and maybe there should be some penalty to illegally residing in the country. No - this is not a crime on the level of murder or fraud, but it remains a crime.
XY comment: While I'm right of center, I agree with that article. Having more open borders would alleviate the flow of illegal immigrants which is the long-term problem. However, I disagree with the idea that the illegal immigrants already in the country is a `self-correcting' problem. The fact remains that they circumvented the laws and rules of our country and that has to be dealt with. This is a belief in justice and the rule of law that is separate from economic arguments. Personally I'm not sure amnesty is the right solution and maybe there should be some penalty to illegally residing in the country. No - this is not a crime on the level of murder or fraud, but it remains a crime.
Monday, April 6, 2009
The Effectiveness of Foreign Aid
I keep meaning to read Jeffrey Sachs' The End of Poverty, William Easterly's White Man's Burden: Why the West's Efforts to Aid the Rest Have Done So Much Ill, and Paul Collier's The Bottom Billion: Why the Poorest Countries Are Failing and What Can Be Done About It. Or other books that address the issue of international poverty and foreign aid. But I still haven't gotten around to it.
I still find the question interesting, though. Is foreign aid effective?
This WSJ article comes down on the Easterly side of things (arguing no). Jury's still out!
I still find the question interesting, though. Is foreign aid effective?
This WSJ article comes down on the Easterly side of things (arguing no). Jury's still out!
Friday, March 20, 2009
The 90% Tax
Perspective on the legality of the 90% tax on $250k+ salaries for TARP recipients:
http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2009/03/18/would-an-aig-bonus-tax-pass-constitutional-muster-a-tribe-calls-yes/
Larry Tribe says the AIG bonus tax is not unconstitutional.
http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2009/03/18/would-an-aig-bonus-tax-pass-constitutional-muster-a-tribe-calls-yes/
Larry Tribe says the AIG bonus tax is not unconstitutional.
Monday, March 16, 2009
Executive Bonuses
Obama: AIG Bonuses an 'Outrage' to Taxpayers - Am I the only person who thinks people are irrationally freaking out about this? I guess I can see where taxpayers are coming from - they see their money going to this giant company, and going toward executive pay, at a time when their own paychecks are dwindling. The populist in me shares that theoretical outrage.
But look, there's such a thing as a contract. And usually, when you breach contracts, there are consequences (i.e. lawsuits). I'm guessing AIG has already broken as many contracts as it has found it efficient to breach, and that these last $165 million in bonuses were what they calculated to be the necessary payoff to avoid more than $165 million in lawsuits. If this is the case, I don't see any problem with paying out these executive bonuses... except that now the country - and its president - is in uproar about it.
But look, there's such a thing as a contract. And usually, when you breach contracts, there are consequences (i.e. lawsuits). I'm guessing AIG has already broken as many contracts as it has found it efficient to breach, and that these last $165 million in bonuses were what they calculated to be the necessary payoff to avoid more than $165 million in lawsuits. If this is the case, I don't see any problem with paying out these executive bonuses... except that now the country - and its president - is in uproar about it.
Thursday, February 19, 2009
GM and Bankruptcy
Excellent op-ed in the WSJ today: GM's Plan: Subsidize our 48 Year Old Retirees. Ultimately, the author argues that GM et al. should be filing for bankruptcy. I think I agree. I really liked the article in that it wasn't quick to blame anyone - despite its title, it doesn't just slam GM, or UAW:
A bankruptcy filing may even be a way for the major actors to avoid the political fallout for What Must Be Done. Both the companies and the union can hide behind the Bankruptcy Court and say 'they ordered me to' when their constituents come hollerin'.
I just thought it was awesome that this article combines my bankruptcy class with the journal article I am editing on retiree health benefits.
[XY Comment]: I think that letting GM go bankrupt would be unambiguously correct if there weren't so many other problems in the economy. It's definitely a blackhole for taxpayer money right now and represents transfers from the taxpaying base to the employees and shareholders of GM. While I sympathize with the employees of GM, I think there are people in worse conditions. Using taxpayer money directly for the unemployed would seem to be fairer and a better use of resources.
A lot of losses in the economy are real but they have already hit (see stock market down to a 6 year low). There are multiple equilibria for the market and if everyone thinks it's going down, it's gonna go down. If people think it'll steady out and start spending again, then it will steady out. The worry is that letting GM fail means that people will believe the former rather than the latter.
So why were these problems allowed to fester, when smart people recognized them
all along? The answer is that the solutions were painful, requiring not just
brains but considerable amounts of courage.
A bankruptcy filing may even be a way for the major actors to avoid the political fallout for What Must Be Done. Both the companies and the union can hide behind the Bankruptcy Court and say 'they ordered me to' when their constituents come hollerin'.
I just thought it was awesome that this article combines my bankruptcy class with the journal article I am editing on retiree health benefits.
[XY Comment]: I think that letting GM go bankrupt would be unambiguously correct if there weren't so many other problems in the economy. It's definitely a blackhole for taxpayer money right now and represents transfers from the taxpaying base to the employees and shareholders of GM. While I sympathize with the employees of GM, I think there are people in worse conditions. Using taxpayer money directly for the unemployed would seem to be fairer and a better use of resources.
A lot of losses in the economy are real but they have already hit (see stock market down to a 6 year low). There are multiple equilibria for the market and if everyone thinks it's going down, it's gonna go down. If people think it'll steady out and start spending again, then it will steady out. The worry is that letting GM fail means that people will believe the former rather than the latter.
Monday, February 2, 2009
Not Cheap Talk
Check out this mayor - who definitely took unusual measures to back up his talk on lowering crime.
The best is his final quote: "We have some issues that are much bigger than the Constitution."
The best is his final quote: "We have some issues that are much bigger than the Constitution."
Saturday, January 31, 2009
Suppression of Evidence
Should evidence obtained as a result of police misconduct, or in violation of the accused's constitutional rights, be suppressed at trial?
As any watcher of Law & Order probably knows, as a general matter, under the exclusionary rule, fruit from the poisonous tree is no good at trial. (Mapp v. Ohio made the exclusionary rule applicable to the states.)
But in its 2008 Herring v. United States decision, the current Supreme Court seems to be heading towards saying... nuh-uh, not anymore.
Should the exclusionary rule stand or fall? (Not as a constitutional matter. Just as a policy matter.)
I feel like I ought to go with the Lefties on this one, but... I think I might actually agree with the Roberts crowd. Yes, true, the exclusionary rule currently acts as a powerful check on police power - holding them to respect 4th and 5th Amendment rights during the course of investigations. But oughtn't there be other ways to make the 4th/5th Amendments enforceable? Robertscalia points to the availability of civil suits against police officers as a deterrent, for example.
Cases where the police bust in and find the bloody knife with the accused's fingerprints, but then the evidence is excluded from trial because of police misconduct....... they just don't sit well with me. The evidence is there.
Maybe I have too much faith in the police. What do you think? I think some of my Lefty classmates would be aghast...
[XY Comment]: That is really interesting. Certainly seems like there could be room to have this judged case by case to allow the judge to determine if the police acted inappropriately and whether the evidence should be thrown out. You'd be worried with this type of discretion if the judicial system were weak or dependent on the law enforcement system. That doesn't generally seem to be the case in the US, so I have no problem giving up the current law.
As any watcher of Law & Order probably knows, as a general matter, under the exclusionary rule, fruit from the poisonous tree is no good at trial. (Mapp v. Ohio made the exclusionary rule applicable to the states.)
But in its 2008 Herring v. United States decision, the current Supreme Court seems to be heading towards saying... nuh-uh, not anymore.
Should the exclusionary rule stand or fall? (Not as a constitutional matter. Just as a policy matter.)
I feel like I ought to go with the Lefties on this one, but... I think I might actually agree with the Roberts crowd. Yes, true, the exclusionary rule currently acts as a powerful check on police power - holding them to respect 4th and 5th Amendment rights during the course of investigations. But oughtn't there be other ways to make the 4th/5th Amendments enforceable? Robertscalia points to the availability of civil suits against police officers as a deterrent, for example.
Cases where the police bust in and find the bloody knife with the accused's fingerprints, but then the evidence is excluded from trial because of police misconduct....... they just don't sit well with me. The evidence is there.
Maybe I have too much faith in the police. What do you think? I think some of my Lefty classmates would be aghast...
[XY Comment]: That is really interesting. Certainly seems like there could be room to have this judged case by case to allow the judge to determine if the police acted inappropriately and whether the evidence should be thrown out. You'd be worried with this type of discretion if the judicial system were weak or dependent on the law enforcement system. That doesn't generally seem to be the case in the US, so I have no problem giving up the current law.
Thursday, January 29, 2009
Religion and criminal law
I thought this was an interesting article about a religious group that still practices polygamy in Canada. What interests me about this is that the government has investigated the group previously in 1991 but did not pursue a case. Religious beliefs can be pervasive in all aspects of life and conflict with secular laws can create quite a dilemma.
[/XX Comment] So from a privacy standpoint, or from an equal protection standpoint, I don't really see a conflict between anti-polygamy laws and the Constitution. In other words, it's not an undue burden on people's privacy (like certain anti-abortion laws, or laws restricting hte use of contraception, or homosexual sodomy), and it's not an equal protection problem either from a doctrinal standpoint.
We didn't study freedom of religion at all in my conlaw class, but here's my feeling about it...
Freedom of speech is not an unlimited right. Depending on what kind of speech you are making and where you are making it, government can limit your right to free speech, so long the regulation is viewpoint neutral.
Doctrinally, I don't know anything about freedom of religion, but I'm going to venture forth a guess that freedom of religion is not an unlimited right either, since it's covered under the same amendment. For instance, I doubt I could start a Religion Worshipping Gods Who Like Human Sacrifice, and then shield myself from prosecution for murder when I kill people on a purely religious basis.
So long as the secular law is constitutional, I don't see a problem with the enforcement of secular law infringing on freedom of religion. I don't see why your practising your religion should entitle you to violating secular laws. (Of course, I don't know how Canadian constitutional law looks at anti-polygamy laws.)
This mindset of mine is why I also had trouble with the torts cases I'd blogged about some time ago, where the religious person had a 'reasonable religious person' standard rather than a 'reasonable person' standard for liability. I just don't get it.
[/XY Comment] Well it seems to me that outlawing polygamy doesn't really make too much sense to me. Is a person allowed to have sexual relations with as many consenting people as they want? Yes. Could a man live with a dozen women and father children with all of them? Yes. Nothing there is illegal, and actually these actions are protected as regular freedoms.
It seems the only thing illegal is actually being `married' to multiple women, which is arbitrary and which most of society judges as morally questionable.
[/XX Comment] I think outlawing polygamy makes perfect sense, if you accept that the state should be in the business of regulating marriage in the first place (which I don't agree with). But if the state is in the business of regulating marriage, then it can regulate it however it wants.
The rationale for anti-polygamy laws is an anti-libertarian Protect The Woman rationale. It's thought that the state should protect women from themselves, from making decisions (i.e. marrying a polygamist) that are bad for themselves.
I think it's perfectly reasonable. But... the state should just get out of the the marriage regulating business all together.
[/XX Comment] So from a privacy standpoint, or from an equal protection standpoint, I don't really see a conflict between anti-polygamy laws and the Constitution. In other words, it's not an undue burden on people's privacy (like certain anti-abortion laws, or laws restricting hte use of contraception, or homosexual sodomy), and it's not an equal protection problem either from a doctrinal standpoint.
We didn't study freedom of religion at all in my conlaw class, but here's my feeling about it...
Freedom of speech is not an unlimited right. Depending on what kind of speech you are making and where you are making it, government can limit your right to free speech, so long the regulation is viewpoint neutral.
Doctrinally, I don't know anything about freedom of religion, but I'm going to venture forth a guess that freedom of religion is not an unlimited right either, since it's covered under the same amendment. For instance, I doubt I could start a Religion Worshipping Gods Who Like Human Sacrifice, and then shield myself from prosecution for murder when I kill people on a purely religious basis.
So long as the secular law is constitutional, I don't see a problem with the enforcement of secular law infringing on freedom of religion. I don't see why your practising your religion should entitle you to violating secular laws. (Of course, I don't know how Canadian constitutional law looks at anti-polygamy laws.)
This mindset of mine is why I also had trouble with the torts cases I'd blogged about some time ago, where the religious person had a 'reasonable religious person' standard rather than a 'reasonable person' standard for liability. I just don't get it.
[/XY Comment] Well it seems to me that outlawing polygamy doesn't really make too much sense to me. Is a person allowed to have sexual relations with as many consenting people as they want? Yes. Could a man live with a dozen women and father children with all of them? Yes. Nothing there is illegal, and actually these actions are protected as regular freedoms.
It seems the only thing illegal is actually being `married' to multiple women, which is arbitrary and which most of society judges as morally questionable.
[/XX Comment] I think outlawing polygamy makes perfect sense, if you accept that the state should be in the business of regulating marriage in the first place (which I don't agree with). But if the state is in the business of regulating marriage, then it can regulate it however it wants.
The rationale for anti-polygamy laws is an anti-libertarian Protect The Woman rationale. It's thought that the state should protect women from themselves, from making decisions (i.e. marrying a polygamist) that are bad for themselves.
I think it's perfectly reasonable. But... the state should just get out of the the marriage regulating business all together.
Tuesday, January 27, 2009
1st, 2nd, Manslaughter
Background (aka review of Law & Order basics)
Murder is homicide with "malice": (1) purpose to cause death or (2) intent to inflict serious bodily harm or (3) extreme recklessness with regard to someone's life with such unworthy purpose that it suggests callous indifference to human life. Under the typical state statute, murder is split into degrees:
First-degree murder: intentional and premeditated, or during the course of a specifically enumerated felony (felony murder). Generally punished by 15 years to a life sentence or the death penalty.
Second-degree murder: all other murder (without premeditation). Generally punished by 5 to 15 years.
Manslaughter is homicide without malice. Types:
Voluntary Manslaughter —intentional killing without malice. Killer either acted a) in heat of passion after “adequate provocation” or b) in honest but unreasonable belief that it was necessary for self-defense.
Involuntary Manslaughter —reckless or highly negligent killing. Some states break up into reckless manslaughter, negligent homicide, and vehicular manslaughter.
Question:
First off, I'm not sure I understand the difference between 2nd degree murder and voluntary manslaughter, given that in some jurisdictions, some courts have treated action in the "heat of passion" as both the distinction between (1) 1st and 2nd degree murder AND between (1) murder and [voluntary] manslaughter. At this point, after only having had 1 day of criminal law and a smattering of Law and Order episodes, I'm having trouble distinguishing the two.
Now, more as a POLICY question...
Why do we have lower sentences for 2nd degree murder (& voluntary manslaughter, since I seem to be conflating the two concepts...) than we do for 1st degree murder?
I think you could make an argument that prison sentences, at least, should be equivalent for 1st and 2nd degree murder (though perhaps death penalty should only be available for 1st degree murders, insofar as death penalty should be available at all -- but that's a different story).
If the justification for punishment is incapacitation - that is, incapacitating the perpetrator so that he cannot harm again for the period of his imprisonment, then I would argue that it is just as important to incapacitate one who intends to kill someone as a result of provocation, or in the heat of passion as it is to incapacitate one who plans to kill someone and carries out that plan. To me, the 2nd degree murderer (...& voluntary manslaughter-er) appears to be a person who cannot control his impulses.
So why not lock him up for just as long for the person who plans and schemes to kill someone? He is just as dangerous to society for his inability to temper himself, it seems to me.
Of course, there are other theories behind punishment -- deterrence, for example. Under a deterrence theory, there would be no reason to make sentences equal for 1st and 2nd degree murders. Then again, under a pure deterrence theory, I'm not sure imprisonment really deters ANY crime that is a result of provocation / lack of control of impulses, etc.
Under a retribution theory of punishment, then, yes, I guess you would punish the schemer more than the 2nd degree murderer. Maybe. Perhaps premeditation is evidence of more 'malice,' in a way, and is more deserving of punishment. Although I don't necessarily agree with that statement.
I tend to favor the incapacitation theory (combined with a little bit of retribution, I guess) behind punishment, and under that justification, I'm not sure I understand why there are different sentences at all between 1st and 2nd degree murder.
Any thoughts? You watch more Law & Order than I do, I think.
[XY comment]: I think deterrence provides a strong justification for distinguishing between 1st and 2nd degree murder. I also think part of the difference in punishment is the acknowledgement of randomness in actual outcomes and a person's responsibility for them. To the extent that a person's actions lead deterministically to another's death, that is the worst type of crime. To the extent that a person's actions were only part of the reason (i.e. other circumstances influenced the person - provocation for example) then the person is held to be less responsible. That is where deterrence comes in because a person can only be held accountable for his/her own actions. That is also how I think one should judge the different levels of murder, although the line between the different types of murder are definitely gray.
Murder is homicide with "malice": (1) purpose to cause death or (2) intent to inflict serious bodily harm or (3) extreme recklessness with regard to someone's life with such unworthy purpose that it suggests callous indifference to human life. Under the typical state statute, murder is split into degrees:
First-degree murder: intentional and premeditated, or during the course of a specifically enumerated felony (felony murder). Generally punished by 15 years to a life sentence or the death penalty.
Second-degree murder: all other murder (without premeditation). Generally punished by 5 to 15 years.
Manslaughter is homicide without malice. Types:
Voluntary Manslaughter —intentional killing without malice. Killer either acted a) in heat of passion after “adequate provocation” or b) in honest but unreasonable belief that it was necessary for self-defense.
Involuntary Manslaughter —reckless or highly negligent killing. Some states break up into reckless manslaughter, negligent homicide, and vehicular manslaughter.
Question:
First off, I'm not sure I understand the difference between 2nd degree murder and voluntary manslaughter, given that in some jurisdictions, some courts have treated action in the "heat of passion" as both the distinction between (1) 1st and 2nd degree murder AND between (1) murder and [voluntary] manslaughter. At this point, after only having had 1 day of criminal law and a smattering of Law and Order episodes, I'm having trouble distinguishing the two.
Now, more as a POLICY question...
Why do we have lower sentences for 2nd degree murder (& voluntary manslaughter, since I seem to be conflating the two concepts...) than we do for 1st degree murder?
I think you could make an argument that prison sentences, at least, should be equivalent for 1st and 2nd degree murder (though perhaps death penalty should only be available for 1st degree murders, insofar as death penalty should be available at all -- but that's a different story).
If the justification for punishment is incapacitation - that is, incapacitating the perpetrator so that he cannot harm again for the period of his imprisonment, then I would argue that it is just as important to incapacitate one who intends to kill someone as a result of provocation, or in the heat of passion as it is to incapacitate one who plans to kill someone and carries out that plan. To me, the 2nd degree murderer (...& voluntary manslaughter-er) appears to be a person who cannot control his impulses.
So why not lock him up for just as long for the person who plans and schemes to kill someone? He is just as dangerous to society for his inability to temper himself, it seems to me.
Of course, there are other theories behind punishment -- deterrence, for example. Under a deterrence theory, there would be no reason to make sentences equal for 1st and 2nd degree murders. Then again, under a pure deterrence theory, I'm not sure imprisonment really deters ANY crime that is a result of provocation / lack of control of impulses, etc.
Under a retribution theory of punishment, then, yes, I guess you would punish the schemer more than the 2nd degree murderer. Maybe. Perhaps premeditation is evidence of more 'malice,' in a way, and is more deserving of punishment. Although I don't necessarily agree with that statement.
I tend to favor the incapacitation theory (combined with a little bit of retribution, I guess) behind punishment, and under that justification, I'm not sure I understand why there are different sentences at all between 1st and 2nd degree murder.
Any thoughts? You watch more Law & Order than I do, I think.
[XY comment]: I think deterrence provides a strong justification for distinguishing between 1st and 2nd degree murder. I also think part of the difference in punishment is the acknowledgement of randomness in actual outcomes and a person's responsibility for them. To the extent that a person's actions lead deterministically to another's death, that is the worst type of crime. To the extent that a person's actions were only part of the reason (i.e. other circumstances influenced the person - provocation for example) then the person is held to be less responsible. That is where deterrence comes in because a person can only be held accountable for his/her own actions. That is also how I think one should judge the different levels of murder, although the line between the different types of murder are definitely gray.
Monday, January 19, 2009
Which is more obnoxious?
So Saturday I went to a classmate's birthday party and many people inquired about XX. Possible answers:
A) XX is now going to [prestigious law school].
B) XX lives in [where the prestigious law school is located], she's a first year in law school.
Note that this place is famous for one school, so naming the location is almost as good as naming the school.
Now the question: which is more obnoxious? Both XX and I hate pretentiousness and pretentious people...I find both answers moderately pretentious just because of the name-dropping, and the follow-up from the other person is inevitably - "Oh that's great - that's a great school etc. etc."
I found myself doing a little bit of both A and B, but definitely ended up using one more than the other...But before I reveal that - I'm curious which XX thinks is the better route.
[/XX edit]
Theoretically, I do think A is less pretentious, especially if given as a response to a direct question. B seems to be avoiding the question in an attempt to seem humble, but when in actuality it's not any more humble than A and is just annoying.
... however in practice, I still tend to use B more often. I think I justify it by thinking, well, I'm really meaning to be humble here. Even if it comes off as totally pretentious. Do as she says, not as she does, I guess. Um. Yeah.
[XY Comment]:
Yeah so I generally go with B - and I think it does come off as more obnoxious, which is ironic because I'm really trying to be less obnoxious. I guess I'll try and switch to A.
A) XX is now going to [prestigious law school].
B) XX lives in [where the prestigious law school is located], she's a first year in law school.
Note that this place is famous for one school, so naming the location is almost as good as naming the school.
Now the question: which is more obnoxious? Both XX and I hate pretentiousness and pretentious people...I find both answers moderately pretentious just because of the name-dropping, and the follow-up from the other person is inevitably - "Oh that's great - that's a great school etc. etc."
I found myself doing a little bit of both A and B, but definitely ended up using one more than the other...But before I reveal that - I'm curious which XX thinks is the better route.
[/XX edit]
Theoretically, I do think A is less pretentious, especially if given as a response to a direct question. B seems to be avoiding the question in an attempt to seem humble, but when in actuality it's not any more humble than A and is just annoying.
... however in practice, I still tend to use B more often. I think I justify it by thinking, well, I'm really meaning to be humble here. Even if it comes off as totally pretentious. Do as she says, not as she does, I guess. Um. Yeah.
[XY Comment]:
Yeah so I generally go with B - and I think it does come off as more obnoxious, which is ironic because I'm really trying to be less obnoxious. I guess I'll try and switch to A.
Wednesday, January 14, 2009
Torture (aka Maybe Left of Center isn't so Left of Center!)
Atlantic blogger Andrew Sullivan disses Newsweek for defending Bush/Cheney et al. re: torture at Abu Ghraib. I haven't read the Newsweek article, and I'm not really addressing the issue of whether Bush/Cheney orders were followed to the letter or followed in spirit / grossly taken out of proportion by subordinates, although that issue is certainly interesting.
Also interesting is the question of whether torture has rooted out or created more terrorists, but that's an empirical question, and at this point, totally speculative.
But, somewhat in the vein of I-Agree-With-Roberts, I'd just like to briefly discuss the torture issue itself. I think I've posted before that I think Bush Haters make him out to be a vile, evil human being who sadistically wanted to torture people and break laws just for the helluvit. Or there are the Bush Haters who value the Rule of Law - like, um, most of my classmates - who gasp at the very thought of compromising that Rule of Law. The sanctity of the Constitution / Geneva Conventions - egad!
I don't mean to make fun of them, but ... the issue isn't so black and white. Sure, when you're confronted with brutal photos at Abu Ghraib, and stories about what's done to people subject to extraordinary rendition, it's hard to come out and say, Yes, this is justified; this protects our country.
Because you don't know whether this really protects our country. At all. Like the question of how many terrorists the torture may or may not generate, it's an empirical question - and anyone's guess.
And maybe that's an argument for eschewing torture all together. Especially given that many of these detainees are tortured with absolutely zero due process. The risk of error is enormous. But how do you weight the costs and benefits? We don't know whether the intelligence we extract from torturing really saves lives. We don't really know the costs in terms of terrorists created. Maybe torture - the compromise of law - itself is a cost, and should tip in the balance of not having it.
But what would you give to sleep sound at night? To make sure your children are safe in bed?
It's a different situation. But... take the Israel-Gaza situation. There are huge costs. Civilian lives lost. The cost of war, in the face of some international disapproval. Does it really protect Israel, or create more angry militants on the Gaza border (and on the Lebanon border, for that matter, from Hezbollah)? But Israel justifies it, because Hamas fires rockets into their neighborhoods, with the potential of killing people. Self-defense, says Israel.
Is torture, rendition just America's self-defense? Maybe no Peace At Night argument can justify the violation of international law and norms. But... technically, the Justice Department carved themselves out a nice little exception in terms of unlawful enemy combatants. Yes, to avoid the law.
Should law be obeyed in all circumstances? Formalism vs. functionalism. Isn't the formalist answer in this case completely operating outside of reality in a post-9/11 world? I'm curious to see what Obama will do when he gets into office, when he is at once confronted by his own aversion to torture and to Bush's policy (and how they've harmed America's moral standing) and by his awesome responsibility for the SAFETY OF AN ENTIRE NATION.
Last question, out of curiosity. For staunch anti-torturers, what is their position on whether the U.S. should transfer prisoners to countries that do engage in torture?
[XY Comment]: In general, when people take absolute stances I hesitate and take pause. Obviously the world is complicated, and that makes taking absolute 100% stances difficult. It is easier to say that we should never torture anyone than to deal with the difficult issue of when it could possibly be justified. Because it's such a difficult issue, it does lead me to think that taking an absolute stance may be beneficial because we would need absolute confidence in the people in charge to make the right decisions in the gray areas. Even if we don't have absolute confidence, could there be hypotheticals where it is definitively needed? I hesitate to say no.
Also interesting is the question of whether torture has rooted out or created more terrorists, but that's an empirical question, and at this point, totally speculative.
But, somewhat in the vein of I-Agree-With-Roberts, I'd just like to briefly discuss the torture issue itself. I think I've posted before that I think Bush Haters make him out to be a vile, evil human being who sadistically wanted to torture people and break laws just for the helluvit. Or there are the Bush Haters who value the Rule of Law - like, um, most of my classmates - who gasp at the very thought of compromising that Rule of Law. The sanctity of the Constitution / Geneva Conventions - egad!
I don't mean to make fun of them, but ... the issue isn't so black and white. Sure, when you're confronted with brutal photos at Abu Ghraib, and stories about what's done to people subject to extraordinary rendition, it's hard to come out and say, Yes, this is justified; this protects our country.
Because you don't know whether this really protects our country. At all. Like the question of how many terrorists the torture may or may not generate, it's an empirical question - and anyone's guess.
And maybe that's an argument for eschewing torture all together. Especially given that many of these detainees are tortured with absolutely zero due process. The risk of error is enormous. But how do you weight the costs and benefits? We don't know whether the intelligence we extract from torturing really saves lives. We don't really know the costs in terms of terrorists created. Maybe torture - the compromise of law - itself is a cost, and should tip in the balance of not having it.
But what would you give to sleep sound at night? To make sure your children are safe in bed?
It's a different situation. But... take the Israel-Gaza situation. There are huge costs. Civilian lives lost. The cost of war, in the face of some international disapproval. Does it really protect Israel, or create more angry militants on the Gaza border (and on the Lebanon border, for that matter, from Hezbollah)? But Israel justifies it, because Hamas fires rockets into their neighborhoods, with the potential of killing people. Self-defense, says Israel.
Is torture, rendition just America's self-defense? Maybe no Peace At Night argument can justify the violation of international law and norms. But... technically, the Justice Department carved themselves out a nice little exception in terms of unlawful enemy combatants. Yes, to avoid the law.
Should law be obeyed in all circumstances? Formalism vs. functionalism. Isn't the formalist answer in this case completely operating outside of reality in a post-9/11 world? I'm curious to see what Obama will do when he gets into office, when he is at once confronted by his own aversion to torture and to Bush's policy (and how they've harmed America's moral standing) and by his awesome responsibility for the SAFETY OF AN ENTIRE NATION.
Last question, out of curiosity. For staunch anti-torturers, what is their position on whether the U.S. should transfer prisoners to countries that do engage in torture?
[XY Comment]: In general, when people take absolute stances I hesitate and take pause. Obviously the world is complicated, and that makes taking absolute 100% stances difficult. It is easier to say that we should never torture anyone than to deal with the difficult issue of when it could possibly be justified. Because it's such a difficult issue, it does lead me to think that taking an absolute stance may be beneficial because we would need absolute confidence in the people in charge to make the right decisions in the gray areas. Even if we don't have absolute confidence, could there be hypotheticals where it is definitively needed? I hesitate to say no.
Sunday, January 11, 2009
Perplexing Views
Approximately a month and a half after arguing vehemently in favor of Petitioners in Bagram / Guantanamo detainee litigation [at practice oral arguments at school], I suddenly find myself agreeing fully with Justice Roberts' dissent in Boumediene v. Bush.
More on this later, if I get the chance and am still as perplexed about my newfound concurrence with the conservative Roberts position as I am now.
[/XY Comment]: Personally I see changing your mind as displaying admirable flexibility. I'd love to know what arguments Roberts made that changed your mind. Also interested in if you read Roberts' arguments before, but are only now finding his arguments convincing.
[/XX Update]:
QUICK AND DIRTY SUMMARY OF MAJORITY BOUMEDIENE HOLDING (Justice Kennedy, 5-4 decision): Kennedy holds that Guantanamo bay detainees have the right to seek habeas corpus, because:
(1) the writ extends to Guantanamo under a 3-factor test which the Court articulated and applied;
(2) Congress has not suspended the writ in accordance with the Suspension Clause [Constitution, Art I. Sec. 9]; and
(3) Congress has not provided an adequate substitute for habeas.
The Court struck down Section 7 of the Military Commissions Act of 2006, which stripped federal courts of jurisdiction to hear habeas petitions from enemy combatants, as an unconstitutional suspension of the writ.
I first read this case in Con Law, in preparation for writing my brief on a very similar issue (whether the writ runs to Bagram, Afghanistan). I had briefly skimmed over the Roberts and Scalia dissents. I'd focused immediately on the constitutional questions - following Kennedy's reasoning, looking at the Suspension Clause, applying the Boumediene 3-factor test, etc. Granted, I'd had to take the case as a given, since it's Supreme Court precedent.
So, what made me change my mind? This second time around, I read the class for Civil Procedure, focusing on the procedural parts. And, in reading the Roberts dissent in this new context, I largely agree with him that maybe the constitutional issue should never have come up in the first place.
ROBERTS DISSENT
It's a long (and eloquent) dissent, but basically, Roberts argues that the Court should have resolved the case on other grounds. He argues that the court should have asked first whether the system that Congress designed satisfies any rights that the detainees may possess -- basically, question #3 in the majority's opinion, but asked in a slightly different way.
As background, Congress had legislated a system wherein these tribunals called CSRTs make initial and periodic status determinations of enemy combatans held by the executive. Then, to satisfy some other Guantanamo-related cases, Congress added judicial review under a DTA process, where the D.C. Circuit was allowed to review CSRT determinations under limited circumstances. This was Congress's attempt to balance the need for process with the need to protect national security.
Kennedy/Majority evaluated the DTA process as an inadequate substitute for habeas. So, habeas was the standard against which DTA was measured. Roberts argues that that's not the right approach - the Court should have asked whether the DTA process satisfies any due process rights the detainees have in the first place. (Roberts essentially answers his question in the affirmative, but that part is less convincing to me. Still - since this was a dissent, he didn't have to make his affirmative case.)
I agree especially with Roberts' assessment of the majority holding, which essentially dumps Congress's prescribed DTA process as inadequate (but then doesn't scrap it off the books, either] without really specifying what procedures will replace them.
Yes, the Court grants habeas, but habeas is malleable. Will the Court allow hearsay evidence? [An earlier Guantanamo case, Hamdi, argued yes.] Will the Court allow a presumption for the government's evidence? [Hamdi said yes.] What will be done about the confidentiality / military secrets problem? [The DTA process dealt with this explicitly. The majority opinion says, Ohhhh the lower courts can figure it out themselves, hyuck hyuck hyuck!] Are they entitled to counsel? What's the evidentiary standard? Who has the burden of proof, the burden of non-persuasion?
Roberts argues that these uncertainties about how a habeas proceeding would balance the need for 'process' against national security interests will probably have to be resolved in further litigation to determine exactly what process is required.
What bothered me most about the majority opinion was that one of its biggest beefs with DTA was that detainees would have limited access to witnesses and exculpatory evidence, because of their detainment and lack of access to counsel. But then after granting the magic habeas on them, the Court doesn't even rectify the very procedural problem they pointed out. It's perplexing.
There's more substance to Roberts' dissent than I've written here. He makes a separation of powers point that because the Court hasn't really specified what procedures would be used in these habeas cases, the majority basically just grabbed the detainee issue away from the legislature. It's kind of an overly dramatic point - the traditional conservative Judicial Activism complaint. But here, I find it kind of true.
Again, I think Roberts grossly over-estimates the value of the CSRT/DTA process. He makes it sound like the detainees are getting a full criminal or military trial or something, but really... the CSRT/DTA process is nothing close to that. Still, the question is whether they're getting process that they're entitled to. I'd be curious to see what due process rights Roberts - or anyone - thinks detainees have, though, if any (and where they'd come from, because ... then you'd have to get into the question of whether the 5th Amendment applies outside of the U.S.).
Despite those criticisms, I find Roberts' overall argument convincing. And I think the main change in why I was pro-Majority the first time and pro-Roberts this second time around is the lens through which I read the case - constitutional vs. procedural.
FYI, my own view, from a policy perspective - not a legal perspective - is you should give detainees process anyway, even if they're not entitled to it, just because there has to be SOME WAY, even if it's a hard way, for an innocent detainee to get out of indefinite detention. But again, from a legal POV, under a Roberts analysis, there doesn't seem to be a legal source for detainee due process rights. Which is exactly why CONGRESS prescribed the CSRT/DTA process. And if that isn't sufficient, in some moral sense, then CONGRESS should provide better process.
Anyway. I've taken too long of a study break... and rambled on for way too long... but I hope you found it interesting.
More on this later, if I get the chance and am still as perplexed about my newfound concurrence with the conservative Roberts position as I am now.
[/XY Comment]: Personally I see changing your mind as displaying admirable flexibility. I'd love to know what arguments Roberts made that changed your mind. Also interested in if you read Roberts' arguments before, but are only now finding his arguments convincing.
[/XX Update]:
QUICK AND DIRTY SUMMARY OF MAJORITY BOUMEDIENE HOLDING (Justice Kennedy, 5-4 decision): Kennedy holds that Guantanamo bay detainees have the right to seek habeas corpus, because:
(1) the writ extends to Guantanamo under a 3-factor test which the Court articulated and applied;
(2) Congress has not suspended the writ in accordance with the Suspension Clause [Constitution, Art I. Sec. 9]; and
(3) Congress has not provided an adequate substitute for habeas.
The Court struck down Section 7 of the Military Commissions Act of 2006, which stripped federal courts of jurisdiction to hear habeas petitions from enemy combatants, as an unconstitutional suspension of the writ.
I first read this case in Con Law, in preparation for writing my brief on a very similar issue (whether the writ runs to Bagram, Afghanistan). I had briefly skimmed over the Roberts and Scalia dissents. I'd focused immediately on the constitutional questions - following Kennedy's reasoning, looking at the Suspension Clause, applying the Boumediene 3-factor test, etc. Granted, I'd had to take the case as a given, since it's Supreme Court precedent.
So, what made me change my mind? This second time around, I read the class for Civil Procedure, focusing on the procedural parts. And, in reading the Roberts dissent in this new context, I largely agree with him that maybe the constitutional issue should never have come up in the first place.
ROBERTS DISSENT
It's a long (and eloquent) dissent, but basically, Roberts argues that the Court should have resolved the case on other grounds. He argues that the court should have asked first whether the system that Congress designed satisfies any rights that the detainees may possess -- basically, question #3 in the majority's opinion, but asked in a slightly different way.
As background, Congress had legislated a system wherein these tribunals called CSRTs make initial and periodic status determinations of enemy combatans held by the executive. Then, to satisfy some other Guantanamo-related cases, Congress added judicial review under a DTA process, where the D.C. Circuit was allowed to review CSRT determinations under limited circumstances. This was Congress's attempt to balance the need for process with the need to protect national security.
Kennedy/Majority evaluated the DTA process as an inadequate substitute for habeas. So, habeas was the standard against which DTA was measured. Roberts argues that that's not the right approach - the Court should have asked whether the DTA process satisfies any due process rights the detainees have in the first place. (Roberts essentially answers his question in the affirmative, but that part is less convincing to me. Still - since this was a dissent, he didn't have to make his affirmative case.)
I agree especially with Roberts' assessment of the majority holding, which essentially dumps Congress's prescribed DTA process as inadequate (but then doesn't scrap it off the books, either] without really specifying what procedures will replace them.
Yes, the Court grants habeas, but habeas is malleable. Will the Court allow hearsay evidence? [An earlier Guantanamo case, Hamdi, argued yes.] Will the Court allow a presumption for the government's evidence? [Hamdi said yes.] What will be done about the confidentiality / military secrets problem? [The DTA process dealt with this explicitly. The majority opinion says, Ohhhh the lower courts can figure it out themselves, hyuck hyuck hyuck!] Are they entitled to counsel? What's the evidentiary standard? Who has the burden of proof, the burden of non-persuasion?
Roberts argues that these uncertainties about how a habeas proceeding would balance the need for 'process' against national security interests will probably have to be resolved in further litigation to determine exactly what process is required.
What bothered me most about the majority opinion was that one of its biggest beefs with DTA was that detainees would have limited access to witnesses and exculpatory evidence, because of their detainment and lack of access to counsel. But then after granting the magic habeas on them, the Court doesn't even rectify the very procedural problem they pointed out. It's perplexing.
There's more substance to Roberts' dissent than I've written here. He makes a separation of powers point that because the Court hasn't really specified what procedures would be used in these habeas cases, the majority basically just grabbed the detainee issue away from the legislature. It's kind of an overly dramatic point - the traditional conservative Judicial Activism complaint. But here, I find it kind of true.
Again, I think Roberts grossly over-estimates the value of the CSRT/DTA process. He makes it sound like the detainees are getting a full criminal or military trial or something, but really... the CSRT/DTA process is nothing close to that. Still, the question is whether they're getting process that they're entitled to. I'd be curious to see what due process rights Roberts - or anyone - thinks detainees have, though, if any (and where they'd come from, because ... then you'd have to get into the question of whether the 5th Amendment applies outside of the U.S.).
Despite those criticisms, I find Roberts' overall argument convincing. And I think the main change in why I was pro-Majority the first time and pro-Roberts this second time around is the lens through which I read the case - constitutional vs. procedural.
FYI, my own view, from a policy perspective - not a legal perspective - is you should give detainees process anyway, even if they're not entitled to it, just because there has to be SOME WAY, even if it's a hard way, for an innocent detainee to get out of indefinite detention. But again, from a legal POV, under a Roberts analysis, there doesn't seem to be a legal source for detainee due process rights. Which is exactly why CONGRESS prescribed the CSRT/DTA process. And if that isn't sufficient, in some moral sense, then CONGRESS should provide better process.
Anyway. I've taken too long of a study break... and rambled on for way too long... but I hope you found it interesting.
Wednesday, January 7, 2009
Gen Y ... Unprepared for the Real World?
In this article, Managing the Facebookers, the Economist discusses the differences between Gen-Y (us, the Net Geners) and the old-schoolers who, in many cases, are our bosses once we enter the workplace:
The old-schoolers often welcome the current economic troubles, the article says, as a wake-up call to idealistic youngsters. Certainly, there are differences between generations; we've grown up in different times, acquired a slightly different set of values. But I'd hypothesize that the management difficulties created by this generation gap have been exaggerated. It seems like people who find their work personally fulfilling might be better to manage - they show enthusiasm, increase productivity, and contribute to morale, etc. in ways that those who see their job as putting food on the table do not.
Still, kind of an interesting article, tying everything to the current crisis.
"The Net Geners have grown up with computers; they are brimming with self-confidence; and they have been encouraged to challenge received wisdom, to find their own solutions to problems and to treat work as a route to personal fulfilment rather than merely a way of putting food on the table."
The old-schoolers often welcome the current economic troubles, the article says, as a wake-up call to idealistic youngsters. Certainly, there are differences between generations; we've grown up in different times, acquired a slightly different set of values. But I'd hypothesize that the management difficulties created by this generation gap have been exaggerated. It seems like people who find their work personally fulfilling might be better to manage - they show enthusiasm, increase productivity, and contribute to morale, etc. in ways that those who see their job as putting food on the table do not.
Still, kind of an interesting article, tying everything to the current crisis.
Monday, January 5, 2009
Some good news...
I got back to the apartment yesterday to find a new lego catalog waiting for me. Perhaps inspired by financial mayhem and activities in Somalia - lego has revived their pirate series - aarrrrrhhh! (I'd link it but that part of the lego website is down at the moment). Great news for me because pirate legos are my all-time favorite. Definitely will be looking to add to my Navy (I have a pirate ship already so I'm looking for an Imperial warship to have it duel). They've also been reviving their castle series, adding dragons and trolls etc. I like what the company is trying to do although it's tough to get kids to put down the video games.
[/XX edit] Oh god, I love Legos. :)
[/XX edit] Oh god, I love Legos. :)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)