User Picture

A layman’s take on academic freedom vs. academic excellence at UC Berkley.

By: kgb999 Saturday September 10, 2011 1:52 am

One of the more inexplicable facts of modern life from the layman’s perspective is  that one John Yoo continues to hold a job. The simple fact of being employed isn’t really that inexplicable … of course a man of his background would be expected to find themselves parked at some think-tank somewhere getting paid handsomely simply for being a generally horrible person (as we all know, the primary purpose of think tanks is to quietly pay off people for acting so horribly in public life they have rendered themselves unemployable in polite society). The surprising bit is that he is employed by an institution that claims a mission of turning students into highly qualified, well trained legal professionals. And his job, apparently, involves teaching these students that his cocked-up legal opinions and the thought processes underlying them – repudiated by every other legal mind asked to place their own professional career and reputation on the line – may be ethically employed by the next generation of American lawyers.

Such is academic excellence at the legal department, University of California, Berkley (Boalt Hall). Co-overseen by David Caron and Christopher Edley Jr.

Recently, Mr. Edley found himself confronted at a public forum. His responses were, and continue to be, a bit eyebrow-raising. Subsequent discussions regarding Obama and his decision to ignore serious Bush-era lawbreaking has been fascinating. But equally fascinating is the snapshot of how the head of a reasonably prestigious legal program views issues of law, responsibility, accountability and the role of educational institutions in society.

Pondering Centrism and the 2012 Election.

By: kgb999 Thursday September 8, 2011 2:47 am

I’m not much of a centrist fan. Don’t get me wrong, I hope the best for ‘em on a personal level. But it’s just that … I don’t know. Increasingly it feels like even the Tea Party folks have a more rational plan of action to improve the nation than so-called-centrist Democrats … who have apparently gone all-in with an “avalanche of clichéd platitudes while doing whatever corporations ask in exchange for mega-donations so we can WIN WIN WIN!” approach to government and policy. The act of owning the White House is clearly all that matters and it is increasingly clear this is all that has mattered from day one.

Thinking back on recent years, it is hard not to observe Bush’s crew was also almost exclusively focused on winning a second term. At the time, Republicans swore everyone had to play along or the alternative unleashed by Democrats would be far worse. Much as blind-loyal Democrats are swearing now. In retrospect, these Bush apologists were, of course (and unsurprisingly), wrong. Partisans are notorious for happily selling their country down the river in exchange for illusionary power over their “rivals.” Now just look at the shambles Democrats have created in our nation by doing it.

Won’t plunge the knife in so deep, indeed!

By: kgb999 Wednesday August 24, 2011 7:13 am
"Eric Schneiderman"

"Eric Schneiderman" by citizenactionny on flickr

So, hot on the heels of revelations Team Obama has been out in force twisting the arm of one NY Attorney General, Eric Schneiderman, to release bankers from darn near all liability for any crimes, mistakes or civil infractions they may have committed during the economic collapse or anytime thereafter (by this point, the man has taken the concept of “don’t look back” to pathological levels), signs quickly emerged that the approach wasn’t going so well … and subsequently it emerged BoA isn’t doing so well with investors when there may be an outside chance they would actually have to play by the rules. Today comes the news that Eric Schneiderman has been summarily removed from the the 50-state task force committee charged with probing foreclosure abuses and potentially negotiating a settlement. (via huffpo)

 

The email announcing Schneiderman’s dismissal from the states’ executive committee was sent just after noon to more than 50 people by Patrick Madigan, a top lawyer in the Iowa Attorney General’s Office. It read: “Effective immediately, the New York Attorney General’s Office has been removed from the Executive Committee of the Robosigning multistate.”

…[Schneiderman spokesman, Danny Kanner] said Schneiderman was removed at Iowa Attorney General Tom Miller’s “prerogative.”

Miller, through a spokesman, said that Schneiderman was “intimately involved in every aspect of this investigation and possible settlement” from the launch of the probe last October to this past June. Schneiderman was “on every internal [executive committee] conference call and participated in all conference calls and meetings with the top five mortgage servicers. As such, New York had a large influence on the actions and decisions of the multistate.”

But in June, after The Huffington Post reported on a confidential conference call between state and federal officials, the executive committee was reduced to a smaller group of states that would directly negotiate with the five banks. Schneiderman was invited to join this smaller group, but declined, Miller said.

“Since that time, New York has actively worked to undermine the very same multistate group that it had spent the previous nine months working very closely with,” Miller continued. “While we certainly respect the right of any state to choose to no longer participate in a multistate and to pursue another path, working to actively undermine a multistate while still a member of the Executive Committee simply doesn’t make sense, is unprecedented and is unacceptable. Accordingly, today I informed New York that it is no longer a member of the Executive Committee.”

Schneiderman’s removal will likely make it easier for state and federal officials to reach an accord with the five banks. However, the potential amount of money they’ll be able to extract will likely decrease.

This task force was formed, somewhat surprisingly, by the Attorney General for that hotbed of foreclosures and banking, Iowa …

Reid: Behind in the Polls, Ahead in Votes?

By: kgb999 Thursday October 28, 2010 4:00 pm

I have been having a little debate with conventional wisdom regarding the Nevada senate race of late. I’m still predicting a win despite several pundits and famous statisticians having written Harry Reid off based on topline poll results. Despite serious misgivings regarding the utility of opinion polling that premises itself on “If the election were held today” in the midst of votes actually being collected, that seems to be the game we’re playing. So, all right, let’s play.

Playing the game of armchair analyst, one must accept certain limitations. For example, I sure as hell won’t be subscribing to Rasmussan for the honor of being able to see how their results break down. So, for the purposes of this post, I will be using the results from  the CNN/Time poll released yesterday showing a 49/45 swing to Angle … and then pretty much ignoring that topline number all together. In my opinion, this race comes down to the GOP crossover vote which I believe is being significantly underestimated. The independent swing against Reid is important, but I don’t believe it will be definitive; with 22% of the electorate, the range from best-case to worst appears to be worth about 2% when viewed in the context of all voters.

The question everyone is looking at top-line results for is:

If the election for U.S. Senate were held today and the candidates were Harry Reid, the Democrat, Sharron Angle, the Republican, Scott Ashjian, the TPN/Tea Party candidate, or none of the above, who would you be more likely to vote for?“.

The aggregate result (+/- 3.5%), as I already observed, is 49/45 in Angle’s favor. But Time/CNN was kind enough to break it down by party affiliation. This shows that about 3% of Democrats would vote for Angle … while 10% of Republicans say they would vote for Reid (although the margin of error on this number increases to a noisy +/- 6%). This is probably as good a snapshot of the “crossover” as we’re likely to get until the votes are actually counted.

Just assuming these numbers are in the ball park, what does that mean for Reid today? Based on the statewide numbers reported yesterday Democrats have cast 1500 more votes than Republicans. Conventional wisdom has counted every Democrat as voting for Reid and every Republican voting for Angle. I think there is more than enough anecdotal evidence to challenge this assumption. So, what does the election look like as of yesterday if one ignores conventional wisdom and does the math based on the projected crossover from the most recent polling?

Based on my calculations this is what it looks like (I tried to show my work … feel free to challenge in the comments):

Total Votes  Statewide: 264,420
Total GOP:131,460 (264,420 / 2 – 750)
Total Dem:132,960 (264,420 / 2 + 750)
3% Dem Crossover: 3,989
10% GOP Crossover: 13,146
Estimated GOP: 122,303 (131,460 + 3,989 – 13,146)
Estimated Dem:142,117 (132,960 + 13,146 – 3,989)
——————————–
Current Reid Lead: 19,814

Obviously, the needed caveats here are numerous. But when it’s all said and done don’t be surprised if this race turns out not to be nearly as close as the pundocracy is predicting. Of course, don’t be surprised if some random blog guy taking a first whack at political prognostication is embarrassingly off base either.