Corporate Taxation

Here's a Wall Street Journal article lamenting high corporate tax rates in the United States: http://online.wsj.com/article_email/SB118428874152665452-lMyQjAxMDE3ODE0MzIxODM4Wj.html

Bush and the GOP had 6 years to do something about this. Instead, they lowered taxes for their friends who pay capital gains, while basically leaving taxes in general just where they had been under Clinton. Indeed, for all of Bush and the GOP's huffing and puffing about how great they have been on taxes, the fact is that income and corporate taxes are higher under this President, than they were under his father, widely derided for raising them.

It is difficult to even conceive of, but basically our current President has made it through two terms and has been wrong on virtually every issue of importance, including income taxes, supposedly one of his few strengths.

Libby Pardon and the Right

The following is a response to a writer on the right who has attempted, feebly to defend Bush's use of the pardon power to commute Libby's sentence:

http://sentencing.typepad.com/sentencing_law_and_policy/2007/07/understanding-t.html#comment-75901712

I think that it would be a waste of time to spend much time on Mr. Ruckman's analysis, as opposed to his knowledge of pardoning anecdotes, which can be interesting or amusing, although besides the point with respect to this blog.

He repeats over and over points that are obvious to anyone versed in criminal procedure or constitutional law as though he had arrived at something everyone else is either disputing or has missed, i.e.:

the pardon power is grounded in the actual text of the Constitution; the pardon power cannot be restricted, in any way, by either the legislative or judicial branch; pardons .... on the other hand, can be granted for any reason; presidents do not need to give any reasons at all for a pardon.


This is all information of the painfully obvious sort and Ruckman refuses to acknowledge that most of the interest in the commutation by people in the criminal justice field is due to the fact that Bush derided the exact sentencing positions carefully espoused by Gonzalez and the Justice Department, as well as the Republicans in Congress, which will make it much harder for the GOP to advocate higher sentences in the future or to further restrict judicial discretion in sentencing.

Rather than deal with such likely real world aspects of the Bush commutation, Ruckman falls back on two limpless arguments, that all presidents have done it equally gracelessly and that there is nothing that Congress can do anyway, so there!

In fact, that are many statutory steps that Congress could take, even short of the obvious step of amending the constitution to remove or alter the pardon power or impeaching the president, to regulate the President's use of the pardon power. While none of these statutory steps could abolish the pardon power, they could make it plenty painful for the president in the event of corrupt use of the pardon power.

Ultimately, my goal is to see fewer people such as Scooter Libby in prison and thus, I approve of ample and considered use of the pardon power. The ultimate irony here is the people on the right who love this exercise of the pardon power but are loathe to see either it or the arguments Bush used in issuing it applied in any other contexts.

GOP in Big Trouble

Barring some type of cataclysmic change in U.S. politics, the Republicans have little or no chance of winning the presidency in 2008. With the exception of Obama, the Democratic candidates' negatives are well known and they still are leading easily over the Republicans. Once the average American learns that Giuliani is a serial-adulterer whose children will not speak to him, I expect him to plunge in the polls.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/03/us/politics/03rudy.html?ex=1330664400&en=8a45469df90fd34e&ei=5124&partner=permalink&exprod=permalink

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/national.html

Oklahoma on Double Probation in Football and Basketball

I still disagree with the decision to make Oklahoma our 46th state....

http://www.tulsaworld.com/sports/sportsextra/blog/pickerblog_main.asp

GOP Healthcare Cognitive Dissonance

Medicare expansion for old people is good, expanding coverage for children is bad? Something is deeply wrong with the GOP position on health care.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/09/washington/09child.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

Libby Sentencing Again

To any of those on the Right who continue to assert that somehow Libby received an abnormal sentence in his case, I would encourage you to consider going to the nearest federal district court in your area on a day where they do federal sentencings.

You are likely to see several people with no previous record who have gotten caught up in federal prosecutions and received jail time for offenses that most people would never be prosecuted for.

You will notice that the Probation Officer will submit a report in which various potentially mitigating aspects are discussed. Nevertheless, the final recommendation is based upon the sentencing algorithm and is always higher for individuals who go to trial, like Libby, rather than plead guilty.

You will hear federal prosecutor after prosecutor arguing that lack of previous record has already been considered in the guidelines. Indeed, it is part of the basic algorithm. You will hear them argue with respect to public employees, that such people should in fact receive greater punishment for betraying the public trust. You will hear them argue that losing a law license is immaterial with respect to sentencing, as is dangerousness. You will hear them tell the judge that all varieties of acquitted or uncharged conduct should be imputed to the defendant to increase his sentence.

You will see the tears of the family members and friends upon seeing loved ones who are a threat to no one go away for long periods of time.

Perhaps at that point, you will realize that for many the issue is not whether or not the President had the power to do what he did, it is the raw, rank hypocrisy of Bush's commenting that the system behaved unfairly with respect to Libby, when in fact, the system behave exactly as Bush and the Republicans have always argued that it should and exactly as it does virtually every single day during federal sentencings in the nation that imprisons the most people per capita in the world. http://www.kcl.ac.uk/depsta/rel/icps/worldbrief/highest_to_lowest_rates.php

Federal Sentencing and Fairness

It is startling just how ignorant people on the right are about the federal criminal sentencing processes. Ben Stein has a column in the American Spectator to apparently say whatever he wants, regardless of whether it has any basis in reality. I have seen similar articles in other web locations such as Townhall.com and TCSdaily, where the writers show a basic ignorance (if not abject ignorance) as to how our federal system functions. Perhaps Ben Stein or somebody from TCS or the Wall Street Journal should call Tony Rudy or some of the other unfairly charged Abramoff defendants and ask them how the system functions with respect to first offenders, rather than spouting off some nonsense that they believe they learned from the Law and Order television program.

I have not seen a single person with a column among Republicans lift one finger to help Tony Rudy, while they bend over backward to defend the Libby pardon, which is violative of every single Republican sentencing precept of the last 8 years.

http://www.spectator.org/dsp_article.asp?art_id=11675

Libby Pardon Fall-out

This reminds me a bit of when Apprendi, a significant Supreme Court sentencing case came out. The New York Times was going on and on about some mundane issue, while I remember thinking to myself, people outside the field of criminal law have no idea how big the Apprendi decision is.

I often tell non-lawyers that I have a 25-year lag theory regarding the public's knowledge of criminal procedure. The American man in the street still believes it is easy to "get off" by pleading insanity; he believes that all felons are out in 6 months; he believes that it is easy to get cases thrown out due to evidentiary loopholes and he believes that there is no system more fair than the American system of justice.

The Libby pardon proves the point. From their statements, neither Tony Snow nor the President have any understanding of how sentencing works under the federal guidelines, which have only been in existence now for 23 years. In spite of the recent Supreme Court Rita case, in which Bush's Justice Department argued against the very rationales (and won) Bush gave for commuting Libby's sentence, I believe that Bush's gaffe in this manner by not simply pardoning on grounds of mercy is going to sway a lot of judges, even though they may not admit it in court.

I think all throughout the media, we are seeing confusion as to the jury's role in federal sentencing, which is very different from most states. In some states, like Virginia, for example, juries may give sentence recommendations that may bind judges to some extent, but that is emphatically not the case in federal court.

Juries in federal court have nothing to do with sentencing. They don't recommend one and they have no idea what the sentences are likely to be. In fact, jurors often indicate that they would not have convicted had they known that the federal sentence was ten times what they had thought it would be.

The jurors vote up or down on individual counts, which assuming a conviction, are then put into a highly complex formula that attempts to set a monthly range for that defendant's sentence, based upon criminal history, acceptance of responsibility, level of culpability and at times, cooperation. In spite of its purported goal of making sentences fair for everyone, it only accomplishes this by making sentences draconian and restricting judges from lowering them, something Bush has promoted with more vigor than even Clinton or his father.

The issue thus, is the blatant hypocrisy, which given that Bush and his spokesman, Tony Snow seem oblivious to how the Guidelines work, could actually be nothing more than abject ignorance, if that makes those of you on the Right feel better about your President.

Ultimately, Bush articulated the very same reasons that criminal defense attorneys always elucidate on behalf of their defendants. While this may not carry a precedential force of law, it certainly may portend a turning point, as ideas cannot easily be bottled up once unleased.

Until about 2 years ago, the formula was basically automatic and unappealable. Judges have slightly more leeway now but the Bush administration and the Republicans have sought to restrict even that bit of leeway, thus resulting in the unassailable charge of hypocrisy against King George. Starting with Libby, things may now begin to change.

http://sentencing.typepad.com/sentencing_law_and_policy/2007/07/still-more-sent.html#comment-74971306

More on Scooter Libby

While Bush's decision is obviously abhorrent to almost any rational person, it is extremely beneficial to Tony.

Like most Republicans, and unfortunately most lawyers, Bush has no idea how the federal sentencing system operates and he employed virtually all of the standard defense arguments that his own Justice Department has argued against to prop up the sentencing guidelines against Scalia and Thomas's arguments for abolishment. All of the things Bush cited in his order are the same arguments that his very own Justice Department has sought to abolish as a matter of law. The utter and complete hypocrisy of Bush and the GOP is going to benefit thousands of defendants in the long run.

So, I say, thank you, George. You are an utter, genius, even better at managing legal affairs than you are at managing the war in Iraq.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/04/washington/04commute.html?hp

Housing Bubble?

You really have to wonder when you see stories like this:

"Bolivian immigrants Marcelo Ortega, a dump truck driver, and his wife, Jenny, who cleans houses, bought a brick-front Colonial in Herndon for $549,000 in February 2006. The payments are $4,200 a month, which grew unbearable as residential construction work slowed and Ortega's income dropped." http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/06/29/AR2007062902582_2.html

How could such a loan have been approved?

Marcelo notes that "My wife loves this house."

Who wouldn't?

Libby Pardon

In spite of all the complaining on the Left, Bush is now on record as stating that the sentencing guidelines can be excessive. This is significant because his administration has strongly opposed any efforts to weaken the guidelines authority and (Clinton also) has argued that in fact, the guidelines are virtually always correct and should seldom be departed from.

The truth is, that there is very little about Scooter Libby's case that differs from other run of the mill white collar cases under the federal system. Unlike what Bush claimed, such defendants virtually never have a criminal record and virtually never received jail time before the imposition of the sentencing guidelines. Bush has now publicly stated that the guidelines can result in excessive sentences and I expect to see many defendants and their lawyers using Bush's language in future briefs. I also think that Courts of Appeal are likely to take Bush at his word and will begin to grant many more departures for defendants in general, given their often excessive nature.

In summary, what Bush did is great for defendants and their lawyers. Once again, thinking that he is smarter than everyone else, Bush made his decision essentially without consultation and has come up with a decision that is a nightmare for the standard Republican argument on crime and something that will be a nightmare for prosecutors to deal with. Bush has come out and made all the arguments against the federal criminal justice system that many liberals and libertarians have been trying to make for years.

For those who are upset, look past Libby and be glad that many future defendants are likely to benefit from this.

So, those of us who believe the system is unfair should recognize that Bush has done a potential favor for all current and future defendants.

Gator Sighting in DC Area

Ever since Bush has been President, DC has just gone to Hell....
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/06/28/AR2007062801343.html?sub=AR

Apple and Industrial Design

You have to give Apple credit. Its products are about 99% styling based and 1% based upon technology. People act as though Apple invented the MP3 player and as though there were something technologically exceptionally about its OS. Neither is true.

But with all things being more or less equal, people want to use products that look good, especially when based upon timeless designs. I find myself especially drawn to audio products that embody these precepts and a quick perusal on Ebay will show that products from the past that look good generally receive a large premium, even over sometimes superior products that fail the coolness test.

http://blog.seattletimes.nwsource.com/brierdudley/2007/06/mossberg_and_pogue_like_the_ip.html

College World Series

Congratulations to the Beavers, who seem to have the Tar Heels' number in the College World Series, after defeating them for the second year in a row.

You have to give OSU credit, but in general, the idea of a best 2 of 3 series as being determinative as to who is superior between two baseball teams seems statistically suspicious. I will have to check but I am willing to bet that the Tar Heels are still ahead in the power ratings. Unlike a single boxing or American football match, baseball prowess probably necessitates a series of at least 9 games.

This is a big issue for me in major league baseball, as I believe that MLB has sold out the importance of the regular season to boost attendance through the "phony" wildcard races, which involve teams that have not even played comparable schedules.

I would like to see them go back to the way it was in 1968, when the best team from each league made it to the World Series. When was the last time that that happened? Probably, when the Braves and Yankees played a few years back, but it is becoming less and less common. Last year was just a joke, with St. Louis, a team that barely had a winning record winning the series.

Mike Nifong and the Duke Case

I really couldn't put things much better than the following article, which makes clear how seldom state bar associations censure prosecutors for unethical conduct. State bar associations basically exist to promote the interests of large law firms, thus it is easy to find it laughable the way the North Carolina State Bar acted as though it came galloping to the rescue upon finding a lone violation by a prosecutor.

http://www.slate.com/id/2168680/

Police Work as Usual in the USA

I bet they wouldn't have arrested a group of 30 Jewish Americans for the same alleged behavior. I hope this D.A. knows what he is doing because the spirit of Mike Nifong will now be hanging over prosecutors all over this nation.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/24/nyregion/24arrests.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin

Playing Not to Lose

The Washington Post had an interesting article on sports and the probability of winning depending upon strategic choices during a game or match. I have often noted the manner in which most coaches seem to make mathematically (in terms of expected value of the outcome based upon probability) incorrect strategic choices at the end of games. For instance, at the end of the 2006 NFL season, Cincinnati was playing on the road at Denver and needed a victory to get into the play-offs. They scored a touchdown in the last minute to get within one point and then, instead of going for a two point conversion to possibly win the game, they instead went for the tie, botched the kick and missed the play-offs.

In general, we should expect road teams to go for the two point conversion to win, rather than settling for a chance to win in overtime, and yet, even the most casual viewer of NFL football can tell you that this almost never happens. Coaches seem to overestimate the value of "momentum" which is derived from being the final team to score in regulation.

In basketball, you often see teams who are ahead by three points during the last ten seconds of the game, make the mistake of not "intentionally but unintentionally" fouling the other team, which gives the team with the ball only two shots and makes it difficult for them to have a chance to win, given the lack of time left.

Instead, they give the opponent a relatively uncontested three point shot which is often a better percentage than making three consecutive free throws would be.(For example, even an 80% free throw shooter has only a 51% chance of hitting three foul shots in a row. A 70% free throw shooter, which is about the norm in college basketball, has only a 34% of making three consecutive free throws, which is almost certainly a lower percentage than an uncontested three pointer.

There are many more examples, probably even some interesting ones from golf. I expect this whole line of inquiry to become a big deal in sports, in the same way that moneyball transformed the way fans think about baseball. My gut feeling is that certain coaches, like Dean Smith for example (a college math major), who are known for winning big games in the clutch, may have simply had an advantage in analyzing the probabilistic elements of endtime play.


http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/06/17/AR2007061700968.html?sub=AR

The Beatles, Side One

Listening to side one of my vinyl copy of the White Album, it really strikes me, that with the possible exception of the 2nd side of Abbey Road, I don't think that the Beatles ever had a single side of music as thrilling as this.

First of all, due to better recording techniques, the Beatles were able to fit many more minutes on a side during the White Album, and side one of the White Album has close to 25 minutes of music. And the group used that extra time to perfection, here, starting out with an exquisite challenge from Paul McCartney to the Beach Boys, "Back in the USSR," which both rocks and harmonizes to an extent perhaps only formerly reached by "Paperback Writer." Lennon follows with the dazzlingly pretty, "Dear Prudence," written for the shy, reclusive younger sister of Mia Farrow, who accompanied them to India to study with the Maharishi, and the baffling "Glass Onion," for all the Beatle fans into numerology. McCartney's "Ob-La-Di, Ob-La-Da" is perfect pop, while "Wild Honey Pie" is a throwaway, included to add a live feel to the album.

As we move towards the side's conclusion, Lennon again impresses sonically with the "The Continuing Story of Bungalow Bill" and the intriguing "Happiness is a Warm Gun," both of which are parodies on American gun obsession. Sandwiched between these two is George Harrison's "While My Guitar Gently Weeps" featuring the Beatles with Eric Clapton performing a guitar solo that ranks right up there with "The End" from Abbey Road as the Beatles' most thrilling moment.

It is one amazing side of one amazing album (or two, since it was the Beatles' only double studio album), and not that much shorter in minutes than some of their entire early albums. Perhaps not so widely known is that The Beatles (the White Album) was the most successful record by the group selling almost twice as many vinyl discs as Sgt. Pepper and Abbey Road, which were the highest selling albums overall by the group, but were single albums and only cost half as much.

Former Posts

As this is a new blog location for me, to the extent anyone is interested, especially Carolina basketball fans, here are some older posts from a couple of years ago. I was pretty darn right about my 2005 basketball predictions, if I do say so myself.
http://journals.aol.com/williamodouglas/BrunswickMarylandMusings/

Soprano's Penultimate Episode

Questionable ethics in the psychiatric profession. It looks like Tony is going out a la Scarface or Butch and Sundance. Something is going on with Parisi. Maybe he is orchestrating the whole thing for revenge?

Right now, what I have said about the irony of the ending is looking on target: the Soprano's were always a second-rate outfit who became magnified in the viewer's eye because they were the focus of the show.... Tony, apparently doesn't even have an alarm system, much less any bodyguards to speak of and he doesn't seem to have much money to speak of, a far cry from the Corleone's owning the Vatican in GF III....

One thing seems sure: Tony is out of guys. He could probably use Richie, and Big P, and Patsy's twin and Furio and "ol bowling ball head" right now. Unless he can get help from Carmine or from his female boss friend over in Italy, I don't see anybody who can strike back. Paulie and Patsy? Maybe, but I am not sure that Patsy is not getting his revenge. Maybe he will end up on top and Meadow will still be the Italian American Princess by virtue of marriage. Something is going on with that, how she all of sudden ends up with Parisi's son, whose father has been sort of a minor character until now. So far this year, members of the Soprano family who have killed have bought the farm, Bobby, Christopher and Sil, apparently. Tony has not killed anybody directly to my recollection, this year.