New Rules

I was pretty disappointed to find out that there was no new Real Time with Bill Maher this week. One of my favorite Saturday morning routines is to listen to his show while I clean up the mess from the night before.

So in honor of Bill, and because imitation is the highest form of flattery, I came up with my own. So here goes:


New Rule: Just because you are in a study room does not give you the right to talk twice as loud as you would if you were outside. It's a study room, not outer space. We can still hear you outside. More importantly, we can still hear you in the next room over. And I don't care what you thought about last night's episode of gossip girl or what stupid comment that gunner in your class made today during lecture. It's almost finals time, I have to teach myself Con Law in 4 days, and most importantly, you're distracting me from my g-chatting.

New Rule: Before you revive a slogan from the American Revolution, you should probably read about the American Revolution. On tax day, hundreds of thousands of angry, conservative, non-colored citizens took to the streets chanting "No taxation without representation!", invoking the image of our 18th century forefathers who protested British rule over the original colonies. The only problem being, of course, that they do have representation. It's called the government, and they're representative because people voted for them to be there. No, not you individually, but guess what? It's called the United States of America, not the United States of Steve. Just because you didn't vote for him doesn't mean he doesn't represent you, genius. Hey, I didn't vote for Bush, either, but I didn't stop paying taxes and secede from the union just because Kerry lost. I did what any responsible American would do: I became apathetic.

Finally, New Rule: Whoever signed off on the city's plan to repave McAllister Street the week before finals should be publicly flogged. How anyone at either the ASUCH office or the Administration could have found out about this plan and NOT thought "Hm, that might be a bad idea," is beyond me. I can imagine the phone call went something like this:

City: "Hey so we want to repave McAllister street. We're thinking, late April, early May. Is that going to be a problem?"
UCH: "Um, lemme check my calendar...Hm...Late April.....Nope! Doesn't look like anything important goin on. Go right ahead."
City: "You sure? Cuz there's gonna be jackhammers, bulldozers, we're probably gonna block off the whole front entrance to the Tower."
UCH" "Yeah no, go right ahead. No problems here."
City: "Alright. Oh, and also, we were thinking about maybe increasing police presence around the campus. How's that sound?"
UCH: "Nah, don't bother. I think the students actually prefer the bum fights, car alarms, crack deals, and random drive-bys. We're bringing life to law, ya know!"


How do you NOT pick up on the fact that the City wants to do construction in front of your law school during FINALS?! Not to mention the fact that it's the end of the year and kids will be expecting to MOVE OUT of their apartments. It's going to be kind of hard to get a moving truck in front of the tower when there's, you know, NO STREET THERE. It's annoying to say the least - I certainly don't need any help NOT getting sleep in the tower. But it's frustrating more than anything. Being that UC Hastings has such a "special" relationship with the City in general (so many Hastings grads stick around to work here) and the Tenderloin specifically (we seem to be the only permanent residents in the neighborhood) it's unfathomable that the City would just be allowed to create such a huge disturbance at such a critical time of the year. More frustrating is the fact that it seems completely and totally unnecessary. It's not like McAllister was in such bad shape that it couldn't be driven on for another MONTH until finals were over and people were moved out. The whole operation could have easily been delayed until late May or June. Whoever the nitwit from UCH is that picked up the phone and told them this was all honky-dory should have known that, and should have told the City that if they want to waste more of our tax money, at least do it during the summer.

After all, how are all the bums supposed to sleep with all that racket?

Cut out the Middle-man

So I stumbled upon this article today (actually props to Shane for the link):

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/13/us/politics/13student.html

Basically, it says Obama wants to replace the current system of federally backed private loans with a directly-funded federal loan program.

Huh, you ask? Well the current system basically works like this: When you apply for college (or grad/law school) loans, assuming you are eligible for federal aid (FAFSA), your loan is financed by private banks. The federal government promises these banks up to a 97% return on their investment, and they pay these banks the highest possible interest rate on those loans so that you can skip class, do keg-stands, and barely pass your classes for four years without worrying about the insane amount of money your "education" is costing you.

Sounds like a pretty nice system, no? The banks get paid, you get your diploma (which you soon realize enables you to do pretty much nothing), and the government covers the tab. Only problem is, it pre-supposes that the banks are going to take that money (which they are basically getting for free care of YOU, the taxpayer) and re-invests it back into the economy somehow. Only now, with the economy turned to shit and banks refusing to loan out so much as a cup of flour (it seems they won't even let us eat cake), the system is pretty much failing. That is, unless you're the bank and you're handing out risk-free loans, and still collecting fat payoffs from the government to do it, then using that money to pay executives huge bonuses, buy jets, and generally spit on the American taxpayer.

Well Obama, being the quick-wit he is, has decided that enough is enough, and plans to cut out the Banking middle-man and just have the federal government finance the loans itself. While this sounds expensive, the move will actually SAVE the American government over $94 billion dollars over the next ten years. And unlike the private banks, who would use that money to buy Gulfstreams and platinum-plated monocle holders (its tax deductible?), the federal government would use this money to INCREASE Pell grants to the poorest students.

So let's see: It saves the government money, simplifies the complicated process of obtaining college loans, AND increases the number of kids who can go to college? Who would be against that?

Oh yeah, banks. Seems like begging for hundreds of billions of dollars hasn't taught them any restraint (go figure). In spite of the fact that they are being kept afloat by federal funding as it is (I guess our guaranteed money wasn't enough?), they are fighting tooth and nail to make sure Congress doesn't pass a new bill that will eliminate them as the middleman and thus end the current system that has become a windfall for them.

The banks have hired lobbyists, phoned congressmen, and mobilized the troops for all out war with the Obama administration. With hundreds of billions of dollars of (taxpayer) money to play with, it's hard to imagine this very special interest won't get its way. Ah, democracy at work.

A couple months ago, I realized I wasn't going to have enough money to make it through the semester. Naturally, I sought the advice of the financial aid department at Hastings, who told me I could apply for an extra Grad Plus loan in the amount of $2200. I applied for the loan, filled out the necessary paperwork, and waited patiently for the funding that would keep me from either dropping out of law school or becoming a "private escort" in the Castro. I waited, and waited, and waited. Finally, after almost a month, I found out from Bank of America that my loan for $2200 had been rejected.

REJECTED!? ITS A FEDERALLY BACKED LOAN! Did the "Bank of Opportunity" feel like Uncle Sam wasn't good for it? No, in fact, they ran a credit check and found out that I had a "collection" reported for medical bills from undergrad - in the amount of $117. I believe the conversation went something like this:

Me: "I have an excellent credit score, three credit cards with zero balance, a flawless credit history, and you're saying you won't loan me $2200 for school because I owe MSU $117?"
Bank: "Yes sir."

Due to the ongoing investigation, under the advice of my attorney, I can't divulge the rest of the conversation.

So what was I supposed to do? I'm broke, I can't pay my bills, my family's on the other side of the country, and the bank that is supposed to be taking care of me, the bank that the government is PAYING to take care of me, has basically told me to piss off. I honestly started making a list of friends whose couches I could crash on for the next, oh, two years.

Luckily I was able to get the financing in the end. From my mother. That's right, while Bank of America couldn't scrounge up enough change to loan me the cash, my 56 year old mother who is on disability and social security could. No, she doesn't own a house. No, she's not wealthy. No, she didn't cash out her 401k. She simply saw that I was in a tough spot, and did what she had to do to make sure I was okay. When I told my mom I felt horrible about taking her money, she replied with this:

"It's okay. Someday you're gonna be making money, and then I will get it aaalllll back."

She laughed, but the notion stuck in my head: My mom, who has almost no disposable income and zero training in finance or economics, could look at my situation and see that I needed the money and that it was a worthwhile, safe investment, and yet Bank of America couldn't. How was that possible? What did my mother see that Bank of America didn't?

I suppose the short answer is me. My mom saw a person, not just a profit margin. Somewhere along the line, while banks were enjoying record profits from these federally backed loans, paying out huge bonuses with our money, and sewing the seeds of the housing and financial disaster, they forgot that those numbers had faces, that these loans were more than just calculated risks, that they were our FUTURES. They forgot that the reason these programs existed was to help US.

Now they want to keep the government from pulling the plug on their little racket. And they're going to succeed, too, unless we make a big enough deal about it.

So call, write, email, protest (I hate parades, but I'll make an exception for this one time), do what you have to do, but let Congress know that the era of big banks controlling our education needs to end.

As for me, I need to get back to outlining. My mom charges 9% interest.

Extreme Home Makeover, brought to you by Big Oil

Ted Stevens, Alaska's leading Republican and one of the most senior U.S. Senators, was indicted today on 7 counts of making false statements on his financial disclosure forms. You may remember Sen. Stevens from some of his more famous sponsored legislation, such as the famous "Bridge to Nowhere", and his now infamous statement calling the internet a "series of tubes". What you may not remember is that last summer, the Senator's home was raided by the FBI in connection with an investigation into improper renovations on his Alaskan home that were paid for by the oil engineering company VECO. Apparently, VECO paid for renovations that included an entirely new first floor, wrap-around deck, and other "home improvements" that totaled over $250,000.

What did VECO want in return? According to CBS News, the oil company wanted funding and other aid for the company's projects in Pakistan and Russia, federal grants from several agencies, and help in building a natural gas pipeline in northern Alaska. A small price to pay for the Senator, especially considering WE, the taxpayers, would be paying it.

If that's not enough to enrage you, you should also keep in mind that Sen. Stevens has been one of the earliest and most vocal proponents of opening up the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) for oil exploration and drilling. He's also tried to weaken organic labeling standards for Alaskan seafood, used his position on the Appropriations Committee to prevent funding for research to help protect fish habitat in the North Pacific, prevent the feds from labeling endangered wildlife as protected, and pushed to increase logging in Alaska's Tongass National Forests.

Oh yes, and it appears that crime and corruption are part of the family business, as well.

All I can say about this scandal is that I'm glad Sen. Stevens is up for re-election this year. Not only is he likely to lose his seat, and thus end his 68 year reign of lunacy in the Senate, but it will almost certainly go to Anchorage Mayor Mark Begich, a democrat. Though Begich supports drilling in ANWR, he has been a vocal and frequent champion of the environment, pushing for renewable fuels and other measures to help combat climate change.

This entire episode reminds me of a quote I heard during undergrad, one that I have keep in the back of my mind whenever I hear about new policies and politicians who support them:

"When evaluating a particular policy or piece of legislation, consider this: Who benefits from it?"

The evidence, in this case, is quite clear: Senator Stevens and Big Oil. The losers? The rest of us.

And now, via Comedy Central, the top 5 Ted Stevens moments of all time:

#5 Ted Stevens attempts to censor cable programming


#4 Ted Stevens calls the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge "Hell"


#3Ted Stevens votes in support of torture


#2 Ted Stevens would rather lose his job then lose his "bridge to nowhere"


#1Ted Stevens explains the internets for you

Oh, what a tangled web we weave...

Scouring the web for legal news this past week, I happened to stumble across this fascinating article on Slate about all of the Bush Administration scandals and who could be prosecuted for them. I astounded by how many of these scandals could be traced back to top Bush administration officials, including VP Dick Cheney and Bush himself. But interestingly, it seems the most "tangled" of all our characters in this tragedy is someone you might not expect...

I'll go over a few of the highlights of the article, but I recommend everyone to check it out for themselves. We start, as always, at the top:

George W. Bush / Dick Cheney
Scandals Linked to: 3 (Torture, wiretapping, destroying CIA tapes)

The Web Looks something like: George W. Bush suspended Geneva Convention rights for detainees following the invasion of Afghanistan. He also admitted to essentially giving interrogators free reign on how to coerce answers from detainees, and of even secretly approving certain torture techniques. He also secretly ordered the NSA to wiretapp suspects without obtaining warrants, violating both the U.S. Constitution and the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (FISA). Cheney was part of the "principles committee" that met to approve certain torture techniques, such as the infamous "waterboarding" and even physical assault. On wiretapping, Cheney was said to have defended the President's program of warrantless wiretapping when the then-Deputy Attorney General James Comey expressed concern regarding its legality.

Likelihood of Prosecution: Extremely low. As Slate points out, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi won't even talk about impeaching GWB and Cheney.

Harriet Miers
Scandals linked to: 2 (Destruction of CIA tapes, US Attorney firings)

The web looks something like: Miss Miers was one of the first Administration insiders to propose firing all 93 US Attorneys. She talked about the idea early on in Alberto Gonzales' tenure, but he dismissed the idea of a mass firing. Then, taking a page from the Joseph Stalin / Sadaam Hussein guide on rooting out dissenters, had DOJ Chief of Staff Kyle Sampson produce a list of the 93 Attorneys ranked in order of who was most loyal to the Administration. In addition, Miers is listed as one of the chief architects behind the destruction of the CIA interrogation tapes, a role for which she is currently being investigated by John Durham of the Connecticut US Attorney's office for possible obstruction of justice charges.

Likelihood of Prosecution: Low-Medium. Like Karl Rove, Miers decided to duck out of a Congressional Subpoena in February 2008 and was thus slapped with a contempt charge by the House. Bush's incredibly broad definition of "Executive Privelage", however, means that Miers may eventually end up avoiding any kind of trial/testimony on her actions.

Alberto Gonzales
Scandals Linked to: 5 (Coercive Interrogation, CIA tapes, DOJ Hiring, DOJ Firing, Wiretapping)

The Web Looks like: And now we have the grand-daddy of them all, Alberto Gonzales. Implicated in every major scandal mentioned in the article, Alberto Gonzales' web stretches far and wide. To make things brief: He was on the war council, was one of the original advocators of using torture on detainees, advocated suspending Geneva rights, instructed the Administration on what to do with the CIA tapes, and deferred to Addington, Cheney and Rove on all of the scandals. On top of all this, he also lied to Congress when summoned to testify on his role in the DOJ firings, claiming he had no idea about the firings when emails showed he was briefed at least twice on them. He claimed that there was no debate about the legality of the warrantless wiretapping, when in fact there was, and played dumb in front of congress, apparently unable to recall "which fibs were which", before (mercifully) resigning from his office. Ah, yes, Alberto Gonzales - perhaps no single person has been as potent a force for subverting democracy and rule of law in the 21st Century as our embattled ex-Attorney General.

Likelihood of Prosecution: Not High Enough. While Gonzales' role on the War Council could land him in big trouble as a War Criminal, the likelihood of him being tried for War Crimes is slim to none. While he can be expressly linked to every major scandal, most accounts of his "service" to this country describe him as simply rubber-stamping whatever David Addington, Karl Rove, or Dick Cheney wanted.

As infuriating as it is to read about the breadth and vastness of corruption in the Bush Administration, it is only more frustrating once you realize that all of these potential criminals will likely never face charges for their actions. In the frenzy to combat extremists and fight the "war on terror", we gave our executive branch carte blanche to suspend civil liberties, violate the rule of law, and subvert democracy - in essence, eroding the very fabric of our society, what holds this country together. The Bush Administration has done more to damage the faith and belief in our democracy than anything Osama Bin Laden could have dreamed of. And that, perhaps, is the most tragic irony.

"It is lamentable that to become a good patriot, one must become the enemy of the rest of mankind." ~ Voltaire

A Roman Tragedy

Normally I wouldn't write about this, but I am so incredibly incensed and disgusted by this story that I had to at least mention it on this blog.

The story goes like this: Two Roma (or gypsy, an ethnic minority in Italy) girls were selling trinkets and other goods just outside of Naples, when they decided to take a swim in the nearby beach. The four girls soon found themselves caught in a riptide and struggled to keep afloat.

Here's where it gets revolting: On the beach, just a few feet away, dozens of sunbathers WATCHED as the girls drowned, and did nothing. It was minutes before somebody even alerted authorities to rescue the girls.

Even more disgusting: When the girls were finally pulled ashore, the bodies of two of the girls (cousins, aged 12 and 13) who could not be saved were laid out on the beach with towels covering their bodies and their feet poking out. But, as the bodies lay there on the beach waiting for the families of the victims to identify them, the sunbathers simply "carried on having lunch or sunbathing just a few meters away."

I simply could not believe this story when I read it. For this to happen in this day and age, in the cradle of Western Civilization - in a land of people so fiercely self-described as Christians, no less! - is incomprehensible. How anyone, Christian or otherwise, could have looked out on the beach that day, watching two young girls die, and so callously decided to do nothing is so inconceivable, so beyond human understanding that I have to question whether those people were truly human at all. For the life of me I can not - or, perhaps, I just don't want to - believe that they are.

I am well aware of the atrocities humans are capable of committing towards one another in the name of war, religion, love, hatred and otherwise. But these girls weren't enemies of anybody, they weren't prisoners of war or victims of circumstance. They were victims of that most inhuman of human emotions - disregard.

British statesman Edmund Burke once said, "All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing." I am sure the people sitting on the beach that day would consider themselves "good" people. Perhaps they go to church every Sunday and confess their sins, and donate to charity. But when the time came for these people to act, to do some good, even when faced with the clear knowledge that doing nothing would mean four girls could die, they did what Edmund Burke feared they would do: nothing.

They didn't even get up when the families came to carry their dead daughters off in coffins. They simply looked on, then looked away and went on with their day. After all, the sunsets in Naples are to die for.

"Sometimes I wonder... will God ever forgive us for what we've done to each other? Then I look around and I realize... God left this place a long time ago." - Blood Diamond

Flagrantly Foul: NBA forced to re-examine lame policy

I've said it before, and I will say it again: College sports are a joke.

Perhaps I should say Division 1 sports, or just those sports that are most popular (basketball and football), but the entire notion of the modern "student-athlete" is a complete farce. Most of the big-time programs in the country are not concerned with producing college diplomas, they're concerned with winning. The players don't care if they average a 1.5 GPA while majoring in "General Studies", as long as they're eligible to play. Most importantly, however, nobody really expects any of these kids to be anything more than just model athletes; if you show up to play, don't get into any off-field trouble, and just PASS your classes (don't worry, if you can't even do that, we'll throw a bunch of money at buying you private tutors and even a "student athlete center" that you'll never attend, but that looks great on recruiting material. Oh, and if you still can't pass, you can always pay a groupie to take your tests for you) you have done all that is expected of you. Student-athletes? Please. These kids live in a world of their own, a strange in-between land that straddles the border between collegiate and professional sports.

My point is that these kids are not students, they don't WANT to be students, and forcing them to pretend to BE students is just a way for the NCAA to pimp these kids into giving them a year or two of their services for free while simultaneously boosting their ratings, keeping veteran pro players happy, and the public placated by insisting these kids are "honing their skills", "maturing into men", and "getting an education" all on our (read: the REAL students' and college sports fans') dime. So you can imagine my delight in hearing about the case of young Brandon Jennings, a kid who decided to say, "Fuck the NCAA and working for free, I'm gonna get paid!" and is now taking his act to Europe until such time that he can be eligible for the NBA draft.

Now, normally I'm not a fan of American talent going to Europe to compete - or, for that matter, European talent coming here (see: Darko Milicic) - but I can completely sympathize with Mr. Jennings in this matter, because the NBA rule is ludicrous. By keeping young talent out of the league for a year, you are preventing them from profiting off of their own services, which is not only unfair to the athletes, it's also a violation of federal anti-trust law (see how I incorporate the law into it? I know, it's fascinating). The NBA had a similar rule in the past that used to force high school athletes to wait FOUR years to enter the draft, but it was challenged in a landmark case by a young player named Spencer Haywood, who eventually got the NBA to drop the rule completely in 1971. Up until 2005, the NBA was free to draft high school athletes, when they initiated their current policy forcing kids to wait a year. What has the rule resulted in? Well, for one, it forced a bunch of kids who have no desire to play college ball into playing for schools who coincidentally became overnight powerhouses (read: Ohio State). But what good has it done for the long-term longevity of these programs and the careers of the athletes involved? How is Ohio State going to keep talent when kids just want to "one and done" it? Did Greg Oden really benefit from having played one year in the NCAA? I'm pretty sure he'd still be a tree trunk with arms if he had gone straight to the pros. And you can't tell me he's happy about playing a year for free, injuring his knee, and then having to sit out his first year of his pro career. Let's recap: Kobe Bryant, Kevin Garnett, Rashard Lewis, Lebron James - these are just SOME of the NBA All-Stars taken straight out of high school. Are you going to tell me that these guys somehow lost-out by not eating dorm-food and cheating on sociology tests for a year?

Faced with the choice of playing a year for free, waking up early to take exams for subjects he'd never care to learn, and staying broke - or, going to Europe, traveling the world, getting some experience in a new culture living on his own, Jennings made the obvious choice. However, this is a dangerous precedent for the NBA: if more players follow Jennings' example and jet for Europe, they could perhaps risk losing some talent to the Europeans (who are becoming bigger and bigger fans of the sport), especially if they start offering these high school kids long-term contracts. It doesn't matter how much you grew up idolizing USC as a kid, if some European League Rep comes knocking on your door offering you a chance to travel Europe, play basketball, and best of all, get PAID to do it, all the dorm food in the world isn't going convince you college for a year is the right choice.

I love college sports - I find that the genuine intensity and spirit you see in college athletes is rarely reciprocated on the pro level. But that is partly due to the fact that college sports are, and always have been about, the schools and their students. When you force kids who would rather be professionals into playing for a school, you jeopordize all that is great about college sports. Kids who would normally get a shot to play for their schools are forced to sit behind would-be lottery picks eager to show off for NBA scouts. Students, faculty and fans form ill-opinions of athletes who give their programs bad names by misbehaving or treating their academic obligations as secondary. And worst of all, you risk the longevity and sustainability of the program by inviting greedy agents, eager to tempt young athletes with a taste of their future profits, who can bring NCAA sanctions onto the schools these athletes play for.

Brandon Jennings will almost certainly make a big splash in Europe, and the Europeans have the NBA to thank for it. The only question is, how many more will follow in his footsteps before the NBA realizes how flawed their policy is?

The I.C.C. gets it right

According to this article on the Washington Post, the International Criminal Court (ICC) will seek an arrest warrant for current Sudanese President Omar Hassan al-Bashir. This is the first time the ICC has sought such a warrant on a current head of state.

The development of this story has both excited me and infused me with a great deal of uncertainty; as someone who has followed the events in Darfur over the past four years and shared the outrage over the atrocities being committed in the name of al-Bashir's government, I am truly overjoyed to see that officials in the international community are (finally) going to hold al-Bashir responsible for his actions. At the same time, (assuming the ICC grants the warrant) I wonder how the U.N. is going to address the issue of arresting a current head of state. Certainly, al-Bashir isn't going to simply turn himself in to the ICC, so one assumes that he will have to be caught if and when he leaves the country, or once another ruler is elected. Still, a man who commands the army of an entire nation and countless Janjaweed militia certainly isn't going to go down without a fight. So what recourse has the U.N. left itself with regards to bringing al-Bashir to justice?

It is one thing to issue an arrest warrant for a criminal, it is wholly another to arrest him - especially when that person is a current President. I am really excited (as only a political science - law nerd like myself can be) to see how this whole episode plays out. Al-Bashir's government has promised "grave consequences" and warned that the peace process will be "shattered" if the ICC continues with its pursuit of the warrant, which in all likelihood means more trouble for the already suffering people of Darfur. This, of course, is unfortunate, but if it means a possible end to their suffering at the hands of al-Bashir and the Janjaweed, then perhaps this is the risk they (the ICC and the U.N.) must take.

As the Washington Post points out, "ICC advocates contend that such court actions contribute to peace efforts," and point to the cases of Slobodan Milosevic and former Liberian President Charles Taylor, whose U.N. tribunals "have ultimately contributed to stability" in their respective countries. However what this statement ignores is the fact that these two men were brought to justice only AFTER they were already removed from power. As I stated earlier, the fact that Al-Bashir is still the current President of Sudan makes this case entirely unique, and historic.