Announcing a new book!

This year has been a time of transition for me. I have closed a very lengthy chapter of my life by finishing my Juris Doctor and by passing the Tennessee bar exam. While I am and always will be committed to being a lifetime learner, my primary focus has shifted from academic to professional pursuits. I would like to mark that shift in focus by self-publishing my first non-fiction book, and relaunching this blog with a fresh perspective and great, all-new content with a slightly different focus.

Much of what I have published, here, on this blog over the last several years has been written and published at a time in my life when I had the luxury of reading from a wide variety of sources and spending a lot of time thinking, speaking, and writing about concepts and ideas that push the boundaries of what most people are comfortable considering. Most people aren’t comfortable talking about the potential for economic collapse, drastic tax reform, how over-education leads to high unemployment and contributes to a down economy, the futility of trying to affect global climate change, the dangers of eco-socialism and so-called “social justice” propaganda, or challenging their fundamental beliefs. Those are, however, just a few of the topics on which I have written over the last couple of years.

My process, when it comes to exploring new ideas, is both internal – a lot of reading, meditation, and general pondering – as well as external – speaking with others, writing, posting online, and soliciting feedback. So, a lot of times, I will advocate an idea or opinion, because it is the one that seems to make the most sense to me at the time, a tentative conclusion if you will. I have formed very few opinions I am unwilling to change, however, and I am always looking for ways to challenge myself, ways to contradict and unravel the most fundamental of the premises on which I base my worldview.

I believe that if my beliefs can withstand the brutal onslaught of opposing ideas, they must be worth keeping. Most people cringe from being challenged at a fundamental level. I thrive on such conflict, because I understand that passing my ideas through the crucible refines and purifies my understanding of the worlds around me – both physical and metaphysical.

This blog is a reflection of the process of thinking through concepts that have a strong bearing on public policy, faith, popular culture, philosophy, religion, politics, the justice system, the education system, and many, many more areas of life. As of the time of this writing, there are some ideas, concepts, positions, and opinions that I have taken in the past (on this blog and elsewhere) with which I now cannot say I completely agree. I do not see this as a sign of hypocrisy or inconsistency, but, rather, as a sign of personal, intellectual growth. I believe that recording the evidence of this growth will serve as a persistent reminder to me of my journey, and may help others through their journeys of personal growth.

I am pleased, therefore, to announce that I have begun the process of collecting, editing, updating, and supplementing more than fifty articles from this blog, which will be compiled into a book, and published. My loving, supportive wife will be helping me with most of the compiling and editing, because she has a lot of talent, experience, and skill as an editor, and because she has always been both a source of great inspiration and a constant encouragement to me with regard to my writing. Most of the writing for the book is finished. I estimate that fewer than ten pages of additional writing will be required, although we are planning several rounds of updates and edits after everything is compiled. It is my sincere hope and desire to have this project finished and ready for distribution by the beginning of June at the latest.

For more information, please keep an eye on the Facebook page for the blog or follow me on Twitter, where I will post more information as it becomes available.

Trayvon Martin

There is a lot of misinformation and irresponsible coverage of the Trayvon Martin case going around the internet, and very few people know what to make of it, but one thing is certain, George Zimmerman is being tried in the court of public opinion, and is being prosecuted because of public pressure and the onslaught of petitions calling for his blood in retribution for the alleged self-defense killing of Trayvon Martin. Irresponsible race-baiting demagogues like Morris Dees of the Southern Poverty Law Center are trying to make this case about race, suggesting that Zimmerman’s alleged killing of Trayvon Martin in self-defense is “tantamount to deliberately running over a black man with a pickup truck just for kicks.” (Reference 1 | Reference 2)

Even Barack Obama weighed in, fanning the flames of an already controversial case.

“If I had a son, he’d look like Trayvon,” Obama said, underscoring how the issue affected him on a personal, and not just a political or legal, level. “I think [Trayvon's parents] are right to expect that all of us as Americans are going to take this with the seriousness it deserves, and we are going to get to the bottom of exactly what happened.”

One good place to start, when assessing this case is Reason.com, where you can find an article called Shooting in the Dark. That article takes a facts-first approach to understanding the Trayvon Martin case, and points out that, at this stage of the case, we do not know whether Zimmerman shot Martin “in cold blood” or who was the initial aggressor.

Another picture of Trayvon Martin posted by him to his Facebook profile.

Zimmerman has claimed that Martin knocked him to the ground, repeatedly smashing his head into the pavement, that his gun was exposed during the scuffle, and that he was afraid Martin would grab his pistol. So, he allegedly drew his gun and fired in self-defense. There was no opportunity, under the circumstances, for Zimmerman to escape, and he had every right to self-defense, if he reasonably believed his life was in danger, or if he reasonably feared that Martin would inflict serious bodily injury upon him. Such beliefs would, in my opinion, be absolutely reasonable, if some guy, who was four inches taller than me and had me on the ground was bashing my head against the pavement.

It is a shame that the race-baiters and demagogues have made this case about race, when what is possibly at stake is, the right to Stand Your Ground and defend yourself with deadly force from the threat of death or serious bodily injury. George Zimmerman so defended himself, and now, because of racist demands for retribution, he is charged with Second Degree Murder. The good news, for Zimmerman, is that the arrest affidavit appears to be absolutely insufficient to establish a case against him.

“Most affidavits of probable cause are very thin. This is so thin that it won’t make it past a judge on a second degree murder charge,” Harvard University law professor Alan Dershowitz said. “There’s simply nothing in there that would justify second degree murder.” (via Mediaite) Dershowitz said that the elements that would constitute that crime are non-existent in the affidavit. “It’s not only thin, it’s irresponsible,” said Dershowitz. “This affidavit does not even make it to probable cause,” Dershowitz concluded. “everything in the affidavit is completely consistent with a defense of self-defense. Everything.”

Trayvon Martin’s mother, Sybrina Fulton, has even said she thinks the shooting was an accident. “I believe it got out of control and he couldn’t turn the clock back,” she said on the Today show. Later, however, through her lawyer’s Twitter account, she has tried to retract that statement.  The melodramatic nature of this case, and the complete disregard for objectivity is appalling.

I believe that George Zimmerman is innocent until proven guilty by a jury of his peers. Further, if George Zimmerman reasonably believed that Trayvon Martin presented a threat of death or serious bodily injury, I believe he had every right to use lethal force in self-defense. I support the natural right to keep and bear arms, protected by the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, and I support the right to Stand Your Ground and defend yourself from the threat of imminent death or serious bodily injury by using lethal force.

If you, too, believe in the right to Stand Your Ground, please take this image, and post it to your social media or social networking profile, and share it with your friends. Support the right not to be prosecuted because of public pressure or an onslaught of petitions calling for your blood in retribution for defending yourself. Support the liberty we have always enjoyed as Americans to have the courage to stand up to bullies, terrorists, and thugs, and to defend ourselves with necessary force. Support the right to Stand Your Ground! #syg

And, might I add, good parenting means showing your kids the original theatrical release versions of the original trilogy, not just the special editions.

You might not be one of the millions of people who “get it,” when it comes to Star Wars, but even if that is the case, I think you’ll find what I have to say, here, to be worth reading. So, try to stick with me. I apologize in advance if this gets geeky. Sometimes I do that here on the blog.

Now that The Big Bang Theory is a huge hit, I guess it’s a little more socially acceptable, these days, to be a geek, nerd, dork, or whatever you called the kid who got wedgies in grade school (or, if he was really unlucky, middle or high school). For the most part, I made it through school without having too much trouble with bullying, but I was definitely a nerd, until about 10^th grade. Like most nerds, I spent a lot of time engaging my imagination. I read a lot, and I fell in love with science fiction at an early age.

I remember the first time I ever watched Star Wars. At that point, I had been a fan of Star Trek: The Next Generation for a while. I hadn’t ever really been introduced to Star Wars, and I am almost certain that my fundamentalist, evangelical Christian mother probably objected to “having Star Wars in the house,” but I can remember my father giving me a boxed set of VHS tapes of the original Star Wars trilogy for Christmas, or maybe my birthday, and telling me, “I know you like Star Trek, but, trust me, this is really good. You’ll like it.” I remember being a little skeptical, although I don’t know why.

When I was a kid, as a gift, my dad gave me the Star Wars "Special Letterbox Collector's Edition" trilogy boxed set (VHS, 1992). One of the best gifts, ever.

I guess I had some kind of irrational franchise loyalty, and felt like I might be “cheating on” Star Trek if I let myself get into Star Wars. I feel ridiculous, in retrospect, for having felt that way. As I grew older, though, I realized that a lot of people have feelings like that when it comes to certain things. The console wars, for example, are the product of brand loyalty run amok. Those sorts of feelings, while understandable from a juvenile perspective, are really unfortunate, because if you are so fiercely loyal to one franchise or brand that you can’t enjoy others, you’re really limiting your range of experiences; but I digress.

I remember the moment I fell in love with Star Wars. It was the first time, in Episode IV: A New Hope, when Luke turned on his father’s lightsaber.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ukbTFgQ4jxs

Once you see that, as a young boy, you’re hooked. From there, you learn a little about the Force, and you start thinking to yourself, “It would be so cool, if I could move stuff with my mind!” If you have an over-active imagination like I had (or, rather, have), that is the beginning of a thousand ephemeral, and yet – to you - very real, adventures. When my dad gave me Star Wars, it was the beginning of something new and exciting, a different perspective on the world, a new way to look at things. Though I didn’t learn this until later, Star Wars was also plugging me in to some very universal archetypal and mythological constructs that have existed for thousands of years. For more about that, read about Joseph Campbell’s influence on George Lucas.

Star Wars matters, personally and culturally, to me and to a lot of people in a way that other stories, other movies, other franchises just don’t. Whether that’s because on an anthropological or cultural level, the characters and story stir something deep inside our collective unconscious, or whether it’s just nostalgia driving our love of Star Wars, who is to say? One thing that we can say with a reasonable degree of certainty, is that fans who grew up with Star Wars before the Special Editions (that is, people who became fans of Star Wars before 1997) have strong feelings about the changes that were made in the Star Wars re-releases – and, anecdotally at least, it seems most of them are negative.

For that reason, the original “un-f***ed with” Star Wars trilogy, the original theatrical release (hereinafter the “original trilogy”), has been put on something of a pedestal. People, now, are willing to pay a relatively large sum of money for bona fide, original copies of the original trilogy on DVD. The “best” such DVDs, in my opinion, are the ones that came in a small, 6-disc boxed set that was released in November of 2008. The original trilogy was released on 3 bonus discs in that boxed set. New, unopened boxed sets of these DVDs sell for hundreds of dollars.

I had a little Christmas money left over, this year, and it’s just been burning a hole in my pocket. Usually, I save most of any Christmas money I get, and spend it over the course of the eight months between Christmas and my birthday. Often, I’ll use it to do unexpected things for or with my wife (paying cash keeps such expenditures a surprise). So, when I saw an opportunity to snag the original trilogy at a fair price, I ordered it through amazon.com.

When I told my wife about my purchase, I told her, “I don’t know whether to open it when it arrives, or wait for a special time. Maybe I’ll just keep it sealed up. That way, it will retain its value as a collectible item, in case George Lucas never pulls his head out of his ass and releases the original trilogy in a high-definition anamorphic widescreen format.” She paused for the space of about half a second, and then replied with the one of the most romantic things anyone has ever said to me. “Just keep it sealed up. Wait until we have a kid, and when they’re old enough to appreciate it, sit them down, open it up, and watch it with them.” I was floored. She’s right. That’s exactly what I’m going to do.

I’m a lucky guy. I have the original trilogy on DVD, and, even better, I have a wife who can appreciate how important that is. I can’t wait to give my children the gift my father gave me a long time ago, in a galaxy far, far away.

“Everything is worth what its purchaser will pay for it.”  - Publilius Syrus

$200+ shoe causing riots, because it's too cheap.

The CEO of Nike is a CPA. You would think the folks over there wouldn’t suck so badly at math, or more specifically at Economics 101. Nike consistently produces shoes that cause riots in the United States. While some people might speculate that the reason Nike’s customers riot over the shoes has something to do with the demographics of the customer base, I tend to believe the problem has more to do with Nike’s failure to properly price their product.

You see, when a product is in high demand, and supply for that product is low, the price should be high. To illustrate this point, consider the following example.

If Nike produces 50,000 pairs of shoes, and each pair of shoes costs $220, but there are 500,000 people who want them and are willing to pay $220 to buy them, there will be a substantial percentage of the 500,000 people who want to buy them who will be willing to pay much more than the MSRP (manufacturer’s suggested retail price) to get the shoes.

This creates a situation where some people will be buying the shoes just to sell them to other people, because they know that some people will be willing to pay more than the $220 for which they’re being sold. This, in turn, increases demand, because some people who don’t particularly want the shoes will be buying them just to “flip” them for profit. Such an increase in demand raises the price to people who actually want to own the shoes.

Nike should be able to determine what the shoes are actually worth by doing market research, and by testing the waters with limited releases, when they bring new shoes to market. Marketing isn’t really the point of this article. So, I’m not going to get into that, but I do want to talk about pricing.

Customers at Raleigh's Crabtree Valley Mall swarm the entrance over a pair of Nike Galaxy Foamposite sneakers

If Nike were to price these shoes at, say, $2,000 – $6,000 per pair, a lot fewer people would be willing to buy them, because the people who are buying them just to flip them would not have an incentive to flip them, because the high MSRP would eliminate their profit margin. The people who want to own them are, in many cases, going to end up paying $2,000 – $6,000 for the shoes, anyway, because due to high demand and low supply, that is how much they are actually worth.

By pricing shoes for which there is extremely high demand at unreasonably low prices, Nike creates circumstances that are ripe for violence and social unrest. People are willing to risk a lot, especially in a sluggish economy, for the opportunity to quickly turn $250 into $2,000 – $6,000 dollars. If prices were raised, demand would decrease, along with the potential for violence. Fewer people lining up to buy shoes, means fewer people out in the streets, which means fewer people likely to get into fights or cause property damage over shoes.

Nike knows, or reasonably should know, that by selling their shoes at irresponsibly low prices, they are capitalizing on the desperation of poor (or greedy) people who (rightly or wrongly) believe they have little to risk and a lot to gain by rioting over sneakers in order to have a chance to make a quick buck. By setting the prices for their shoes far below the actual market price, Nike is creating tense situations all over the U.S. that have the potential for violence and chaos. It’s a shame that Nike irresponsibly refuses to protect their customers by raising their prices to bring them in range of the actual market price.

UPDATE:

A pair of Nike Galaxy Foamposites sold for over $99,000 on eBay, today. I took a screenshot. Unbelievable!

Other, related videos:

• Sneaker Frenzy – Shopping Chaos – Mall of America (YouTube)
• Nike Chaos – Nike Air Foamposite One Galaxy Release (YouTube)
• Air Jordan Sneaker Riots in Malls Gunfire (YouTube)

In law school, I researched and wrote a paper about the issues related to flash mob violence. If you haven’t visited violentflashmobs.com yet, that really should be the next link you click. Once you have seen the number and the nature of these vicious attacks, you will be better prepared to understand the paper I want to share with you.

If you want to jump straight to the paper, here is the link: http://www.scribd.com/doc/82129664

I believe there is very little doubt in the minds of most Americans that our culture and our society are unraveling. As the (U-6) unemployment rate remains at an incredibly high 16.2% (January, 2012, BLS) and economic pessimism remains the order of the day (only 37% expect stronger U.S. economy a year from now, Rasmussen), Americans are feeling a lot of pressure. The pressure is coming not just from without, but from within – top-down, bottom-up, and inside-out. The “Occupy” movement is a symptom of this pressure, but there is more to it than that – much more.

If you are concerned about the pressures our nation is facing, and you see the confusing and disturbing eruptions of flash mob violence all around you, but you’re having trouble getting any kind of rational perspective on what’s going on, I encourage you to read my paper, “Ending Flash Mob Violence.” My paper will help readers get some perspective on the underlying problems that produce flash mob violence, and it will also help readers understand the nature of the phenomenon. Finally, my paper will help advocates and policymakers alike to understand what sort of legal solutions are available and likely to produce positive results in their communities.

This resource is provided free of charge, but if you would like to see more of this kind of work and would like to support my efforts, please click the “donate” link in the upper-right-hand corner of the site. Thanks!

Say what you want about Ann Coulter, but the New York Times best-selling author and legal correspondent for Human Events has a brilliant mind, and a sharp wit to match. She is a frequent guest on many television programs, and she was named one of the top public intellectuals by Nobel Prize-winning federal judge Richard Posner. Additionally, I have always found her books to be well-researched and compellingly written.

Coulter spoke at CPAC, this year. At the end of her speech, she took questions. In the audience, a young woman seemingly confused by the conflict between her conservative values and the feminist programming she apparently is receiving as part of her university “education,” piped up to ask Ms. Coulter a question.

“Female College Student,” CPAC 2012 Questioner: “How can you be a woman and a conservative at the same time? Aren’t those two things antithetical? Isn’t the conservative movement trying to take us [women] back, through the feminist movement, all the way back? Is there anything you can speak to on that topic – of how you can be both a female and a conservative and the two actually work hand-in-hand?”

Okay, after that long, rambling, and poorly-thought-out question, the gist of it is this: How can feminists reconcile feminism with conservatism? The questioner utterly fails to distinguish between social conservatism and fiscal conservatism. Nevertheless, Ann Coulter delivers a noteworthy response.

For people who don’t know how Ann Coulter usually approaches her writing and interviews, she usually opens with a sarcastic remark or a joke, and the first paragraph, below, falls into that category. You can’t take it 100% literally or seriously. You have to have a sense of humor to engage with Ann Coulter, for without a sense of humor with which to filter out the serious from the unserious remarks she makes, you will perceive her as mean-spirited, bigoted, and shrill.

Ann Coulter, CPAC 2012 Speaker: I think all real females are right-wingers, and I can tell you that, based on experience – and my body guard will back me up on this – all pretty girls are right-wingers. … I mean, you may have no politics. Pretty girls may have no politics, but you cannot tell with men. It’s very frustrating. Some of my male fans have hair to their derrieres and tattoos up and down their arms. Some of my antagonists are – seem like – perfectly attractive, preppy young men. Girls… pretty girl is walking toward your table, you know she’s a fan.

No, I think it’s the feminist movement that has set us back. I mean, I don’t write about feminism; it seems so manifestly obvious, it doesn’t need my stunning skills or analysis. But, I mean, the reason unattractive … I suppose … well, the reason liberal* women are liberal, is because they have to date liberal men, and, you know, they get… as we’ve seen from Bill Clinton and Dominique Strauss-Kahn and Anthony Weiner, we see how liberal men treat women. So… you don’t want to be stuck in… I’d be angry, too.

I’ll take $0.69 on the dollar – or whatever the current feminist myth is about how much we make – just to never have to pay for dinner. That seems like a fair deal to me.

[*Coulter frequently uses the term “liberal,” when she means progressive; she does not mean “liberal” in the classic, but in the misleading, modern sense of the word.]

The thrust of Coulter’s argument appears, roughly, to be as follows: [Feminist] Progressives who are women (“progressive women”) often lack the assets (physical, emotional, intellectual, etc.) required to succeed in traditional gender roles. Because they meet with limited success in traditional gender  roles, feminists tend to seek relationships with men who have nontraditional views about how men and women should interact (i.e., a more free love, love-’em’-and-leave-’em attitude, which, to Coulter, is not unlike treating all women as if they are prostitutes). For more about how traditionalists, like Ann Coulter, view feminism and gender roles, you should read Peggy Noonan’s article, “Raising a Gentleman Son.”

I don’t think Coulter is entirely wrong, here, although this is really just the tip of the iceberg. After all, it seems to me that the stereotypical, man-hating, bra-burning feminist really chooses to adopt her views because she feels threatened by men, because of her own inadequacies, particularly with respect to typical gender roles. In my experience, I have observed that the most vocal feminists are the ones with the deepest insecurities, and the least emotional and intellectual maturity.

If you truly are a woman who is comfortable in her own skin, who knows who she is, who respects herself, who understands how men and women should treat each other, and who understands the complementary – not always competitive – relationship between the sexes, it seems to me that you will have no reason to feel threatened by men. Instead, such a woman understands that nature has blessed her with all of the tools she needs to make her way in the world without tearing down men and undermining all the things that make men what nature intended them to be.

This month, my wife and I both graduated from our respective graduate schools an entire semester early. I graduated from Cumberland School of Law with my J.D.  She graduated from the Brock School of Business with her M.B.A. For the last two-and-a-half years, we have been working to complete our graduate degrees, and now we are finally finished. So, what can I say about that?

Obviously I have been exposed to and have absorbed an enormous body of information, particularly about the law. I have also learned a lot about people, about the (U.S.) government, and about the economics of the law. I’ve learned quite a bit, too, about the practice of the law, in the abstract at least. I also have learned some practical lessons about the practice of the law through my own limited experience clerking and from listening to others talk about their practice experiences.

To be honest, however, I feel like I have been running on a treadmill for (just under) three years just to be allowed to begin a decades-long race to escape the red ink in which I am drowning along with so many of my fellow law school graduates. The American Bar Association (ABA) understands the problem, and has recently published in the ABA Journal online magazine a story that asks the question, “How Long Will [The Law School Bubble] Last if Law Grads Can’t Pay Bills?“

In 2010, 85 percent of law graduates from ABA-accredited schools boasted an average debt load of $98,500, according to data collected from law schools by U.S. News & World Report. At 29 schools, that amount exceeded $120,000. In contrast, only 68 percent of those grads reported employment in positions that require a JD nine months after commencement. Less than 51 percent found employment in private law firms.

The influx of so many law school graduates—44,258 in 2010 alone, according to the ABA—into a declining job market creates serious repercussions that will reverberate for decades to come.

Moreover, lawyer salaries vary greatly across the country, with the top 35 legal markets sucking up 75 percent of the payroll (see “What America’s Lawyers Earn,” ABA Journal, March 2011). And the number of law office jobs in private practice peaked at 1.23 million in 2004 (“Paradigm Shift,” July 2011).

Heavy loans now threaten to consume the future earnings and livelihood of the nation’s young lawyers. Yet, even as the legal market contracts, more than 87,900 potential candidates vied for 60,000 seats at 200 ABA-approved law schools in 2011, according to the Law School Admission Council.

More than 78,900 have applied for 2012 spots, according to preliminary LSAC counts in November.

The ABA obviously recognizes there is a problem, but takes no responsibility for helping to create it.

Youthful overoptimism, bleak job prospects for college grads and the entry of several more universities and for-profit businesses into the legal education business are some of the root causes for the supply-and-demand imbalance in entry-level lawyers.

That’s nice. Blame students themselves and the “for-profit” law schools (i.e., competitors to many of the entrenched establishment ABA-accredited schools) for flooding the market with an oversupply of legal labor. Or, you could blame the government.

Very few critics, however, have examined the part played by the federal government through its student loan policies in creating a law school bubble that may be on the verge of bursting—one strikingly similar to the mortgage crisis that cratered the economy in 2008.

Direct federal loans have become the lifeblood of graduate education, and they shelter law schools financially from the structural changes affecting the profession. The bills are now coming due for many young lawyers, and their inability to pay will likely bring the scrutiny of lawmakers already moaning about government spending.

No argument here! The federal government’s inability to restrain spending on education is well-cataloged, but as long as the lie persists that More Education = More Jobs and Higher Pay politicians have no incentive to vote for cuts to government spending on education. After all, any time such cuts are proposed, critics scream bloody murder that anyone who wants to spend marginally less on education wants to send us right back to the Dark Ages, as if education didn’t exist before the federal Department of Education was established (under President Jimmy Carter in 1979; began operations in 1980). Politicians vote for things they think will get them re-elected, despite whether those votes actually taxpayers people far more than any benefit they may provide.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zDZFcDGpL4U

So, as long as the lie persists, reasonable people cannot expect the government to stop blindly dumping Scrooge McDuck sized piles of cash on schools (by blindly subsidizing student loans that cover the costs of ever-rising tuition), without any regard for the economic consequences of such spending.

Stop and think for a moment, though. Students and their parents have bought into and continue to buy into the perennial lie that More Education = More Jobs and Higher Pay. So, they’re going to pursue more and more education until they hit an academic or financial wall or wake up to the realities of the job market. The government is going to spend itself into oblivion. Is there not another group or organization who can make a difference by stopping the flooding of the market with an oversupply of legal service providers? It occurs to me that the ABA itself could do that.

First, the ABA could – and should - stop granting accreditation to any new law schools until the legal labor market recovers. Additionally, the ABA could – and should – raise standards for current ABA-accredited law schools that have to undergo periodic re-accreditation. By making it more difficult for many – and impossible for some – law schools to retain ABA-accreditation, the ABA could effectively reduce the number of ABA-accredited law schools, thereby reducing the number of students who graduate from ABA-accredited law schools, consequently reducing the number of graduates from ABA-accredited law schools. Standards could be raised year-after-year until the market reaches an appropriate equilibrium.

The ABA appears, to me, to be the last line of defense against the inevitable collapse of the legal labor market, yet the ABA is doing absolutely nothing to prevent that collapse. I fail to comprehend why lawyers across the country are not rising up en masse to protest the ABA’s apparent apathy in the face of this crisis. So, what have I learned in law school? You can’t trust the cartel to protect you, even if you play by its rules.

Another lesson I have learned is not to be too grateful (alumni contributions, anyone?) to your alma mater until you’re earning three times its yearly tuition. Law schools don’t care whether you’re earning a living out there or paying back the massive student loan debt you accrued to fund their cushy existence. If you want them to care, you need to make sure they feel your pain by withholding alumni contributions until they reduce class sizes and take other measures to stop flooding the legal job market. Incentives matter.

If you think I’m being too harsh or that law school is a ticket to economic security, you’d better think again! (See also: “A Degree of Practical Wisdom“) This predicament is very frustrating, and at this point I am just hoping I pass the bar exam the first time. Until I pass the bar exam, my J.D. makes me “over-qualified” but “under-experienced” for nearly any desirable job (read: a job that can pay my bills while helping me pay off this mountain of student loan debt) despite the fact I’ve been working nearly nonstop since I was 15 years old.

I’m relieved to be finished with law school. Don’t get me wrong. But, as my best friend in law school once observed, “Law school is like a pie-eating contest for which the Grand Prize is a lifetime supply of pie.” Now that I’ve “won,” I guess I want my prize, no matter how small the slices of pie actually turn out to be.

Who could forget Chris Matthews telling the world that he gets a thrill up his leg when he hears Barack Obama speak? It was an awkward gaffe, to be sure, but it was a clear example of the left-leaning bias the mainstream media has that is often cited by conservatives who feel that their views are not always given the same media attention that is given to progressive views (with notable exceptions in talk radio and on Fox News). Now, it seems, the thrill is gone.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pB4b11_LREA

Matthews viciously turned on Obama and his team of White House advisors, who he likened to little children with “propellers on their heads.” Matthews complained that the Obama White House does not understand how the political process actually works, saying that “their idea of running a campaign is a virtual universe of sending emails around to people,” an idea to which he responds by saying, “No, it’s not. It’s meeting people. It’s forging alliances. It’s White House meetings, and dinners – parties that go on until midnight – and [Obama] should be sitting late at night now with senators and members of Congress and governors working together on how they’re going to win this political fight.”

Again, Chris Matthews shows himself to be a blatant partisan by showing how upset he is with the Obama administration for failing to do what it takes to beat the Republicans in 2012. An objective, responsible journalist would not show himself to have a horse in the race, so to speak. Matthews not only doesn’t care, but is actually extremely critical of the President and the President’s team of advisers.

Matthews goes on to say, “I don’t have a sense that he’s ever had a meeting. I hear stories that you would not believe. Not a single phone call since the last election. They don’t call. [Obama] never calls. That’s the cl– that’s the message. Members of Congress – I keep asking – when did you last hear from them last? … (silence) … He doesn’t like their company.”

Not only has Matthews turned on Obama and shown anger and contempt for what he perceives as Obama’s misunderstanding of how best to forge political alliances necessary to retain (Democrat Party) control of the White House, but Matthews is essentially accusing the President of incompetence, and an utter failure to lead. Of course, the Republicans have been doing that since Day One. Hell, even Obama, himself, admitted he wasn’t qualified for the job (not that incompetence, inexperience, or unpopular ideology were going to stop him… see video below starting around 36 seconds in).

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5BnLozS-TnM

It looks like Chris Matthews isn’t alone in losing his enthusiasm for President Obama. A Gallup poll this past July had a generic “Republican Candidate” leading Obama in a poll of registered voters 47% to 39%. President Obama’s poll numbers are “back to even” with the “Generic” Republican Candidate, this month. He is hardly out of the woods, however, because the U.S. Supreme Court is set to hear constitutional challenges to Obamacare, next year before the election, and many pundits are speculating that the Court might strike down some or all of that legislation. Part of the Obamacare package was a federal take-over of most of the student loan industry. If the legislation were struck down as unconstitutional, it would be a major political blow to the Democrat Party in the 2012 presidential election, because Obama has had no other major political accomplishments, domestically or abroad.

The killing of Osama bin Laden was the result of an extension of the Bush foreign policy – foreign policy that Barack Obama loudly and frequently disclaimed while in the Senate, but which the realities of global politics and the “war on terror” (a term that has gone by the wayside in the era of Obama) made difficult or impossible to change. Any person in the White House at the time the opportunity came to kill Osama bin Laden would have had to have given the order to kill him, just as Obama did, because any other action would have risked the wrath of the American people. The truth is, both Bush and Obama each deserve some credit for the killing of Osama bin Laden, but the real heroes are the guys that did the actual intelligence work that led us to bin Laden and the guys who put the bullets in the bastard.

Aside from that, Obama’s foreign policy has alienated our allies in Europe, particularly the United Kingdom, and in the Middle East, particularly Israel. Obama has mired us in an expensive, needless, and legally questionable conflict in Libya (a third war, if you add the ongoing military commitments in both Iraq and Afghanistan). Obama has done nothing to address the global concerns about Iran gaining a nuclear weapon. In fact, it could be said, and history may someday show, that it was on Obama’s watch that Iran – one of the most dangerous rogue states on the planet – has begun a nuclear arms race in the Middle East.

Obama’s economic policy has led to massive wealth transfers from the U.S. to the third world that have led and will continue to lead to declining standards of living in the U.S.  Dinesh D’Souza has made a compelling case that this is, in fact, by design in his excellent book The Roots of Obama’s Rage. Inflation and the national debt are both on the rise, while the value of the dollar is on its way down. The cost of living is going up, while incomes are going down. The economy is in a period of stagflation that mirrors the economic climate of the 1970s, though some believe the current period of stagflation will be worse than what the U.S. experienced in the 1970s. People are hurting, and Washington doesn’t have a clue what to do about it.

Obama wanted “green jobs” and “green energy” to get our economy up and running, despite the failure of the “green” economy to work everywhere around the globe it has been tried. Spain, for example, has had experiences in that department that would have been instructive, had Obama paid any attention to their exposition, a few years back, of what not to do. Thankfully, the Democrats failed to pass Cap-and-Trade (aka Cap-and-Tax), which would almost certainly have sent us into a deep, dark economic depression. Despite the failure of Cap-and-Trade, Obama is trying to push Cap-and-Trade through the EPA, bypassing Congress. To the extent you believe that Congress represents the will of the American people, think about that – Obama is bypassing the will of Congress, and trying to push Cap-and-Tade through the EPA, an administrative agency. What does that say about his regard for the will of the American people when it runs contrary to his own will? Additionally, the “SolarGate” scandal has plagued the administration, as it looks like the White House pushed the DOE to subsidize (guarantee) risky government loans to Solyndra and other companies even after being warned that doing so was probably a bad idea.

Scandal, corruption, incompetence, economic decline, increased over-extension of our military at great cost in both blood and treasure, the alienation of our allies, and a failure to do anything to improve the lives of the American people have been the hallmarks of the Obama administration. I never saw the appeal of Barack Hussein Obama in the first place. I did not vote for him. Now, it seems the American people and even his loyal followers in the media have begun to figure out that this guy is radioactive.

As B.B. would say, “You know I’m free, free now baby / I’m free from your spell.” The thrill is gone.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4fk2prKnYnI

Well, I have embraced the Final Countdown, not to be confused with the “classic” 1980 film or the more memorable 1980s hit by Europe.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AyggY_R3jU8

No, my friends, I’m talking about the final countdown until the end of law school. Roughly 33 days, 10 hours separate this moment from the moment commencement begins (December 17th, at 10:00 a.m.). I’m looking forward to it, but between applying to sit for the bar, studying for exams, and getting ready to move back to my home state after law school, I doubt I’ll have little time for blogging.

It’s really too bad, too, because there is a lot going on in the world of current events, right now. Occupy Wall Street is turning violent, and showing their true anarcho-communist colors; violent flash mobs are on the rise; the potential collapse of the Euro; Rick Perry’s terrible debate performances; Newt Gingrich is rising in the polls, while the media continues to ignore Ron Paul (because they’re terrified of him); women arrested for selling a baby in Texas; and something about some football players in Pennsylvania… not to mention the ongoing scandals with the no-bid contracts the Obama administration is giving Obama’s big donors through the DOE, and the ongoing Solyndra “SolarGate” scandal.

I mean, take your pick, folks. There’s a lot I’d love to discuss with you, here. I guess some or all of that will have to wait until after graduation. Until then, stay safe, and keep checking back from time to time, in case I have time to jot down some thoughts worth sharing. Oh, and if you haven’t signed up for Google+ yet, please do, and “encircle” me!

Happy Halloween, everyone! Carving a pumpkin has been a tradition Devon & I have shared since our first Halloween together. It’s something we always look forward to doing together. Usually, we don’t get any trick-or-treaters, but this year, there were two greedy little goblins that came knocking on our door. It’s a good thing there were only two of the little devils, because they each took big handfuls of candy from the jar. I certainly don’t begrudge them the candy. We put it out for them. Even so, I always thought the proper social protocol was to take one or, maybe, two pieces – not the biggest  handful you could get.

But I digress. This year, we’ve been terribly busy, and never got around to carving our pumpkin until Devon came home from her evening classes. We weren’t done until after 11:00 pm. We got it done on Halloween, though, and that made us both very happy.

There are more pictures on Google+ for friends or family who may be interested. Just add me to one of your circles, and I’ll share the rest of the pumpkin-carving pictures with you. It’s pretty neat to see how it all came together.

Here are some pictures from the evening’s festivities: