I never knew that the lobby of the Mayo Clinic could be such an entertaining place.
Cutting up at the Mayo Clinic
Reply
Monthly Archives: February 2010
Crazy good ukulele
The amazing Jake Shimabukuro.
David Agus on the state of cancer research
University of Southern California University professor David Agus provides a particularly lucid 24-minute lecture for the TED conference on the state of cancer research.
The future of the death penalty
University of Houston Law Professor David Dowís book — The Autobiography of an Execution (Twelve 2010) ñ prompted Time to ask Dow several questions about the death penalty. A couple of his answers are particularly interesting:
. . . I tell people that if you’re going to commit murder, you want to be white, and you want to be wealthy ó so that you can hire a first-class lawyer ó and you want to kill a black person. And if [you are], the odds of your being sentenced to death are basically zero. It’s one thing to say that rich people should be able to drive Ferraris and poor people should have to take the bus. It’s very different to say that rich people should get treated one way by the state’s criminal-justice system and poor people should get treated another way. But that is the system that we have.
And what about the future of the death penalty?
My prediction is that we’re going to get rid of it for economic reasons. We spend at least a million dollars more on a death penalty case than on a non-death-penalty case. In the U.S., where we’ve executed 1,200 people since the death penalty [was reinstated in 1976], that’s $1.2 billion. I just think, gosh, with $1.2 billion, you could hire a lot of policemen. You could have a lot of educational programs inside of prisons so that when people come out of prison they know how to do something besides rob convenience stores and sell drugs. There are already counties in Texas, of all places, that have said, this is just not worth it: let’s fix the schools and fill the potholes in the streets instead of squandering this money on a death-penalty case. You don’t need to be a bleeding heart to make that argument.
Supporters of the death penalty reason that there is nothing morally wrong about the state killing a person as punishment for murder where that person was lawfully convicted in a fair and accurate criminal justice process. But in making that moral justification the central tenet of their support, death penalty supporters are ignoring the glaring defects in the process that undermine their moral justification.
No way to fight a war
Here we go again. U.S. military forces are put on the defensive because of what might be an unfortunate mistake in prosecuting the war against the Taliban.
When are we going to learn that fighting wars under unrealistic rules of engagement is a waste of time and precious resources?
A reasonable case can be made that the U.S. should not be conducting military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. Similarly, a reasonable case can be made that such operations are necessary for the defense of the U.S.
But once the decision is made to commit military forces, no reasonable case can be made — particularly given the enormous difficulties faced— that U.S. Armed Forces should be constrained from winning the war by unrealistic rules of engagement.
If we are unwilling to stomach to do the dirty business that is necessary to win such wars, then we have no business getting involved in them in the first place. The defense summation in Breaker Morant brilliantly frames the issue in the context of Britain’s involvement in the Boer War:
Gearing Up for the Skilling SCOTUS Argument
Oral argument on Jeff Skilling’s appeal of his criminal conviction to the United States Supreme Court is next Monday afternoon, so the Skilling legal team warmed up for the occasion by filing the brief below in response to the Department of Justice’s brief on the merits.
If you want to read the entire brief, then I recommend downloading it so that you will be have the version bookmarked in Adobe Acrobat that facilitates review.
The DOJ’s case against Skilling has shrunk considerably, which is highlighted by the following Skilling reply brief passage on the DOJ’s tepid defense of Skilling’s conviction for honest services wire fraud under 18 U.S.C. 1346:
The Government’s application of its proposed self-dealing category to Skilling’s case demonstrates the continued manipulability of the statute under the Government’s approach. In Black and Weyhrauch, the Government expressed the view that 1346 prohibits only bribes/kickbacks and self dealing, and that the latter category is implicated only when conflicting financial interests are “undisclosed.” [references omitted].
That statement suggested that the Government would concede that Skilling did not commit honest-services fraud, because Skilling’s only alleged personal financial interests arose from Enron’s linking of his compensation to Enron’s stock value, an interest that was fully disclosed.
But the Government nevertheless argues that Skilling committed honest-services fraud. To bring Skilling’s case within the statute’s compass, the Government creates a third category of honest services fraud, one that involves disclosed personal financial interests.
The Government’s cursory explanation of Skilling’s honest-services liability (GB50) is hardly clear, but it appears to contend that while Skilling’s “personal financial interests” were disclosed and generally aligned with Enron’s interests, he put those interests in conflict when he took actions pursuant to his own disclosed compensation interest that were allegedly contrary to Enron’s. Accordingly, in this new category, what the defendant apparently fails to disclose is his scheme to put his own compensation interests ahead of his employer’s distinct interests.
Not only is that standard itself vague on its own terms, but the Government’s repeated acknowledgement that Skilling’s case has no precedent in pre-McNally case law (GB17, 49) confirms that this special crime is its own new category, created for the first time in the Government’s brief in this Court.
It is time for prosecutors to stop making up crimes under this statute. If 1346 is not invalidated altogether, it should be limited to the single category of conduct universally recognized in the case law and hence largely immune from manipulation quid pro quo bribes and kickbacks.
Stated simply, the Enron Task Force prosecuted Skilling for business judgments that he made that turned out badly for Enron viewed through the clarity of hindsight bias. But Skilling didn’t steal a dime from Enron and never took a kickback or a bribe. Those latter acts are crimes. Taking business risks that turn out badly is not.
At a time in which the U.S. economy desperately needs risk-takers to generate jobs and create wealth, here’s hoping that the Supreme Court understands the difference.
Jeff Skilling’s Reply Brief to the DOJ’s Brief in his Supreme Court Appeal
A culture of abuse
The big legal news over the weekend is the Department of Justiceís decision not to recommend disciplinary proceedings against Cal-Berkeley law professor John C. Yoo and federal appellate Judge Jay S. Bybee for their participation in a series of DOJ memos that provided the dubious legal basis for the use of torture against enemy prisoners after the attacks of September 11, 2001. John Steele has done a great job of cataloging the blogosphereís reaction to the DOJís decision.
The DOJís report outraged Jack Balkin, who opined that ìthe standard for attorney misconduct is set pretty damn low, and is only violated by lawyers who (here I put it colloquially) are the scum of the earth. Lawyers barely above the scum of the earth are therefore excused.î On the other hand, the Wall Street Journal contends that the report vindicates Yoo and Bybee. Yoo provides his own defense here.
Although the DOJís report paints a fairly clear case of Yoo and Bybee providing a colorable legal cover for what the interrogation tactics that the Bush Administration wanted to pursue come hell or high water, that conduct is utterly unsurprising. The DOJ has been engaging in torture-like treatment over the past year of Allen Stanford, who is still awaiting trial. Similarly, the DOJ has regularly engaged in other astonishing abuses of power in connection with the prosecutions of Jeff Skilling, Jamie Olis and many others.
Our failure to hold governmental officials responsible for abuse of power toward our fellow citizens helped create the culture in which the leap to sanction torture against enemy combatants was a small one. That culture will be very difficult to change.
Not in this weather
Mercedes-Benz contributes to the ongoing series of posts on creative commercials. Enjoy.
Rice rejects Hitler
Uh, oh. Hitler isnít pleased that Rice University rejected his application for graduate school in philosophy. As Brian Leiter notes, the rejection must have been a result of that Stalin recommendation.
Dan Jenkins on Tiger
It was only a matter of time before the best (and crustiest) golf reporter of our time laid the wood to Tiger Woods:
I’ll tell you what Hogan, Palmer and Nicklaus were at their peak.
They were every bit as popular as Tiger, they endured similar demands on their time, but they handled it courteously, often with ease and enjoyment.
They were accessible, likable, knowable, conversant, as gracious in loss as they were in victory, and, above all, amazingly helpful to those of us in the print lodge who covered them.
That was their brand. All the things Tiger never was.
As for Tiger’s brand, boy, did that take a hit.
For all of the Tiger idolaters out there, it must have been like finding out that ice cream sundaes give you gonorrhea. [. . .]
I covered Tiger winning his 14 professional majors, but I can’t say I know him. I knew the smile he put on for TV. I knew the orchestrated remarks he granted us in his press-room interviews. I knew the air he punched when another outrageous putt went in the cup. That’s it.
I once made an effort to get to know the old silicone collector. Tried to arrange dinners with him for a little Q&A, on or off the record, his choice. But the closest I ever got was this word from his agent: "We have nothing to gain."
Now it’s too late.
I’m busy.
Itís a shame that Woods never got around to getting to know Jenkins. He just might have found one of the real friends he needs.
Meanwhile, Golf Digest’s Jaime Diaz — the golf writer who has known Woods the longest and best — provides this more in-depth article on Woods’ life, as well as the expectations and pressures that may have contributed to his secret life.