“We need to make the death penalty a real deterrent again by actually carrying it out. Every appeal that can be made should have to be made at one time, not in a serial manner,” Pittman wrote in the email. “If murderers (and I would include abortionists, rapists, and kidnappers, as well) are actually executed, it will at least have the deterrent effect upon them. For my money, we should go back to public hangings, which would be more of a deterrent to others, as well.”

Abortionists, rapists, and kidnappers.

Sounds like a rising Republican star to me!

Surely Newt Gingrich has some miraculous plan to lift Chicago’s destitute from the cavern of their self-inflicted misery — perhaps by putting their children to work as custodians on our new moon base, where they’ll be forbidden to speak the language of the ghetto — but I’m eager to hear Ron Paul’s important philosophical musings on the need to expose the poor to the moral hazards of the welfare state. Perhaps they’ll pick up a copy of Atlas Shrugged at the library and join him in his crusade to blow up the Federal Reserve.

Meanwhile, in the time I’ve spent this morning reading the news and perusing Addams’ Twenty Years at Hull House, Willard Romney’s money has metastasized by an additional $5000 — roughly a quarter of what a family of four earns in a year at the federal poverty level.

Fucking hell.

This email will seem to you like the least surprising thing in the world, which makes it ever more tragic. I am a law school applicant. One day I get an email from the University of Miami SOL (funny how “school of law” and “shit out of luck” share an acronym) telling me they would waive my application fee. I didn’t do that much research, but thought, hey, Miami could be fun. It’s a major city. It’s warm. Both my grades are well above their median, so I might get a lot of money from them, etc. Why not fork up the $16 to apply? I did so, and maybe two weeks later I was accepted. A month later, I get a scholarship of $25,000. “A good scholarship! You should consider it!” my parents said (who not-so-secretly want to buy, or want an excuse to buy, a condo there).

Anyway, fast forward to me reading one of your blog posts urging applicants to be persistent in finding detailed statstics on placement/salary, etc (http://www.lawyersgunsmoneyblog.com/2011/12/an-early-christmas-present-for-the-prospective-law-school-class-of-2015 – “Do not even consider enrolling in any school that refuses to supply you the core employment rate, in writing, of the most recent graduating class for which it has that data.”) So I go on Miami’s website to look up their career stats for the c/o 2010. This is the only thing I find that resembles “detailed statistics”: http://www.law.miami.edu/ps/fastfacts.php?op=4. At the bottom, the only stats listed are, “How many reported..” and “Of those, how many are employed…” The total number of employed candidates is listed at 386, or ~84% of the graduating class. Not bad right? But there’s no information, none, on what types of jobs these are, whether they require a JD, any salary information, any information on their placement in clerkships or public agencies, etc. The fast facts do say “go to our CDO page for more information”. The following is what Miami says is “more information”, found under the FAQ for Prospective Students (http://www.law.miami.edu/cdo/cpc_02_03.php?op=2):

“How much money can I expect to earn upon graduating from UM Law?
Salaries vary enormously depending on the type of law you want to practice and the setting in which you wish to practice. Starting salaries of recent UM grads ranged from $30,000 to $150,000. Law firms in the private sector pay more than government and public interest positions, and larger firms pay more than smaller firms do. Salaries of UM law grads are on the whole comparable to the national average salaries calculated by the National Association of Law Placement.”

Oh! A salary range of 30,000-150,000. Well I’m satisfied. Oh! Larger firms pay more than smaller firms, private work pays more than public interest, and 10 TIMES 10 is greater than 10 PLUS 10.

I sent them an email asking for more detailed statistics (see below), but they dodged. The last exchange I found particularly maddening because even though I referenced the lack of info on the CDO website, their response was to…send me to the CDO website.

It’s becoming clear that these people are hiding something I see two scary things about this: 1) Any shade of academic integrity by schools like Miami (ranked #77, with ~123 schools ranked below it) is compromised by these kinds of tactics. Some universities have now become corporations — actively hiding things from the consumer to increase profit. But, unlike corporations, which are (poorly, but nonetheless) regulated, the law schools’ regulator, the ABA, is asleep at the wheel with no sign of consciousness. 2) It only took your blog for me to realize that DETAILED career stats are a huge, huge deal, and any school not providing this information probably has something they do not want you to see. Without doing due research, I would have thought, as my parents did: the scholarship is nice, the campus looks beautiful, I would not have to pay rent (because of the folks’ itch to buy a condo), and surely a school LOCATED in Miami would have tons of jobs IN Miami, right? Nope. Not right. But some like me may not realize this. Is this their fault? William Robinson thinks it is. But I think not. I think the burden of proof should also be on the school CHARGING the hundreds of thousands to give the customers full and honest information about their students’ success rates. I shouldn’t have to email the school asking for these statistics. Nor should the school basically dodge my requests for more information. [Email correspondence below; read from bottom up]

***

From: Student Recruiting
Date: Thu, Jan 26, 2012 at 11:38 AM
Subject: RE: Placement Question
To:

http://www.law.miami.edu/cdo/

From:
Sent: Thursday, January 26, 2012 11:25 AM
To: Student Recruiting
Subject: Re: Placement Question

Luis,

Thanks. The fast facts provided here (http://www.law.miami.edu/ps/fastfacts.php?op=4) do provide reporting %, but no salary ranges or private/public breakdown, nor do they say how many of the jobs required a JD. Can you redirect me to another link or provide some more information on this? The fast facts do say to go to the CDO page for more information, but I am not able to find this data on that page. Thanks for your help.

[Name]
On Thu, Jan 26, 2012 at 11:05 AM, Student Recruiting wrote:
[Name]

You can find this information on our website: www.miamilawschool.info. If you check under fast facts, there will be statistics for you to see.

Thanks,

Luis Acosta
Office of Admissions & Student Recruitment
University of Miami – School of Law
1311 Miller Drive, Suite F203
Coral Gables, Florida 33146
Office: 305.284.6746
Fax: 305.284.4400
Email: lacosta@law.miami.edu
www.law.miami.edu/

From:
Sent: Wednesday, January 25, 2012 5:35 PM
To: Student Recruiting
Subject: Placement Question

Good afternoon,

Fairly recently I was admitted to the class of 2015. I’m still interested in Miami but I am nervous about taking out a lot of debt in an uncertain market. I was looking through the UM law website and could not find detailed placement statistics for the class of 2010 or 2011. Most, if not all, of the other schools to which I sent applications had fairly detailed statistics (total graduates, total # of graduates reporting income, pvt/pub sector breakdown, 25-50-75% in salary, etc) on how their graduates fared. Do you have this information? If so, could you please provide me, or send me a link to, placement and salary information for the class of 2010 or 2011?

Thank you for your time,

[Name]

***

Meanwhile, over at the Colorado Attorney General’s office:

DENVER — Colorado Attorney General John Suthers announced today that the state has reached a settlement with the Oklahoma-based tanning chain At The Beach that resolves allegations that the company misled consumers about its tanning contracts. The agreement requires At The Beach to pay an estimated $350,000 in consumer restitution, fines and attorney fees and requires that At The Beach halt its deceptive sales practices and record all of its future sales.

“This agreement is a victory for the hundred of Colorado consumers who felt that At The Beach was not engaging in fair sales practices,” Suthers said. “We believe the company’s agreement to record all sales transactions will deter future misconduct, and is evidence of the company’s desire to change its sales practices.”

At The Beach allowed its employees to misrepresent that consumers could “cancel their contract at any time,” according to the state’s complaint. Former employees and consumers told investigators that the company failed to disclose that cancellation would require payment of half of the remaining cost of the contract. Consumers also said they first learned of the cancellation fee when they attempted to cancel.

Consumers will be eligible for restitution if they have already filed a written complaint with the Colorado Attorney General’s office or the Better Business Bureau. The Office of the Attorney General estimates that more than $100,000 will be refunded to more than 300 past At The Beach customers. The company also will be required to pay an additional $75,000 to the state to be used to reimburse consumers who file complaints going forward.

The settlement also requires At The Beach to pay a $75,000 fine and $38,500 to cover the costs of the investigation. At The Beach has already reimbursed Colorado consumers approximately $45,000 as a result of the state’s investigation into At The Beach’s credit and collection practices.

The settlement also will require At The Beach to:

Install recording equipment in all of its stores and maintain an audio copy of every sale;
Update its contracts to require initialing from consumers throughout the document; and,
Simplify the documentation required to cancel a contract when moving outside the company’s service areas.

To learn more about recent actions the Office of the Attorney General has filed against companies engaged in deceptive trade practices, visit www.coloradoattorneygeneral.gov/consumercases.

Note that this case involved a contract which stated in writing that customers would be charged for half the remaining balance on their contracts if they canceled them prior to expiration.

The juxtaposition of these stories will come as no surprise to anyone familiar with the academic literature on professional self-regulation.

But people close to Paul’s operations said he was deeply involved in the company that produced the newsletters, Ron Paul & Associates, and closely monitored its operations, signing off on articles and speaking to staff members virtually every day.

“It was his newsletter, and it was under his name, so he always got to see the final product. . . . He would proof it,’’ said Renae Hathway, a former secretary in Paul’s company and a supporter of the Texas congressman.

But, in fairness, surely we need the essential civil liberties voice of someone who believes that the Bill of Rights shouldn’t constrain state governments.

As a coda, I also recommend this segment of Pollitt’s debate with Greenwald.  It’s true in some sense that Obama vs. Paul would be a “lesser of two evils” contest. But this is a trivial truth indeed — every national election in American history has been a “lesser of two evils” contest.   LBJ escalated a particularly disastrous war and lied repeatedly about it, FDR sent people to concentration camps based on their race and signed off on extremely stingy social welfare legislation that systematically discriminated against African-Americans, Lincoln was a white supremacist who didn’t believe the federal government had the authority to interfere with slavery in the states, etc. etc.   Obama over Paul is at least as easy as LBJ over Goldwater or FDR over Landon, and to think that progressives could be genuinely conflicted over whether to prefer a moderate Democratic president to a guy who wants to restore the Articles of Confederation is absurd.

We talked to Tea Party leader Hal Rounds Wednesday. He described the way slavery is taught now as race-baiting. When asked if kids are walking out of school thinking our founding fathers were evil, he said “(The kids) are being taught (the Founding Fathers) were hypocrites and slave owners and part of the teachings about slavery was that it was inherently cruel.”

Rounds first petitioned the state for the changes last year and is continuing the fight now.

We asked if you can seperate slavery in our country from the centuries old struggle for racial equality, Rounds believes you can adding “White people were whipped to.”

More

Also, Andy Richter is a beast. Not that this is surprising.

Regarding her late-in-life sexual orientation switch, the “Sex and the City” star said:

I gave a speech recently, an empowerment speech to a gay audience, and it included the line ‘I’ve been straight and I’ve been gay, and gay is better.’ And they tried to get me to change it, because they said it implies that homosexuality can be a choice. And for me, it is a choice. I understand that for many people it’s not, but for me it’s a choice, and you don’t get to define my gayness for me.

Writer Alex Witchel reports that “her face was red and her arms were waving” as she continued, “It seems we’re just ceding this point to bigots who are demanding it, and I don’t think that they should define the terms of the debate,” Nixon said. “I also feel like people think I was walking around in a cloud and didn’t realize I was gay, which I find really offensive.”

Nixon may think her comments are “politically incorrect,” but they also represent what should be the clear progressive position. Obviously, people’s attractions are driven to a greater or lesser extent by biological factors, and also obviously people have agency. The precise ratios, however, are completely irrelevant to political questions about LBGT rights. The issue is not just whether the means proponents of legally subordinating gay and lesbian use will “work”; it’s that the ends are reprehensible, because there is in fact nothing wrong with being gay or lesbian. It os a profound violation of human dignity for the state to police consensual behavior among results irrespective of to what extent one’s behavior is driven by biology or agency. It is fundamentally wrong and undemocratic for the state to prevent a same-sex couple from marrying on the same terms as an opposite-sex couple regardless of whether the couple is exclusively attracted to members of the same sex, chose their partner from a number of plausible same-sex or opposite-sex partners, or for that matter is asexual but wants to codify a long-term companionship. To put too much emphasis on the biological roots of sexuality, as Nixon says, concedes way too much.