Likelihood of Success

Ron Coleman’s pretty good blog

Email lists?

Posted by Ron Coleman on October 25, 2008

What’s all this about email lists?  Isn’t this the 21st century already?

I have no idea how many people read this blog, because there is no way to know how many RSS subscribers there are.  At one time WordPress did offer this data, and then stopped for no coherently expressed reason.  But let’s just say that, maybe after a year and a half and a few nice bumps from time to time, and notwithstanding the uninspiring but fairly useless rankings of both N.Z. Bear and Technorati, we have a little bit of a following.

Does that mean that it’s fair to assume that I want you to subscribe me to your daily email — essentially a push blog I never asked for?

Hint:  NO.

Posted in Blogophilia | 2 Comments »

The silence deafens

Posted by Ron Coleman on October 23, 2008

A long time ago I identified Erwin Chemerinsky as a pretty contemptible guy, a left-wing extremist in the groves of legal academia who gets away with all sorts of things because of the way the game is played in that high-end segment of the business:

In April 2005, he was named by Legal Affairs as one of “the top 20 legal thinkers in America.”

Never right means never wrong

Never right means never wrong

Named by the Daily Journal every year from 1998-2003 as one of the 100 most influential lawyers in California. Awards include the 2003 President’s Award from the Criminal Courts Bar Association; 2003 Freedom of Information Award form the Society for Professional Journalists; 2002 Community Service Award from the Western Center on Law and Poverty; 2001 Community Service Award from the Anti-Defamation League; 2001 Clarence Darrow Award from the People’s College of Law; 2000 Alumni Achievement Award from Northwestern University; the 1999 Eason Monroe Courageous Advocate Award from the American Civil Liberties Union of Southern California; and the 1998 Judge John Brown Award for Contributions to Federal Judicial Education. Also received awards for work on the Los Angeles City Charter from the American Society of Public Administration, the Los Angeles Chamber of Commerce, and the Los Angeles Urban League.

Wow!  But as I pointed out in my earlier post, Chemerinsky goes beyond the Larry Tribes and Alan Dershowitzes of the world to a never-never land where the political end comes far ahead of intellectual honesty.  Walter Olson has a post that confirms the point:

Dean Erwin Chemerinsky of the newly founded UC Irvine school of (ideologically charged) law seems to fancy himself the conscience of legal academia. But it’s looking very much as if he — along with some bloggers and legal publications who should know better — owe an abject apology to Chief Judge Dennis Jacobs of the Second Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals.

The affair began when the New York Daily Record, a Rochester, N.Y. legal publication, reported on a speech Judge Jacobs gave to a Federalist Society gathering in that upstate city. As soon summarized on several blogs and publications, Judge Jacobs supposedly dismissed pro bono work by lawyers — all of it, in its enormous variety from high to low, humble to headline-driving, plain-vanilla to goofily cutting-edge — as at least “primarily”, if not entirely, driven by “anti-social” and self-seeking impulses. As criticism mushroomed, it was pointed out that Judge Jacobs had himself been quite involved with efforts to promote pro bono work among lawyers. Rather than cause the writers to question whether the Rochester report accurately summarized Jacobs’ views, this circumstance was seized on as evidence that the judge was being hypocritical, or inconsistent, or something else bad.

Like, I suspect, a great many other readers, I knew from the very first reports that there was something very “off” about the story as it was being retailed. . . . In short, I clicked past the story figuring that a correction would soon be forthcoming, and more than a little surprised that those spreading it didn’t seem to regard the reporting as suspect.

But it was the reaction of Erwin Chemerinsky that will long be remembered. Without, it seems, waiting for any further clarification from Judge Jacobs of exactly what he had or hadn’t said, Chemerinsky mounted the highest horse available and rushed into the pages of the National Law Journal with a piece unsubtly titled “Shame on Dennis Jacobs“. Jacobs “should be ashamed of himself,” the speech was “a slap in the face”, “I hope that he is widely denounced for his misguided views”, and so forth. All of which happened to rest, readers may have noticed, on a wobbly little phrase in Chemerinsky’s second sentence, namely namely “it was reported that“.

Can you hear the “oops” coming?

Only in my mind’s ear, despite this revelation from Walter:

When the WSJ law blog turned to the story yesterday, it too at first seemed to take it at face value. But later in the day, it added the following:

UPDATE: Through a spokesman, Judge Jacobs conveyed the following message to the Law Blog: “Dean Chemerinsky’s article was evidently based on a newspaper article of my talk that grossly misstates what I said and think. Neither the National Law Journal nor Dean Chemerinsky have contacted me. I support, endorse and solicit pro bono work, and my talk said just that. The talk identifies abuses.”

Has Chemerinsky got it in him to acknowledge his egregiously unprofessional error?  Or is mere truthiness going to be enough for him to sleep at night?  I have a pretty good idea which.  But if I’m mistaken, I’ll be sure to let you know — right here!

UPDATE:  Walter now links, via the Federalist Society, to the speech itself here.

Posted in Lex scripta, Medialites, Narcissus Rex | 2 Comments »

The higher education racket

Posted by Ron Coleman on October 23, 2008

College is a racket for the vast majority to students who indenture their financial futures to get a bachelor’s degree.  Last summer, economist and social critic Charles Murray made this point in the Wall Street Journal; he followed up on this last week at the Cato Institute’s blog.  Now even the Chronicle of Higher Education is on board (via Instapundit):

Research suggests that more than 40 percent of freshmen at four-year institutions do not graduate in six years. Colleges trumpet the statistic that, over their lifetimes, college graduates earn more than nongraduates, but that’s terribly misleading. You could lock the collegebound in a closet for four years, and they’d still go on to earn more than the pool of non-collegebound — they’re brighter, more motivated, and have better family connections.

Also, the past advantage of college graduates in the job market is eroding. Ever more students attend college at the same time as ever more employers are automating and sending offshore ever more professional jobs, and hiring part-time workers. Many college graduates are forced to take some very nonprofessional positions, such as driving a truck or tending bar.

The racket will never shut down, however.  Very few people have the guts to buck this trend, and although people like me — with seven years of higher education — are at the beck and call of many wealthy clients with no college credits whatsoever, when the criticism comes from our likes it sounds hypocritical.  We are, after all, making some kind of living, and our university credentials are obviously part of that.

Yes but.  Let’s be frank:  I went to elite schools.  Elite means “most people can’t go there.”  If you can go to an elite school and get polished, finished and fit for one of the learned professions… or merely labeled as a smart person and thereby earn, rightfully or not, certain opportunities… or if you can learn a specific set of skills such as engineering, science or accounting… college can make lots of sense and pay off great. It was utterly transformative for me.

But somehow I got into one of the best, and most highly-regarded, and intensely “connected,” colleges in the world (Princeton).  And no one gets in there.  (I wouldn’t today.)  Lacking a compelling prestige rationale, what does college get you besides four years of deferred earning and experience, a beer belly and exposure to a culture of promiscuity and grossness, plus some sports?  Not a lot of skills.  It’s obvious that the vast majority of college graduates come out of four-year schools knowing very little that is of any use, and are neither challenged to excel nor truly broadened intellectually in the manner a classical liberal arts education promises to provide.  Some are, but for most people, this experience is a luxury.

In contrast to articles published in conservative and libertarian circles, though, the article in the Chronicle is a social watershed.  It is, after all, the main organ of the left-leaning education profession, such as it styles itself — the same people who gave us the ultimate in self-referential credentialing, the doctorate in education.

The reaction among the faithful to this article, then, should be interesting, because the universities are above all (1) major employers of folks who are little more than public-liberals-for-pay, (2) indoctrination camps for the Democratic lifestyle in all its flower and (3) generators of the sort of “academic” nonsense that is laughed at first, tolerated five years later and a central platform of left-wing politics after a decade.  That this same cadre is largely responsible for the fact that today’s soft-headed college graduates couldn’t hold a candle, skills-wise, to a 1950’s high school graduate only makes the tragedy ironic as well.

Will anything change?  It’s hard to imagine it will, because notwithstanding the facts, today’s college applicants are still largely children of the children of the 60’s, America’s Greatest Self-Regarding Generation, for whom college remains an idealized and sentimental triptych of raised social consciousness, newfound independence from their despicable and contemptible parents and lots of social, uh, intercourse.  Why would you want to actually do that to your own children as parents?  Well… that’s those people, you know?  Think of whom they vote for.  And north of the Mason Dixon line, they would no sooner send their kids to a military recruiting center than a plain old job or apprenticeship without a degree.

The only thing likely to work a change on this system is the New Financial Reality.  Any college these days is stunningly expensive.  But as long as Uncle Sam, or Uncle Obama, is out there to guarantee all failed risk-taking with government cheese, and to make college attendance a social goody to be handed out to all comers, the four-year speed bump on the road to adulthood will remain firmly in place.

Posted in Americana | 1 Comment »

Pantsed

Posted by Ron Coleman on October 22, 2008

The pants lawsuit “judge” that did so much for this blog:  He’s back, says the Washington Post:

Pearson, a former District administrative law judge, recycled some of the same legal arguments that were rejected last year by a judge in D.C. Superior Court — namely, that a sign at the Northeast Washington store saying “Satisfaction Guaranteed” meant he was entitled to the money.

“This is not about a pair of suit pants,” Pearson, 58, representing himself, told a three-judge panel of the D.C. Court of Appeals. The term “satisfaction guaranteed” is “very subjective” and with “no parameters at all,” he said, accusing the cleaners of fraud.

What is so phenomenal about this is the idea that anyone who has every practiced law and been paid for it, much less someone vested with the title of a judicial officer in any jurisdiction, could ever, ever make this argument with a straight face in a court of law.

The reporting about the oral argument says, indeed, that the appellate panel was incredulous at the fact that Pearson not only made this “argument,” but acknowledged that he didn’t have a single judicial precedent to back it up — thank God.

But really, something is very, very wrong here.  (Hat tip to James Hertsch.)

Posted in Lex scripta, Sisyphus | Leave a Comment »

That thing floating in the punch bowl

Posted by Ron Coleman on October 22, 2008

It’s domestic spending:

Even with the tax cuts, and even with the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, Bush would have reduced the national debt by nearly half a trillion dollars if he’d kept domestic spending under control. Instead, he did just the opposite: the Medicare drug benefit, No Child Left Behind, and dozens of smaller new spending programs he pushed through a reluctant congress. And the national debt went up by $1.3 trillion.

I’m not sure which is sadder — that these spending programs were approved by the Republican congressional majority forged by genuine fiscal conservatives on a promise of balancing the budget by cutting spending, or that the only other viable political party has been continuously criticizing Bush and the Republican party for not spending even more.

Thank you, Maniakes, for doing the math.  Thank you, thank you, thank you!

This is the legacy George Bush will never live down.

Posted in Gelt, Politics and Poker, Sisyphus | 1 Comment »

No cream, thanks — I like mine Socialist

Posted by Ron Coleman on October 22, 2008

Kansas City Star columnist Lewis Diuguid:

Read my lips!

Read my lips!

McCain and Palin have simply reached back in history to use an old code word for black. It set whites apart from those deemed unAmerican and those who could not be trusted during the communism scare.

Wow.  Imagine if you described Obama as a SKINNY socialist!  He’d be so black he would actually absorb energy instead of just money.

Posted in Medialites, Politics and Poker, Sisyphus | 3 Comments »

See you on the other side

Posted by Ron Coleman on October 20, 2008

We won’t be online for a couple of days because of the last of the Jewish festival days of the season, Shemini Atzeres and Simchas Torah. See ya!

Posted in Faith and Works | Leave a Comment »

Paranoid? Try this.

Posted by Ron Coleman on October 20, 2008

The polls could be wrong. There could be a split between the popular vote and the electoral college vote. Obama Barack could end up losing the election.

But let’s say he doesn’t. Given what we’ve seen about a willingness to use the state to enforce opinion from Barack Obama (not that John McCain is blameless)… and the mainstream media’s contempt for citizen journalism… and the preposterous extent to which, by all accounts, the MSM is not only in the tank, but unconscious at the bottom of it, for its messiah…

Would you want to be a blogger, much less a — how shall I put it? — right-wing blogger, after the revolution?

Of course you would. There would be nothing cooler, funner or, for most of us, nothing that would be a better way to participate in the marketplace of ideas and perhaps make a difference in opposition to what could be the most left-wing administration in history. The frisson of “danger” only makes it ginchier, because in fact as conservatives we have confidence in our Constitution and fundamentally the institutions that make it work and survive, notwithstanding our frequent disappointments. Unlike left-wing crybabies who threaten (always with no intention to follow through) to run for friendlier peoples’ paradises if this or that Republican is elected, we are here, we aren’t going anywhere, and we aren’t trading in our bloggin’ pajamas until they blade it off our cold, green corpses.

Good.

Now what are you going to do make sure it never comes to that? Now, given your faith in the Constitution, how are you going to act, to advocate, to engage — if I may use the word? — collectively to make sure alternative media, a concept once considered the sole property of lefty S&M and “escort service” shopper newspapers like the Village Voice and the Chicago Reader, remain vibrant, fearless and online 24/7?

Well, I am biased, but in view of the horizon before us… I would recommend membership in the Media Bloggers Association.

The MBA is non-partisan – its members, board and history are ample proof of this. The MBA is, to some extent, the institutionalization of a dynamic that is anathema to many bloggers: Joining organizations, agreeing to standards (not standardization), bestowing a limited quantum of representative proxy, and interacting cooperatively with people like the MSM, the courts and others whom many bloggers consider sacred cows.

There will always be the ACLU, the EFF and many fine organizations — not all of which are conservatives’ first choice of whom they’d want to call in an emergency — and individuals who are out there fighting the good fight. But right now the MBA is the only grouping of bloggers across the spectrum that is in a position to protect, and is formed for the sole purpose of protecting, the rights bloggers have to express themselves in their chosen medium to the full extent of their constitutional rights to do so.

If you’re as afraid of an Obama Administration and how it might go for bloggers as some of you say you are (which is a lot more afraid than I am, notwithstanding the scare links in my first paragraph), you’ll consider joining the MBA or perhaps replicating what it has done in a manner consistent with your own tastes — “while you can”!

If you’re not afraid but, like me, you have your concerns… there’s no rush. But you should check us out. Just in case.

Posted in Blogophilia, Medialites, Politics and Poker | 6 Comments »

Words, meanings diverge ever more

Posted by Ron Coleman on October 19, 2008

This week’s PostSecret thought:

Has the word “proud” become utterly meaningless?

Posted in Heart and spirit, Sisyphus | Leave a Comment »

Spinning tales

Posted by Ron Coleman on October 19, 2008

Ross Douthat, via Insty, describes his vision of “the conservative cocoon”:

The cocoon is the constellation of mutually-reinforcing conservative institutions – think tanks and advocacy groups, talk-radio shows and websites – that can create the same echo-chamber effect that the liberal media has long produced, and that at times makes it difficult for the Right to grapple with reality.

I’m with him this far.  Think “Fred Thompson.”

The cocoon is the place where it took an awfully, awfully long time for conservatives to admit that the post-2004 crisis in Iraq wasn’t just a matter of an MSM that wouldn’t report the good news.

Uh oh.  Losing me.  Am I still in the cocoon?  Am I the cocoon?  Wait:

The cocoon is the place where conservatives persuaded themselves, in defiance of most of the evidence, that the reason the GOP lost Congress in 2006 was excessive spending, and especially excessive pork.

Would love to see that evidence, though he’s probably onto something there.

And today, the cocoon is the place where conservatives are busy convincing themselves that Sarah Palin’s difficulties handling high-profile media appearances aren’t terribly important, that her instincts are more important than her grasp of national policy, and that the best way to defeat Barack Obama is to start with the lines that Palin has used on the stump – Ayers, anti-Americanism and ACORN – and take them to eleven.

“Take them to eleven” — that’s a reference to a joke from “This is Spinal Tap,” ok?  So, he’s probably mostly right, except about Iraq… and that’s a big except… but what does this get him?

So when I say that a populist conservatism needs elites, what I really mean is that it needs elites who can step outside this cocoon and see national politics more clearly – whether they work for conservative outlets, MSM outlets, or something else entirely.

Why do we need elites for that?  I’m not even sure how he’s using the concept of “elites.”  Does he mean opinion leaders, but ones who agree with him more?

This is not, I repeat not, a matter of listening to Beltway conventional wisdom instead of the practical wisdom of the heartland. It’s a matter of recognizing political realities, instead of denying them outright – whether you’re in DC, New Hampshire, or Wasilla.

Now, again, he sounds sensible, I think…

The Sarah Palin who ran for statewide office in Alaska appeared to understand this, which is why she seemed like such a promising figure to me months before McCain selected her: As governor, she was conservative and pragmatic, right-of-center and anti-ideological. The trouble is that since she’s burst on to the national stage, she’s entered a right-wing world that’s bent on, well, cocooning her – telling her how great she is regardless of whether she gets up to speed on policy and handles Katie Couric’s questions, feeding her lines that appeal primarily to the segment of the electorate that’s already in conservatism’s corner, and calling out anyone who criticizes her as a cocktail-swilling elitist.

Well, that could be.  I have found some of my fellow conservative bloggers to lack the degree of intellectual suppleness with which I might enjoy interacting more.  But — what’s his tactical point?  It’s two weeks and goal.  Does he want to send Sarah Palin out to Professor Henry Higgins?  She isn’t going to pick up that masters from the Woodrow Wilson School between now and Election Day, and it would hardly matter if she did, would it?

She needs to pick up rocks, mud and pointed sticks.  And do her worst with ’em.  Because, Ross, that’s what we’re down to.  And I ain’t spinning you no silk here.

Posted in Politics and Poker, Stragety | 1 Comment »