When it comes to privacy, NSA is only part of the problem

A single, now-famous whistleblower and countless journalists have exposed widespread NSA operations that invade our privacy and violate the Fourth Amendment.  But the NSA, the police, and other government agents are only part of the problem.  The bigger problem is that the judiciary—the supposedly neutral and detached group to whom we look for protection from the NSA and its ilk—has reduced the Fourth Amendment to meaningless jargon.  In reality, every day in nearly every city and state across the country, state-court judges are allowing government agents to violate the Fourth Amendment’s warrant requirement at the expense of our privacy rights.

The law school student loan mess

The government has done it again.  It all began innocently enough when the government got into the student loan business.  But the educational industrial complex knew a sucker when it saw one, so schools started raising tuition to get more of that guaranteed government cheese.  And law schools were the worst offenders.  Even though the study of law requires only a casebook (or an internet connection), a pencil, and a notepad -- the Socratic method hasn’t changed much since the days of Socrates -- law schools still raised tuition quite dramatically each year.  In fact, they raised it faster than inflation, faster than college-level tuition, and even faster than medical school tuition -- even though colleges and medical schools require expensive equipment and other facilities that law schools do not.  But the government asked no questions.  It could have asked, for example, “Why, law school, do you need a double-digit annual tuition increase when technology is driving costs down and your professors are already being paid triple of what college professors earn, even though they teach fewer classes?” 

Drugs, plea deals, snitches, trials, and hung juries

Yours truly and T. Rose
Photo by Leo Martin

Defense attorney Terry Rose (pictured on right) just conducted some sharp cross-examination and delivered a cut-to-the-chase closing argument to get a hung jury in a drug delivery case. His trial raises several points. First, our legislature is crazy. (More on that below.) Second, a substance that is allegedly delivered to an undercover snitch should not increase in weight after the government uses up a portion of it for chemical testing. And third, government witnesses who hope to work off their own charges by testifying and burying the defendant are motivated to lie, much like a salesman is motivated to sell. 

Introducing Peter Morici

Whenever I come across great authors, I like to share them with The Dog’s readers. (I consider this a form of public service.) In the past I’ve doled out praise for:

Matthew Stewart (on business, history, and philosophy);

Paul Campos (on legal education);

The Popehat (on free speech);

The Irreverent Lawyer (on state bars and the legal profession);

Michael O’Hear (on sentencing law and policy); and, of course

Christopher Hitchens (on religion and, well, nearly everything).

And now it’s time to introduce an absolute gem named Peter Morici, a straight-talking, pull-no-punches, tell-it-as-it-is author, economist, and political commentator. I came across Morici in a podcast called Business Matters from the BBC. Here is a summary of some of his arguments that ring true louder than a church bell, and also debunk some often unquestioned conventional wisdom:

State Bar Associations: Everything to Everyone?

I wrote in an earlier post how I never really gave much thought to our state’s mandatory bar association. All I really knew was that I had to cut them a pretty big check each year in order to keep my law license. Sure, I realized that I wasn’t getting anything of value for the payout, but I really didn’t care enough to give it a second thought—until I started reading The Irreverent Lawyer, a blog that places state bar associations, mandatory CLEs, and related topics squarely within its crosshairs of criticism. And because of this, I’m now far more sensitive to the absurdity that is our state bar association.

The dogs have their day

Knightly (pictured) wears his Husky hat while watching Monday night's NCAA championship game. Knightly's dogs (the UConn Huskies) beat Kentucky's Wild Cats in an exciting, fairly well-officiated game. Congrats to the Huskies on another championship -- a championship won largely because their fast, aggressive, and undersized guards controlled the game. Guard Shabazz Napier, who won the tourney MVP in Kemba-Walker fashion, then stuck it to the NCAA in post-game comments. Fight the man!

In related news, the only thing certain about the now-famous $1 billion dollar bracket challenge from Warren Buffet was that no one would win it. However, there were still several $100,000 prizes given out to the top brackets. (You don't have to run faster than the bear; you just have to run faster than the other guy who is also running from the bear.) I entered a bracket, but didn't come close to winning one of those prizes. But when I filled out my bracket, I distinctly remember thinking: "This is odd. Did my bracket 'take'? Why is the program not confirming whether my bracket is complete?" And now, one Husky fan might have missed out on a $100,000 prize for this very reason: he allegedly didn't complete his bracket, and left the championship game undecided after picking the Final 4 and then the final two.  He could very well have run into the same problem I ran into. (It didn't matter for me, as I was never close to a prize.)  If Buffet is wise, he'll use this as a marketing opportunity for his company and add an extra $100,000 prize for this guy. The advertising and goodwill it would generate would pay for the extra $100,000 in mere seconds.