Constitutional Daily

Founding Principles

The Tenure Paradox - Robot pimp

Slap on the Wrist for "Non-Consensual Sex" - Lampshade, Esq.

Intelligence: The Gathering - Graphic and Gratuitous

Grads are the New Illegals - Robot Pimp

Meet Entitlement Eric - Robot Pimp

Wherein I Solve World Peace - Lampshade, Esq.

A Necessary Delusion - Shadow Hand

Do you even need to shave overhead? - Lawyerlite

LSAT Jenga - Publius Picasso

http://www.constitutionaldaily.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=1573:legal-reasoning-redux-5&catid=38:there-and-never-back-again&Itemid=65

Time, Place, and Manner

...Should have some links here or something.

Banner

Constitutional Daily

Should we care if people know where rights come from?

E-mail Print PDF

Over on Prawfsblawg yesterday, Roll Tide Law prof Frederick Vars noted that a recent survey found only 29% of Americans could name one of the five rights guaranteed by the First Amendment. He then asked the obvious question:

[B]ut should we care?

Well asked, professor. His reasoning is that another survey found that 99% of Americans think the right is very important, and if you want to argue First Amendment protection in court, saying "Free Speech" will get you there, you don't need to name the amendment.

Comments were closed on his post, so no one got to offer an alternative answer to the "should we care" question, but we think perhaps the answer is yes.

There are a lot of rights out there, they don't exist in a vacuum, and unlike folks, not all rights are created equal. There are God-given natural inalienable rights, and their close relative the Constitutional rights (ie: the God-given natural inalienable rights deemed important enough to be mentioned in the Bill of Rights). Then there are statutory rights, which you have only by virtue of the government saying so, things like social security benefits or early voting. These things can be taken away without violating your core natural rights. And then there's other rights existing out in the aether, like the right not to be offended, or to walk from your dorm to class without hearing something you deem to be hate speech. When you start throwing the word "right" around (round round) willy nilly, weird and stupid things happen.

For instance, in a HuffPo op-ed, Celia Buckman writes regarding the Hobby Lobby decision:

What someone should or should not do for their health is between them and their physician, not their boss. This also specifically targets female workers' rights to their bodies, as Hobby Lobby exclusively refuses to pay for female contraceptives.

For a brief period between the implementation of the ACA and the ruling in Hobby Lobby, women did have a right to have their employer provide specific types of contraceptives. But that's a statutory right. The outrage coming from the Hobby Lobby decision though acts as if it infringed on one of the more important God-given natural inalienable rights, specifically the right to control your own body. But women still have the right to control their body, what they've lost is the right to make someone else fund their control.

If you're familiar with the Motte and Bailey style of argument, this is it at work. The insurance coverage right is a weak right, it's the Bailey, and it's very hard to defend. When attacked, women retreat into the bodily autonomy argument, that's the Motte, the fortified keep in the center of the Bailey that's virtually impregnable (har!). Without understanding how rights can differ, women like Celia Buckman (and like a hundred million others) will think that the Bailey is just as defensible as the Motte. Fortunately for Ms. Buckman, she's just a rising high school sophomore. We can forgive the lack of nuance in her case.

But then there's people like Nan Aron, President of the Alliance for Justice, "a national association of over 100 organizations, representing a broad array of groups committed to progressive values and the creation of an equitable, just, and free society" with an annual budget of four million dollars. She writes for HuffPo regarding the McCullen decision (the abortion clinic buffer zone one people stopped talking about once Hobby Lobby came down):

The Chief Justice gives away the game when he writes that the anti-abortion activists bringing the case "are not protestors," and expresses sympathy with their complaint that they haven't been as successful in persuading women to change their minds as they would be if the buffer zone didn't prevent them from sidling up to within an arm's length and whispering their gentle words of persuasion. Ah, you see, anti-abortion activists aren't actual protestors, like you might see outside a political event or on the public sidewalk in front of, let's say, a bank. Those kinds of people can be forced into far-distant "buffer zones" that have chain-link fence around them. But when it comes to abortion and women trying to enter a medical clinic to exercise their constitutional rights, well, that's another story. [Emphasis added]

Alright folks, get out your Constitutions and find for me the right to an abortion.

"It's in the penumbra!" ...Go fuck yourself.

Calling it a constitutional right doesn't make a lot of sense, with or without the penumbra. When we say "constitutional right" we mean the enumerated ones, not the penumbra. The penumbra has a whole other name, and it's God-given natural inalienable rights. The only difference between natural rights and constitutional rights is that the constitutional ones have been written down. An unwritten constitutional right is a meaningless term. It'd be like referring to the IMDB top 100 movies not listed on the IMDB top 100 movies list (and not just the films bumped off over time).

So why does McCullen refer to constitutional rights in her op-ed? Probably because it makes for good rhetoric, and because she hasn't stopped to consider what it means for something to be a constitutional right versus a natural right.

Going back to professor Vars's question, should we care? We think so. The origin of rights matters when it comes to how we treat them, and we're moving towards a society where people think the hierarchy of rights comes down to nothing more than how passionate they are about the issue. If you're going to make more use out of your free contraception than your religious freedom, then you know which right trumps the others. Next you'll be saying your right to not be offended trumps another's right to free speech, not based on any concrete theory of rights, but just on how you feel about their relative importance.

Don't Have Sex In New Zealand

E-mail Print PDF

We shouldn't say don't have sex in New Zealand. Instead, if you're going to have sex in New Zealand, do it now. Do not wait.

The NZ Labor Party has introduced a bill that would radically change the way rape prosecutions are handled, using the time dishonored burden of proof known as Guilty Until Proven Innocent. The innovation's sponsor, Andrew Little, says not to worry because the state (down under the call it the "Crown") still bears a significant burden of proof:

The Crown has to prove more than just sex; the issue of consent has to be raised by the Crown, they have to prove the identity of the offender. They would have to bear that burden of proof before a switch to the defence to prove consent. [NZ Herald]

See, no need to worry. The Crown still bears the burden of proving that sex happens (she says so) and the identity of the offender (she says him). Your ball, Mr. Defendant.

And why shift the burden? Well because rape cases are really hard to prosecute. Do you know how hard it is to prove lack of consent? Just about as hard as it is to prove consent. And since consent is so hard to prove either way, the NZ standard would basically be Guilty If Accused.

Guilty If Accused?! Surely we're exaggerating. After all, plenty of people do get convicted of rape. In fact, in New Zealand 46% of defendants brought to trial for rape are convicted. If the Crown is able to so often prove a lack of consent then surely the defendant will have a fair shake.

 

Oh, except that the defendant isn't allowed to question the accuser.

The accuser will only be questioned by the judge, a judge working under a Ministry of Justice with an official policy of increasing rape conviction rates.

Planned Parenthood Needs to Chillax About Hobby Lobby

E-mail Print PDF

As soon as the Supreme Court reached its decision in Hobby Lobby vs. The Crushing Ennui That Accompanies Spending Time At Hobby Lobby, Planned Parenthood released this image on their Facebook page:

 

Your boss can decide if you have access to birth control coverage! Now as far as we know, Planned Parenthood has some sort of expertise when it comes to birth control, so if they say this is the case, it must actually be the case, right?

Of course not. It's a knee-jerk reaction to a hot-button issue, which basically tells you right away that it's completely wrong and without any basis in fact or reasoning. In fact, Planned Parenthood doesn't seem to have gotten as far as the first paragraph of the majority opinion.

We must decide in these cases whether the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 (RFRA), 107 Stat. 1488,42 U. S. C. §2000bb et seq., permits the United States Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) to demand that three closely held corporations provide health-insurance coverage for methods of contraception that violate the sincerely held religious beliefs of the companies’ owners. We hold that the regulations that impose this obligation violate RFRA, which prohibits the Federal Government from taking any action that substantially burdens the exercise of religion unless that action constitutes the least restrictive means of serving a compelling government interest.

And then a little further into the opinion:

For all these reasons, we hold that a federal regulation’s restriction on the activities of a for-profit closely held corporation must comply with RFRA.

Emphasis added. But only kinda added. The bold was added, but the court keeps saying "closely held" over and over again, making it very clear that the opinion applies only to closely held corporations.

Might it be a precedent that will allow the decision to later apply to all corporations, slippery slope style? Probably not. It makes some sense (to some people, we can think of at least 5) that a closely held corporation could have a sincerely held religious belief. It makes absolutely no sense to say that a widely held corporation can have the same sort of belief. If the decision will apply anywhere else, it's most likely going to extend to sole-proprietorships, and maybe some partnerships.

So, can "your boss" decide if you can have birth control coverage?

Probably not. If you work for Hobby Lobby they can make some decisions, but most employers will still have to provide it.

 

But wait, there's still more wrong with the Planned Parenthood message!

Even Hobby Lobby can't decide if you can have access to birth control coverage. What Hobby Lobby can decide is if Hobby Lobby is going to provide it. That's not the end of the access question because there's thing you may have heard about in the news called THE OBAMACARE. Or you know, the health care exchange marketplace communism Obamacare. If you work for a Hobby Lobby and want birth control to be covered, you can just buy a different plan on an exchange.

But buying it on the exchange could be cost-prohibitive. The exchanges work by giving people discounts, but you don't qualify for a discount if you're already getting coverage from work. Hobby Lobby isn't exactly paying upper-middle class wages. By not getting it from their employer, aren't employees effectively cost-prohibited from obtaining birth control?

Excellent question! Let's see what the government has to say about it:

Whether you qualify for lower costs based on your income will depend on the coverage the employer offers. You won't be able to get lower costs if your job-based coverage is considered affordable and meets minimum value.

Meets the minimum value. We suspect it'll be about two more minutes before some interpretive guidance comes down saying that plans without birth control aren't minimally acceptable and that if you have such a plan you will quality for lower costs. Just a guess, but we think it's a pretty damn good one.

 

But wait, there's still more!

Not my boss's business.

Your reproductive health decisions are you own business, not your boss's. And that's exactly the position Hobby Lobby has taken. You want birth control? Not their business. By demanding that employers provide it, they're making it quite literally their boss's business.

Georgetown law prof asks: But what about the wimmin?

E-mail Print PDF

Obama recently rolled out the My Brother's Keeper initiative aimed at helping minority boys and young men. The goal is basically to get them education, employed, and out of trouble -- and if they're in trouble, to get them back on the right track. So naturally, Georgetown Law pof Paul Butler is asking, "But what about the wimmin?" Here's a bit from an article he wrote for CNN:

There's a myth that girls of color are doing better than boys. But that's not supported by the facts. Indeed the White House website attempts to justify MBK's exclusion of females by stating that "boys of color are too often born into poverty and live with a single parent."

But don't African-American girls live in the same single-parent households as African-American boys? Don't Latina girls attend the same failing schools as Latino boys? Isn't a teenage girl on a reservation in California as afraid of being a victim of rape as a teenage boy in Chicago is afraid of being a victim of gun violence?

It would actually be quite surprising if the odds of a girl being raped on an Indian reservation was the same as a boy being shot in Chicago, and we're sure the stats are out there somewhere, but we're not going to look into that particular one because frankly, it'd take too much time, not to mention problems with rapes being under-reported --  gunshots on the other hand tend to draw police attention.

But what we will look at are the more easily comparable stats. Is is a myth that girls of color are doing better than boys of color?

Black women are twice as likely to get a 4 year college degree than black men. [Dep't Ed] The numbers are similarly skewed for Hispanic and Native Americans and at all levels of education except when it comes to blacks getting master's degrees (black women get 71%) and Hispanics getting PhDs (Latinas only get 55%). Nowhere on the spectrum are girls of color not doing better than boys.

According to the National Criminal Justice Reference Service, black males are about 30% more likely to be the victim of a violent crime than black females. [NCJRS]

Black men are 50% more likely to have been arrested than black women. They're six times as likely to have been charged in federal court. [BJS]

The black unemployment rate for men is 30% higher than for women, though Hispanic men are doing slightly better than Hispanic women overall. For youth the numbers are much worse. Black men aged 16-19 have a 42.8% unemployment rate, while it's 27.5% for women. At age 20-24 it's 25.5% for black men, 18.5% for black women. Hispanic youth were at a virtual tie at these ages. [BLS]

But don't African-American girls live in the same single-parent households as African-American boys?

It would appear not. That won't stop a Georgetown law profess though, and why should it? You see, law school teach you to think like a lawyer, and what does that mean? Cheat To Win. Your loyalty is to your client, to your cause, not to some higher notions of truth or justice. All that matters is winning the argument.

PS: There's this little thing called the White House Council on Women and Girls, but no corresponding op-ed from Paul Butler demanding that men and boys be included. And they shouldn't be. Including boys in programs designed to help girls is like giving them a mastectomy to cure prostate cancer. Doesn't mean there shouldn't also be prostate cancer treatments, but we shouldn't have the Paul Butlers of the world complaining that the woman in the next exam room isn't all getting a finger up her rectum.

Obamacare Secretly Changing Your Party Affiliation

E-mail Print PDF

If you get insurance through Covered California (an Obamacare health care exchangemaroo), be prepared to have your party registration automatically switched over to Democrat for you. At least, that's what an ABC news story alleges:

A local couple called 10News concerned after they received an envelope from the state's Obamacare website, Covered California. Inside was a letter discussing voter registration and a registration card pre-marked with an "x" in the box next to Democratic Party.

The ABC story goes on to explain that the couple didn't want to be identified, and that the couple attempted to contact the California Secretary of State office, which investigates voting fraud, but "could not get a hold of anyone."

 

So yeah, we're gonna go ahead and file this item under the heading That Happened.

Come on, ABC. First rule of journalism is you have to name your sources. Well, maybe not the first rule, but it's in like the top 10 rules. A source needs a really good reason to not go on the record. And when they have a good reason, you disclose it to the reader so they know.

Second rule of journalism is that if you've just got one piece of evidence, and that evidence is really shaky, you go looking for more evidence. That's actually maybe the first rule. We don't really know, we're not journalists. But, we do know that anyone could just get an unmarked form, mark it, and then call ABC and claim it was pre-marked. There's no way for ABC to know the difference. Now, it's a judgment call whether or not to run the allegation, but if you do run it you certainly don't say, "Inside was a [...] registration card pre-marked with an 'x' in the box next to Democratic Party." What you do say is "The couples alleges that the card was pre-marked with an 'x'..."

The third rule of journalism is that if there are 4 million other voter registration mailings being sent out by Covered California, you go find someone else with a pre-marked card.

The fourth rule of journalism is if someone says they called the Secretary of State and no one there is answering the phones, you get damned suspicious of the story. But hey, it's the start of Spring, so maybe?

The fifth rule of journalism is you call the Secretary of State yourself and tell us what they had to say.

The sixth rule of journalism is that when you talk to Covered California and learn that the mailings come not from them but directly from the Secretary of State, you think hm... I SHOULD CALL THE SECRETARY OF STATE.

The seventh rule of journalism is Preston Phillips, you should stop doing journalism, because...

The eighth rule of journalism is That Happened.

Things White People Like: The Death Penalty?

E-mail Print PDF

Yesterday, Slate.com writer Jamelle Bouie wrote about a Pew survey and why he thinks so many more white people support the death penalty. Spoiler: It's racism. Now before jumping in, let's go ahead and make one thing perfectly clear, there are racial disparities when it comes not just to the death penalty, but to criminal punishment in general. And also, those disparities are bad.

That said, Bouie is completely wrong when it comes to why white people like the death penalty so much. Or, to be more exact, his argument is without meaningful support. He could in fact be right, but he certainly hasn't made his case.

He first lays out the Pew data:

Overall, 55 percent of Americans support capital punishment, and 37 percent are opposed. Among whites, however, support for the death penalty jumps to 63 percent, compared to 40 percent for Hispanics and 36 percent for blacks.

So far so good, but Bouie is concerned with the why, not just the what. To begin his explanation for why white people like the death penalty, he first reminds us of its racist historical use:

Before we get into why whites are so supportive of the death penalty, it’s important to remember this: There’s no separating capital punishment from its role, in part, as a tool of racial control.

There's a bit of internal inconsistency in this statement's logic. It's that "in part" bit. That phrase implies there's another part, and if there is that other part, then a sufficiently sophisticated mind actually can separate one part from the other part. That's kinda what it means for there to be parts. And what is that other part? Capital punishment's use as a tool of crime control. And you know why it's so easy to mentally separate these two parts? Because capital punishment predates racially diverse civilization. Ancient Greece didn't exactly have a lot of black people in it, but you could be sentenced to death for the crime of giving funeral rights to a traitor, or corrupting the youth with your weirdo philosophy.

So, there is in fact some separating capital punishment from its role as a tool of racial control. And duh, the Pew data bears it out. 36% of blacks support it. If you were to ask about things with more direct ties to racism, such as segregation or lynching, we suspect the number of black supporters would be considerably lower. We think it's safe to say that the black supporters of the death penalty probably do a bit of separating.

 

Bouie concludes his article with this:

It sounds glib, but if you needed a one-word answer to why whites are so supportive of the death penalty, “racism” isn’t a bad choice.

And for no particular reason, these seems to us a good place to introduce some other statistics, and we decided on the racial breakdown of people who've been executed since 1976. No surprise, blacks are grossly over-represented, making up 34% of those executed, about twice their percentage in the population.

That disparity is alarming for sure, but it should also set off a red flag as it relates to Bouie's argument. What about the other people? 56% of those executed were white. So, in Bouie's interpretation of America, white people aren't only using the death penalty for racial control, but are so hell bent on keeping the blacks in line that they'll kill 5 white people just to kill 3 black people. We're either really bad at being racist, or still working through some fodder left over from the Clone War.

We think Bouie's argument has some holes in it now, but it's not quite sunk. Maybe white people don't realize how many other whites are executed. Or maybe they're just happy with the disparity because it both kills the criminals who need killing, and also keep the blacks in line. If only there was a way to corroborate Bouie's theory.

And thankfully there is! Great thing about America is that it's racist to just about everyone, and it's got a lot of different races to be racist against. So let's look at Asians. They were abused in the construction of the continental railroad, their home countries have been exploited by colonial trade, and there was that slight incident where we imprisoned every single Japanese person in the country. Asians make up about 5% of the American population, but are an even tinier number of those executed.

Of course, most of the death penalty states are in the South, which has a smaller Asian population. In Alabama, they're only 1.2% of the population, but also only 0.5% of current death row inmates. In Texas, Asians are 4.2% of the population and 1.3% of death row inmates. And looking at California where Asians are 13.9% of the population, and where you'd expect a history of racism against Asians to have its strongest lingering effect, they're only 3.4% of death row inmates.

 

What can we conclude from all this? That if white people favor capital punishment because they're racist, then they suck at racism. And that Bouie sucks at talking about race and the death penalty, because he also quotes another interesting figure from the Pew study: 64% of white protestants support the death penalty. Now we haven't read our Bibles in a while, but we're pretty sure there's some stuff in there about justice, and morals, and eyeballs and some other such things, and that maybe the reason why white protestants are so much in favor of the death penalty isn't because of racism, but because they have a different take on criminal justice generally.

Crazy Uncle Ron Doesn't Understand Crimea

E-mail Print PDF

In a USA Today op-ed, Ron Paul asks why the United States should care about what's going on in Crimea:

What's the big deal? Opponents of the Crimea vote like to point to the illegality of the referendum. But self-determination is a centerpiece of international law. Article I of the United Nations Charter points out clearly that the purpose of the U.N. is to "develop friendly relations among nations based on respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples."

Why does the U.S. care which flag will be hoisted on a small piece of land thousands of miles away?

If you read most mainstream news coverage of the Crimea referendum, you've probably heard about the 97%+ vote in favor of joining Russia, and how the vote was probably rigged or otherwise influenced by the occupying Russian army. Ron Paul argues that the illegitimacy of the vote shouldn't matter:

Critics point to the Russian "occupation" of Crimea as evidence that no fair vote could have taken place. Where were these people when an election held in an Iraq occupied by U.S. troops was called a "triumph of democracy"?

Just, wow, holy shitballs, where to start...

Yes, both regions were occupied by a foreign invader. Here's the differences:

(1) Iraq was being asked to whether or not to become a member of the nation that just invaded it.

(2) The options in Iraq weren't, "Would you prefer to be ruled by a governor appointed by George W. Bush, or to break into half a dozen smaller autonomous nations?"

You see, in the Crimean referendum the choices were only to join Russia or to become autonomous. The decision to maintain the status quo as part of Ukraine was taken off the table, which is why the vote was so skewed towards joining Russia -- people who wanted to stay in the Ukraine decided not to vote as a form of protest.

 

Now all that aside, there still is the question why we should care if people decide to secede from their nation. And to answer that question we can go back 150 or so years to Abraham Lincoln and the years leading up to the Civil War.

In numerous speeches Lincoln talked about preserving the Union, and the reason wasn't just that the United States is so awesome. To Lincoln the preservation of the Union meant something much greater, it meant the survival of democracy and the rule of law. If secession became the mechanism by which nations resolved major disputes the nation would soon fall completely apart. The North and South would split, then New England may split from the rest of the North (an idea that had been contemplated there before the war). Rich areas would secede when they decided they didn't want to support poor areas. States would split off over abortion, the death penalty, health care, social security, war votes, defense spending, any number of things. With more small nations with competing interests we'd see the kinds of local conflicts predicted by the authors of the Federalist Papers, and we'd devolve into warring city states until an authoritarian empire invaded.

That's why we care about self-determination going to the point of secession.

Now we are engaged in a great civil war, testing whether that nation, or any nation so conceived and so dedicated, can long endure.

Against Loan Forgiveness

E-mail Print PDF

This White House petition just came to our attention resulting in a massive headdesk:

The Presidents proposed 2015 Budget includes a provision that will change the Public Interest Loan Forgiveness (PILF) program by capping overall forgiveness to $57,500. This change only hurts the hard working employees who work by serving their community often in low-wage jobs. These individuals' student loan amounts often exceed the cap as they consist of people with more than a college degree: Social Workers, Speech Pathologists, Lawyers, etc. These dedicated public servants chose to work for the public good with the added promise that their dedicated service of 10 years would be rewarded with complete loan forgiveness, only to have the rug pulled out from underneath them by a misstep by the administration. Please sign this petition and support those who work to help you.

This is just another case of special snowflake syndrome, but not the way you think. The people calling for loan forgiveness are absolutely right that education is way too expensive and if you have to use debt to finance your education you'd be unable to take low paying public interest jobs. They're not asking for loan forgiveness because of a sense of entitlement, they're asking for it because they want to be public servants and they don't see any other way of doing it with their debt loads.

It's special snowflake syndrome because it fails to ask a very simple question: How does this affect other people?

Loan forgiveness programs present the college-bound with a very enticing narrative: Either you'll make a lot of money in the private sector and your loans won't be a problem, or if you don't get such a job you can go into the public sector and your loans won't be a problem. Either way you do not need to care about how large your loans are. And when customers don't care how much they have to pay, prices skyrocket.

And that royally fucks things up for the folks starting college after you. Tuition keeps rising and when they enter the workforce fewer of those private sector jobs will cover their debt. That increases competition for public interest programs and that competition means there's too many high-debt grads for the number of jobs. Now you've got people with huge debtloads who can't pay them off.

Just to kick the folks behind you in line while they're already down, the more of your loans that you get forgiven, the less money there is to go around for everything else, and the less popular these forgiveness programs become, making it increasingly likely that we'll have to either lower the amount available or get rid of the forgiveness entirely.

 

The better alternative to loan forgiveness is increased wages. If your job pays (after taxes) $30,000 and gives you $10,000 in loan forgiveness that's exactly the same as paying you $40k and letting you give the bank $10k. Bank gets paid the same and you have the same money left over.

What's different though are the incentives. If you're going to be making $40k no matter how high your loans are, you're going to seriously consider keeping them low. Price competition among universities helps to bring down the cost for everyone, so bam, you've already done a tremendous public service even before you've graduated.

Funneling the money into salaries also allows public sector jobs to attract better employees. By having so much of the compensation tied up in loan forgiveness the jobs attract people with lots of debt while people with high debt will tend to look elsewhere. Now this is just going to be a general trend, but we're willing to bet that people who graduate with little debt are more likely to be desirable employees. People who got scholarships tend to be pretty bright, people who worked to pay their way have experience, and people whose parents paid out of pocket have parents who can donate to the public interest organizations their kids are working for (and have friends that can be hit up for donations as well).

So, people with debt aren't any worse off, people without debt are better off, there's an incentive to keep your costs under control so you're better off, and keeping costs under control helps everyone else. Who's hurt by this? People with above average debt. If the money is moved into salaries, people aren't being compensated based on their debt, so people with a ton of debt are now worse off. ...Tough? It's certainly not a perfect system, and governing means making choices, picking winners and losers. Sure there will be some losers, people who were previously winners in the system, but the current plan of debt forgiveness just makes the entire game stink.

All I Want For Christmas Is To Sue

E-mail Print PDF

It's not even Iron Bowl (ie: Thanksgiving) weekend yet, but apparently the Christmas season has already started. Of course, for those of you with jobs, the Christmas season started with Q4 when you looked at how far you were from reaching your annual billable hour target.

But, there's a cold front hitting New England and the Mid-Atlantic, and snowflakes have been spotted in Philly -- and we don't just mean the newest crop of students who think they'll beat the law school employment odds. Actual, melt on the ground, not melt-down in your class snowflakes. So, I guess that means it's Christmas Law Revue video season.

And by season, we mean one video from some kids at Syracuse Law. Enjoy:

We also would have liked: All I Want For Christmas Are Two Vacant Seats (on the Supreme Court)

Gives a new meaning to "Bang on the drum all day."

E-mail Print PDF

Millennials are shallow, lazy, entitled, self-centered, delusional, trophy brats. They expect to be given great jobs right out of college when they've got zero experience and have not yet put in any of the hard work (except for the last 16 years of hard work, but no credit for time served). And they expect that great job to come with a pile of money (after adjusting for inflation, the minimum wage has dropped 20% over the last 40 years, and Gen Y is entering the workforce with $25,000+ of debt). It's like these damn kids think they don't have to spend the first two years of their careers fetching coffee and doing grunt administrative work for free (something never before expected of any generation).

So if Gen Y is busy tweeting their entitled attitudes during their lunch break (which was supposed to be spent working, you bums!), just what is the incredibly industrious Boomer generation doing all day?

Turns out they're looking at porn.

And they're bad at it.

A survey of 200 IT professionals found that 40% had to spend time removing malware from an executives computer which was downloaded by clicking a malicious link on a porn website. There are laptops, and tablets, and loads of free porn websites that are free of malware, so the Boomer executives (that's right, executives) aren't just wasting their time at work looking at porn, they don't even understand how computers or the internet works.

It's not just the folks who accidentally dropped their little blue pills into their morning coffee either. 56% of IT professionals said that executives had downloaded malware by clicking on a link on a phishing e-mail. Another 45% found malware that got there because the executive let a family member use their work computer -- and assuming they're not lying, that means the family member was smart enough to do all their dirty work on someone else's device. Perhaps the wrong person is in the boss's chair.

So, maybe Millennials are lazy and entitled, but they're at least modest about it. They want to be paid to do a job. Boomers want to be paid 270x as much to watch porn.

Page 1 of 136

  • «
  •  Start 
  •  Prev 
  •  1 
  •  2 
  •  3 
  •  4 
  •  5 
  •  6 
  •  7 
  •  8 
  •  9 
  •  10 
  •  Next 
  •  End 
  • »

Philadelphia Lawyer, Unfiltered

The finest blend of analysis, advice, and fury on the internet. Sour mash, oak barrel aged, published at cask strength.

 


Most Recent Article:

In Defense of Risk (Happy Fourth of July)


All Articles from The Philadelphia Lawyer

Author Profile

The Robot Pimp

An in depth look at the emerging intersection of law, behavioral economics, and robots.


Most Recent Article:

The Tenure Paradox


All Articles from The Robot Pimp

Author Profile

Practice Makes Putrid

Legal practice would be all rainbows and buttercups, if it weren't for the clients, and opposing counsel, and co-counsel, and judges, and the law.


Most Recent Article:

Eat Mor Fiv Freedums


All Articles from The Namby Pamby

Author Profile

Gin and Glannon's

As Shadow Hand suffers through law school, the rest of us get a little Schadenfreude.


Most Recent Article:

I Just Work Here


All Articles From Shadow Hand

Author Profile

Irresistible Impulse

Dr. Rob Dobrenski's daring expedition into the psychology of lawyers and the law. (Not a substitute for a life well lived.)


Most Recent Article:

You're Not a Failure, You're a Narcissist


All Articles from Dr. Rob

Author Profile

Graphic and Gratuitous

Sometimes cartoons are the highest form of communication. Those times are known as "most of the time."


Most Recent Cartoons:

Intelligence: The Gathering


All Cartoons

There And Never Back Again

Defunct Big Law attorney BL1Y shares his misadventures as a writer who accidentally went to law school.

 


Most Recent Article:

JD vs MFA


All Articles from BL1Y

Author Profile

Lampshade, Esquire

We're dealing with some technical difficulties here. Hold up a minute.


All Articles From Lampshade, Esq.

Staff Infections

News, humor, and other non-billables from our underpaid, uncredited, unsexy staff.

 


News Articles

Smaller News Bits

Large Numbers of Law

Mixed Bag of Lawesome

Reviews

Scofflaw Multistate Bar Review

Lawyerlite