Well, obviously, if the Big Three go under, the UAW won’t be able to use dues paid to cover the almost $5-million-per-year-over-the-last-5-years loss for their Black Lake Golf Club.

Over the last 5 years, the golf resort has operated at a total loss of $23 million.  It is part of the UAW’s Walter and May Reuther Family Education Center, which is situated on 1,000 heavily forested acres along the southeast side of Black Lake.

Seems the cost for a round of golf is $95, and I don’t know about you but I know of very little worth $95 that isn’t something I can take home and use over and over again.  Dropping almost a c-note on freaking golf is one of the silliest things you could suggest to me.

BTW, the UAW has approximately $1.23 BILLION in assets.

I say let the fockers fund their own pension system.

One of the fairly common issues facing those in the criminal justice system is, “What is this case worth?” How much time should the defendant serve?

We end up with a somewhat standardized (though flexible depending on conditions) view on standard cases, though lots of cases are non-standard. I occasionally survey my colleagues on what a case is worth.

So, here are two scenarios. For each, assume you are the judge and the defendant has pled guilty at an early stage. For a jail or prison sentence, you can impose the exact amount of time a person will do (two years is two actual years in custody.) If you sentence to a year or less, you can also attach whatever terms you like; for more than a year the prison authorities will do that. You can sentence to any amount of time you like for the purposes of this exercise. You must sentence to a specific amount of time, or life without parole.

Please give your proposed dispositions before reading the other comments. (This is important; I do this in my real life surveys, too.)

Situation one: The recidivist. Steven, 55, likes heroin. He does not like working. Working isn’t fun. Steven steals for heroin, and from the ages of 21 to now, has been in custody, on probation, or on parole for all but three years of his life. He has been convicted in the past of six separate cases of residential burglary, four cases involving possession of drugs, two counts of possession of heroin for sale, and some DUI’s and other miscelleaneous misdemeanor offenses, including thefts from stores early on before he switched to the more lucrative residences.

Steven’s last case was a residential burglary he committed 12 years ago; he served right about 12 years and lasted a week on the street before he was caught stealing cold medication from a drugstore (the case you are sentencing him on). He says he was going to exchange the cold medication for heroin. (He also rather suspects the recipients were going to use it to make methamphetamine, but that wasn’t his concern; he just wanted heroin.)

Steven says he is an addict, and does not deserve a lengthy sentence because he is non-violent. He ain’t never hurt anyone. The prosecution says that Steven doesn’t do well outside, so he shouldn’t be outside any more.

What say you?

Situtation two: Youthful offender While this is a story about three friends, the guy we’re really interested – since you’ll be sentencing him – is Marcus, 19. Marcus, Joey, and Juan are all freshmen at State University in Middletown. Marcus has no record.

They are all hanging out one night. “I’m bored. Bored, bored, bored,” says Juan.

Joey says, “I’m bored too. Let’s go rob some people!”

Marcus says he doesn’t like the personal robbing part, but he’ll drive the guys around.

The first guy they see is a 22-year-old guy with an Ipod. Ipods not being boring, Joey and Juan get out of the car and tell the guy to give them his Ipod. When he says he wants to keep it, Joey pulls out a .45, which is persuasive.

Marcus wasn’t aware that they had a gun before, but they then go and rob three more people of cell phones, Ipods, and wallets that night. By the time of the fourth robbery, approximately every police officer for 20 miles is patrolling the area with a description of the car, and they end up getting pulled over and arrested. Police find Joey’s gun in the trunk, and it is loaded.

Marcus admits that he shouldn’t have done this, but he says he was only the driver and didn’t think before getting arrested. He is distraught in court and says he will testify truthfully against the others. (The prosecution didn’t make a deal for the testimony because the other guys are caught dead to rights.) Marcus’ mother is also there and says Marcus was doing very well before getting in with this crowd.

The prosecution says armed robberies lead to fear, disorder, and corpses. Once Marcus knew there was a gun, he’s endangering lives and should go to prison for a long time. Even assuming the dubious proposition that Marcus has learned anything, others need to be restrained from participating in armed robberies.

What say you?

Letters in today’s Chronicle expressed support for the Iraqi reporter who threw his shoes at President Bush by a ratio of 12-1.  Twelve writers expressed support for, satisfaction of, or humor in the attack.  My understanding is that editors seek to publish letters on an issue in a similar ratio to the letters they receive.

While it’s no longer surprising, it’s still disappointing, that so many can justify in their own minds an assault as a legitimate manner of expression — apparently not realizing that a shoe can fly in more than one direction.  Equally disheartening is the popularity of the notion that reporters, who are supposed to at least appear unbiased, should instead take sides.

Update 12/18: Five letters critical of the previous day’s mob mentality, including at least two from self-identified Bush opponents, appeared in today’s Chronicle.  Perhaps there’s hope yet for civilized debate and journalistic accountability.

If we really have to bail out the US auto industry, why is it that we are giving money to the losers?  Why not give money to the winners and let them sort it out?

Take the $25 billion (or $15 billion or whatever) and loan or give it to Ford, no strings attached.  Let Chrysler and GM go Chapter 11.  Presumably, Ford would buy what they’ll need to grow their business and leave the deadwood to fail.  Since they seem to know how to make at least some cars that people want and which compete with the best Japan has to offer, maybe it should be Ford and not some Car Czar deciding what to save.

And certainly not GM or Chrysler.

Justin Levine raises some very good points. I agree with just about every one of his arguments, but I do see value in blog comments in spite of the many drawbacks Justin describes.

A phone conversation is only heard by one person. Comments may be read by tens of thousands. Or by one, but there is no way a phone conversation can have the same reach. Comments allow a guy in pajamas to correct an error or make a point that would otherwise be left out of public discourse. I would not be writing this post if it were not for the pajamas effect.

The poor quality of debate in comments has often almost driven me to (temporarily) give them up. The constant pattern of make a statement, defend against the straw man, defend against the next straw man, and again, and again, until the “debate” ends with ad hominems is very frustrating. It sometimes requires more patience than I can muster. Be that as it may, half of the point in my mind is teaching people how to think through issues logically. For every brain-dead ideologue there are ten curious people who may learn reason. It can be worth the effort.

The monitoring of comments must be tiresome. Freedom draws abuse which runs the gamut from the profane to the off-point. But readers can tune out the trolls. Trolls are not persuasive. However, they can effectively shut down debate and thereby stifle the ideas they oppose. This is annoying, but over the long haul those ideas are still getting out.

Anonymity certainly can encourage abuse, but it can also lead to more openness. For all of their infuriating annoyances, blog comments on sites like Patterico’s are the only place I know where at least somewhat open minded conservatives and liberals share ideas. I know that my ideas have been influenced by the experience and my respect for the other point of view has often increased.

Ultimately, each format has advantages and disadvantages. I am glad to be able to use both, and I wouldn’t want Justin to change a style that works so well for him.

Doctors at a major university medical center have discovered a potential cure for Type 1 diabetes, according to an article in the San Francisco Chronicle.

The medical team grafted healthy islets (insulin-producing cells) into diabetic mice and treated them with a drug called alpha-1-antitrypsin.  The results were startling and encouraging.  “We were able to cure a mouse from diabetes by supplying the healthy cells and the mouse’s immune system still functioned, Professor Dr. Eli Lewis reported.  “This is the closest thing that we can consider to cure diabetes.”

The results have excited doctors around the world.  A doctor in Zurich said “This study is a realistic hope not only for islet transplantation, but also for other organ transplantation.”  A chief physician at the University of Copenhagen said that the reearch team is ”at the frontier of islet research.”  Meanwhile the team expects to work with Harvard University and other medical centers in the U.S. to conduct FDA-approved clinical trials.

Oh, one thing I failed to mention.  Dr. Lewis and his team conducted their research at Ben-Gurion University in Beersheba.  Therefore we should expect that British academic and medical institutions that wish to isolate Israeli institutions, as well as anti-Zionist factions throughout the Arab and Western worlds that are offended by any and all products that come from the Jewish state, will reject the results of the Israeli team and will refuse to use or accept any cure for diabetes developed as a result of the Ben Gurion team.  Shouldn’t we?

[posted by Justin Levine]

There have been some good postings recently on the subject of comments on blogs.

Orin Kerr has a few observations here and here.

Andrew Sullivan tackled the issue earlier in the year and pointed to another great analysis here.

Much to frustration of many who visit this site (along with Patterico himself), I am the one poster who has not allowed comments on his posts for some time now (for many of the same reasons that Kerr, Sullivan et al. refer to in their writings).

I have a very different sensibility on commenting policy than Patterico seems to have, and have differing views on appropriate civility, keeping topics focused, the definition of commenting trolls and the level of toleration for them.  I know that Patterico does not want to be seen as one who shuts off debate, so he tends to put up with much more than I would. However, I doubt that I am alone in observing that this site seems to attract more trolls looking to stir the pot in an unproductive manner than the average blog with similar readership levels (perhaps a function of the ‘Broken Windows’ theory that is referenced in the last two links above).

Since it wasn’t really possible from a practical standpoint to have separate moderating policies among different posters on the same site, I decided to simply close the comments altogether.

But beyond the troll question, I find the comment section to be the most unproductive method of effective communication that currently exists in the electronic medium. It is very time consuming to have to type out a coherent thought that you could do in a fraction of the time over the phone. And with comments, you are usually doing it for a rather small audience (often an audience of one). However, because the comment function is also convenient, it ends up attracting thoughts that are either not well thought out, not well written, or throw-away thoughts that are not worth the time to read. 

This is certainly not to suggest that I have never found useful information in comments, or been effectively challenged in my arguments.  But in the end, it is a trade-off of the benefits versus the annoyance factor in terms of effective moderation. Once again, Patterico and I have differing perspectives on this, though this may be a function of the fact that Patterico puts much more time into blogging (and responses to the blogosphere) than I do. 

This is also not to suggest that I don’t want feedback on my posts, or are somehow afraid of challenges. But I have found that people are likely to make arguments that are far more intelligent and civil when they write in an e-mail or separate blog post, rather than when they make arguments in the comments section. I don’t know why this is so – but I am convinced that it is the case. I suspect that many posters here in the Jury Talks Backblog would agree. Would they take the time to write their arguments the same way in the comments section in Patterico’s main blog than they do in posts to this site?  I doubt it. 

Many of my favorite blogs have never allowed comments, and it hasn’t affected my enjoyment of them, nor have they given me the impression that they are somehow “above” criticism or feedback.

I also want to turn back to Orin Kerr’s theory and observation that “The web brings people into close contact with other people that they don’t actually know, and it’s much easier to be nasty to someone you don’t personally know than someone you do. Most of us connect with people we meet in real life. The personal meeting humanizes the other person. ”

This is certainly true. I know this not only from blogging, but from practicing law. Opposing attorneys usually make the dumbest, rudest and most frivolous comments and arguments in their written briefs that they wouldn’t dare repeat when they are standing next to you in a court hearing or mediation session. They always seem much more reasonable and accommodating when discussing matters in person. I’m sure I’m not the only attorney who has experienced this.

This is why I have always decided to use my full name in my posts, and discourage the use of anonymity and pseudonyms in blog posts. If I am going to insult someone, I want to first convince myself that I’d be willing to say it in person to their face. Using your real name is a small step towards keeping yourself honest in your posts and a check in preventing your writings from becoming too bilious in heated debates.

Obviously there can be legitimate reasons for staying anonymous – as was the case when “Patterico” started this blog. Some are in sensitive jobs or positions where they legitimately need the protections that anonymity brings in order to help encourage writing about things that others should know about. [LAPD officer Jack Dunphy is another example that comes to mind (even if many in his social circle may know his real identity.] The key test is determining if the pseudonym helps to protect more than just your ego when you feel the need to write something controversial.

I realize that many will still disagree with me on this issue. You are always free to comment and criticize me in other posts (and in their comment sections that I have no control over).

So says I.

But somewhere between 4:30am (when I FINALLY got to sleep) and 7am (when I woke up), they appear to have left me.  If they come to me I’ll try to post, but frankly, most of my day will be consumed by “trying to not face-plant into my keyboard at work due to passing out”.

This is going to be a long, long day…

In all of the reaction to this, the security question seems peripheral at best, with just a few passing mentions. Why is that? Isn’t it kind of a big deal that this guy was able to throw a shoe at the president of the United States — and then bend down, reach for his second shoe and hurl that one too?

He could have actually hurt Bush. Forget shoe-bomber-style explosives; even unusually heavy shoes, if aimed well, could have done some damage. Suppose he’d reinforced them with lead or concrete or something?

And assuming DRJ and Scott are right that Bush waved off his Secret Service guy: Why does he get to do that, anyway? I wouldn’t think he’d be the best person to assess his personal safety in such a situation.

* UPDATE: Guess I’m not the only one to wonder about this.

It sure seems like the Illinois Democrats are doing everything they can think of to remove Governor Bribe-o from office.  Why the rush?

A charitable explanation is that they would rather the Lt Governor appoints a Democrat to the Senate, avoiding a special election that they might well lose.  A more suspicious person might think it has to do with disrupting negotiations between Blago and the Feds.  A really suspicious person might think it has to do with getting the former Governor away from his state police protection.

Hard to say what, but they do seem in rather a rush.

No, I’m not going to try and get on a ballot for the Illinois Senate seat, since a) I would never come close to winning and b) me in the Senate would be perhaps the most awesomest thing to ever happen in the history of ever.

No, what I am considering is doing a podcast on Blog Talk Radio (a free podcasting/internet radio site).  Now, while me talking would be interesting in a “wtf is wrong with this guy?” kind of way – much like you look at reality TV just to watch the implosion of humanity – I was thinking it would be far more interesting if a few of my fellow posters here at the Jury would co-host with me, or maybe DRJ or others from the main blog.

Who’s interested?

Just in time for the holidays, more self-inflicted economic catastrophe. Yes, that is a B in the post title.

Brought to you courtesy of a former NASDAQ chairman. McCain’s Wall Street greed sermonizing suddenly sounds too mild.

A Wall Street powerbroker for nearly 50 years who built an influential firm has confessed to a massive fraud scheme that will cost investors at least $50 billion, federal authorities say.

h/t Hot Air

PS – Where’s their bailout?

PPS – Watch as this drives Blagojevich out of the news

PPPS – Dang, Patterico already posted on this. I missed it.