conflicts of interest

Does the Amount of Money Change the Logic?

by on March 20, 2011 @ 9:22 am · 1 comment

in Business, Corporatism, Libertarian Theory, Pop Culture, Taxation

“You had ample time over the last two years to make a proposal that would be fair to both sides, but you failed to do so. During the last week of the mediation, we waited the entire week for the NFL to make a new economic proposal … That proposal did not come until 12:30 (p.m.) on Friday, and, when we examined it, we found it was worse than the proposal the NFL had made the prior week when we agreed to extend the mediation.”

~ Letter from NFLPA to Commissioner Roger Goodell

While one would hope the fans and the public would understand what’s really going on with the NFL lockout, it is quite possible that not everyone will “get it.” Some people—and some libertarians—have used a somewhat misinformed, if catchy, description of the situation. That description is: The NFL lockout is millionaires fighting with billionaires over money. While certainly punchy, and containing a nugget of truth, this description also misses the point.

Consider: If this labor negotiation were between business owners and their workers in almost any other endeavor, but particularly one where the workers were paid sums of money that were more “normal,” almost no one would make such a statement. Were this ostensible dispute—it isn’t really a dispute, but more of a money-grab—between the owners of a string of car manufacturing plants and their assembly-line workers, not only would the public side with the workers, but the supposedly liberal media and some members of Congress would be crying loudly as well. Why? In those cases, it would be easy to sympathize with workers. In fact, in that scenario, it’s a safe bet that some would compare the plight of these workers with that of the Wisconsin teachers union. (That would be a huge mistake, but not one that will be explained here. Maybe in the next rant.) The amount of money has nothing to do with the logic.

[Keep reading…]

{ 1 comment }

Kagan Off To A Quick Start

by on October 4, 2010 @ 2:52 pm · 1 comment

in Legal System

According to the Washington Post, Elena Kagan’s past as solicitor general has forced her to recuse herself from 25 of the 51 cases accepted by the court this term. Considering the damage done to all of us by the villains in black, this may make Kagan an early favorite as the greatest Supreme Court Justice in living memory.

{ 1 comment }

The terrorizing, and triumph, of Tonya Craft

by on May 16, 2010 @ 1:33 pm · 3 comments

in Legal System, Police Statism

Last Tuesday, Tonya Craft’s horrific ordeal at the hands of a morally bankrupt judicial system came to a merciful end, as a Catoosa County, Georgia, jury found her not guilty of multiple counts of child sexual abuse, including charges that she molested her own daughter.  The case against Craft was a mountain of lies; virtually all of it was constructed from testimony by the alleged victims, all of whom were of preschool age at the time the assaults supposedly took place.  It became clear during the trial that counselors at the Child Advocacy Center had pestered the children with questions until they offered up whatever “evidence” the state needed for its case.  The prosecution’s inability to specify any details of the assaults, combined with ethically dubious behavior by the prosecutors and presiding judge (who did not recuse himself despite having represented the defendant’s ex-husband in their divorce proceedings), eventually led to an acquittal.  Craft is free, although she has much to do to rebuild her life; she lost her job, her house and custody of her daughter following her arrest two years ago, and her family had to raise half a million dollars for her defense.

Now Catoosa County District Attorney Buzz Franklin blames not his spectacularly inept and unethical prosecution team for the case’s failure, but the jury, biased media coverage, and the internet(s):

I was disappointed with the verdict in the Tonya Craft case.  The State presented a strong and compelling case to support a conviction, however, the jury chose to acquit her and we must accept this decision.  Unlike a defendant, the State has no right of appeal.  However, we need not agree with the verdict.

In most cases, the media strives to present their coverage of criminal trials in a fair and even-handed way that serves to inform the public.  In this case, a number of local reporters openly took sides and heavily slanted their coverage in favor of the defense.

Combined with the dynamics of the internet blogosphere, it created an environment hostile to the State’s ability to receive a fair trial and portrayed the victims and their families in a false and negative light.  This was an integral, purposeful and shameless part of the defense strategy.

The “dynamics of the internet blogosphere” appears to be a reference to bloggers who have covered the trial since its beginning, namely Bill Anderson who provided in-depth coverage on his blog, and Jacob Sullum who wrote for Reason‘s Hit & Run.  Franklin’s statements would only make sense if the jurors had been reading media coverage, which of course they had sworn not to do.  If he believes the jury was tainted, he needs to investigate immediately and not just whine about it to the public.

[Keep reading…]

{ 3 comments }