The Occasional Observer

When I last wrote about the Ave Maria “Florida controversy,” the most relevant fact seemed to be that no move would be possible before 2009. I assumed that meant that not much would be happening in the months to follow. Boy, was I wrong.

Being half-way across the country, I’m not dialed-in to the day-to-day happenings in AMSOL land, but luckily I have the well-written Which Ave Maria blog to keep me informed. The author (Torgo) is, I believe, an AMSOL alum. Thus he's automatically high on my list for having chosen to go to a new law school for reasons of principle over self-interest (there’s always risk going to the new school when the older schools have the established alumni networks, judges, respected diplomas, etc.). Kudos to him.

Unfortunately, he seems to have fallen into some of the traps that the insurgent portion of the faculty set for him. I can’t blame him though, it’s only human nature. I’d probably have done the same thing if I spent everyday with these professors, who are (I’m sure) by and large virtuous men and women with brilliant minds. They would be my intellectual guides as well as my personal mentors. That’s how it’s supposed to happen. What’s not supposed to happen are those same professors using their students as pawns in their attempt to stick it to the boss. Luckily, I’m located far away and my only connection to the situation is reading the occasional thread and posting the occasional observation. I think it’s a little easier to see the lay of the land from my vantage point, but I’ll leave that to the reader to determine (yes, this means you, Beasty, D.C., and SHK).

If you read my earlier post on the issue, my problem with the people who are opposing the move to Florida is not that they oppose it. The feasibility study is being done, and the final decision won’t be made by the Board for some time. So there’s ample opportunity for people, both pro- and con-, to make their opinions known. My problem is the disingenuousness of the manner in which (some of) the anti- group is opposing even the consideration of a move. The disingenuousness manifests itself in a few different ways:

1) Ad-hominem attacks. On Tom Monaghan, the Dean, and the Board (for more on this, see 5c below).

2) The refusal to accept the Board’s judgment: for instance, ignoring the Board’s competence (and, if I may say, the high caliber of its members), and placing a greater emphasis on winning than allowing a deliberative process to play out. In fact, they seem to view the process as a farce and the move as a fait accompli. Perhaps that’s because, like me, they see there’s probably more merit in moving than staying, but perhaps it’s because they just think the Board members are Tom's automatons (for more on this, see 5c below).

3) Conspiracy theories. Maybe it’s the fact that I’m far away and can’t get myself as worked up as those who are close to the situation, but why do I feel like the X-Files theme should be playing whenever I read one of these deeply cynical posts about the Administration? The anti-move contingent seems less concerned with the merits of the move, and more concerned with the fact that they’re going to lose because the cards were stacked against them. The old smoke-filled room argument. You know, since the faculty, alums and bloggers who are against the move can’t kill the process and stifle debate by the Board, there must be dark forces at work. I think these guys need to break out of their current social circles and just go out and enjoy the sunshine. Hey, bet there’s some nice sunshine in Naples, not like those cold, grey, Ann Arbor winters.

One of the things I love about the conspiracy angle is the way that the conspiracy is apparently so complex that the conspirators can't even get their story straight. On the one hand, we now learn, when Tom wanted to stay in MI, they were singing Michigan's praises. But once they were rejected by Ann Arbor township, they were no longer singing Michigan's praises. See, they said Michigan was good before but now are changing their tune (never mind they had to find an alternative because they got screwed by AA Town). And look, now it turns out Plymouth township might have wanted them! Never mind that we have less information on the details of that proposal (transportation logisitics/cost of land/zoning issues/location) than we do on the Naples, Florida proposal. Tom and the Board should have approved any Plymouth Township proposal sight unseen! Oh, the hypocrisy.

4) Obfuscation. The three tactics above are being used in lieu of actually having a rational, constructive debate about the merits of the move. I tried to make some of the points about the merits in my first post, and I haven’t seen or heard anything that refutes them. OK, in all fairness, “I haven’t seen or heard” means strictly in Torgo’s posts, since he’s the only one writing coherently on the topic right now. And I can’t blame him that he doesn’t care about refuting me, he’s got bigger fish to fry.

OK, there was this sarcastic jab about only old people living in Florida, but I guess the fact that Collier County, Florida is growing faster than Washtenaw County, Michigan puts a damper on the fun. If one were to compare the population growth of Florida statewide against Michigan statewide, it would be ridiculously lopsided, so I won't even bother.

There was also this rightly argued post stating that, for a business, a move can be a money-losing endeavor. Of course, since Mr. Monaghan is already willing to lose millions of dollars to make AMSOL the best school it can be, the question of whether the move is a "money-maker" is the wrong question.

So seriously, what is the motivation of the anti-Florida contingent that is both so powerful to drive them to the tactics discussed above, but so unmentionable that it never makes it into print? Perhaps the fact that the faculty and their surrogates realize they’re merely arguing for a subjective preference or their own convenience—something that hardly justifies the scorched earth tactics they’re employing?

5) Scorched-Earth Tactics. Since I’ve already brought it up, this is perhaps the most tell-tale strategy of them all. All the other tactics might have been expected, but this one shows that, as far as the anti-move process gang is concerned, a damaged school is better than a relocated school.

As best I can make out, here's the "anti-" gang's logic:

a. We won’t bother to debate the merits, since that’s obviously not what’s driving us.

b. We won’t tell you what is driving us, because our subjective preference is clearly not reason enough to stop the debate on the merits of a move, so…

c. We’ll obfuscate. First we’ll distract you by using nasty names. We'll tell you that Mr. Monaghan's either a "blasphemer or an idiot." That the Dean has a "contraceptive" and "abortion"-like mentality and is "Stalinist". If that doesn’t do the trick, we’ll outrage you with implications of back room dealing. You've been had! There’s a conspiracy, and you’ve been used like a puppet as part of their "consistent plot." If that doesn’t get your blood up, we’ll tell you that the people making the decision (Board) are incompetent and a bunch of stooges (just don’t look at their C.V.’s). OK, we’ve done all of that. Dang it, they’re still thinking of moving the school, now what do we do?

d. Simple. Sink the ship with everyone on board. This law school will self destruct in 5 seconds. We'll write emails saying the law school should schism and call it a successful few years. We'll write open letters blasting the school's failed leadership (never mind the amazing accomplishments that have been made in an incredibly short period of time). We'll intimate that the Board and Administration have knowingly or negligently been violating ABA standards, with the lingering and unspoken threat that the ABA is or will be informed of this fact. (and what if that leads to AMSOL’s accreditation being reevaluated? If they cared, they wouldn't be flagging these items in a public forum and have gone public with the consultant's findings.) Lastly, we'll drive away prospective students by creating a civil-war atmosphere and then claim: “the students are leaving!” Either we’ll win, or we’ll press the self-destruct button.

In light of these tactics, it’s not surprising to see the "anti-" gang spilling lots of ink to rationalize what they’re doing.

Allow me to paraphrase:

Us? Against the mission? Noooooo! You’re the ones, Board, who were audacious enough to consider moving to a brand new facility, in a brand new Catholic town, in the same community with a sister institution, in a beautiful location, without giving students and faculty veto power over the decision. If you’re willing to even discuss a move, you’ve forced our hands: make Falvey the Dean or we'll engage in a rebellion (break up the school / threaten a faculty walk-out / steer prospective students elsewhere / bad-mouth the school on the net).

I think it's important to point out that there is a constructive way to oppose a potential move to Florida. The faculty could send a private letter to the board of non-support, and candidly state that not all faculty members will be willing to go [I know it's a little pointless now that they've already issued an open letter revolting against the administration and drawing the enitre community into picking sides, but it would have been nice]. Students could write petitions to the board stating why they oppose the move. Opponents of any stripe could write pieces explaining why the law school would be less effective at educating lawyers in Ave Maria, FL, than Ann Arbor, MI. Get the Board the information, then stand back and let them do their job. The vilification, threats, blind nay-saying, and dumping on the very institution they profess to care about, by contrast, is not productive.

As it's been bright and uncommenty, I feel the need to goad our friend. Here's a nice article about forced conversion to Islam in response to the capture of the Fox journalists.

Mitt Romney's momentum is building.

I liked the discussion about consumption tax so much, I felt the need to post about it. I found this objective description of consumption tax on an economics site because I couldn't think of much If a downside. It turns out, there isn't much of one. Let's take a look:

Pros

• Increased tax base. As SheaHeyKid points out we can collect from organized crime and illegal aliens.
  
• Simplified tax code
  
• Discourage those on public assistance from buying luxury items (See Fredo's comment)
  
• Encourages savings, especially for those who should save
  
• Taxes what you take out rather than what you put in
  
• Good for the environment? Discourages disposable products?
  

Cons

• (Help me out here)
  

Here's a decent criticism of it. The author mostly criticizes the VAT, which is obviously a bad idea since many Europeans do it. He also misses the key point of exclusions for necessities.

Hey, who knows? Maybe we could even reduce the size of the IRS!

Here's a great story that goes against expectations. A college basketball player putting parental responsibility ahead of his own ambitions. Mr. Hayles is real hero so we'll probably never hear of him again. After all, if Trey Wingo can't get a catchy call out of it, the media has no use for him.

Hat Tip: Duke Basketball Report

This article by Pat Buchannan succinctly summarizes what is wrong with today's Republican party.

1. Policing the world
2. Big government
3. Facilitating illegal immigration
4. Allowing enormous trade imbalances

Until recently, I've not registered with any party because wanted to keep an open mind and not just vote Republican as a knee-jerk reaction. I'm considering registering as a Republican now so I can vote in primaries and do as much as one vote can to bring the GOP back to classical conservatism. What do you think?

There has been no English-speaking political leader in the last 100 years who could stir the spirit more than Winston Churchill. For no reason in particular, I felt like sharing a few of Winston's rhetorical gems. While these aren't necessarily his more profound quotes, they show off his great (and salty) sense of humor:

"I have taken more out of alcohol than alcohol has taken out of me."

"If you are going through hell, keep going."

"He has all the virtues I dislike and none of the vices I admire."

"The substance of the eminent Socialist gentleman's speech is that making a profit is a sin, but it is my belief that the real sin is taking a loss."

"This report, by its very length, defends itself against the risk of being read."

"Golf is a game whose aim is to hit a very small ball into an even smaller hole, with weapons singularly ill-designed for the purpose."

"I must point out that my rule of life prescribed as an absolutely sacred rite smoking cigars and also the drinking of alcohol before, after, and if need be during all meals and in the intervals between them."

OK, and a couple of profound quotes as well:

"My most brilliant achievement was my ability to be able to persuade my wife to marry me."

"Courage is the first of human qualities because it is the quality which guarantees all others."

"Success is going from failure to failure without losing enthusiasm."

"Success is not final, failure is not fatal: it is the courage to continue that counts."

"A lie gets halfway around the world before the truth has a chance to put its pants on."

"When you have to kill a man, it costs nothing to be polite."

"There is no finer investment for any community than putting milk into babies."

A review in the MSM (OK, sort of: the Washington Times) that is not only positive, but absolutely glowing, for a book by Patrick Buchanan. His new tome on the threat of illegal immigration is, according to Tony Blankely, a must read. I'd probably have read it without the review (since I've read many of his others, e.g., The Great Betrayal, A Republic Not an Empire, Death of the West), but it's nice to see his work getting the due it deserves.

Sen. Allen seems like a reasonably conservative Senator. I have no reason to oppose the possibility of an '08 Allen presidential candidacy other than my subjective sense that he comes across a bit flat. But as the Real Clear Politics blog points out, the recent kerfuffle over Allen's allegedly racist comments is quite revealing.

Witholding judgment on whether his words were, in fact, racist, merely insensitive, or actually justified, Sen. Allen's lack of awareness of how his statements would be used raise the question of whether he has the political sense to run a successful presidential campaign. Here's how RCP saw it:

More on Allen

Over at TAPPED there's a further discussion of this Allen "macaca" comment. I've got to say, the more I hear, the more I think this looks really bad for Allen. For one, Allen speaks French, which makes it quite doubtful he didn't know what the word meant.

You can also read the rest of what Garance Franke-Ruta has to say at TAPPED about the uses of the word.

That he said this on camera -- on a camera being held by his opponent's staffer -- well, this guy is simply beyond stupid.

BTW, for an interesting perspective on the merits of the "racism" claim, the RCP blog had another interesting entry here.

Look around your house. What portion of the products you own was made it China? If you're like me (I'm ashamed to say), it's a large percentage, especially electronics. America's growth was once fueled by our amazing manufacturing capacity. Our endurance through two world wars was in part due to our ability to produce just about everything we needed ourselves. We now have a huge trade deficit, especially with China. We import $100 billion more worth of goods from China than we export to them. We don't know and don't care where the products we buy are made. There is no thought about where that money will end up. There is no thought about who will have a job making the things we use and who won't. There is no concern that we will be unable to produce the goods we might need should we get involved in another war like WWI or WWII.

Why did this happen? Some will try to tell you that we've evolved and we are now a nation of knowledge workers - that we produce ideas. I have a different opinion. I contend that much of this came about because of institutional intervention in free market. Labor unions once played an important role in opposing abuses in industry and improving safety. They have devolved into organizations that artificially raise the price of labor through extortion and promote mediocrity. Minimum wage is another example of instituitional meddling in the free market. Our frien(D)s will tell you it will give the people who earn the least a higher income, when in fact it just leads to more unemployment. It's effect is to artificially raise the price of labor, which causes businesses to employ fewer people because of the expense. I recently read an article (that I can't find to properly cite) that cited the unemployment statistics in France as evidence of this. France has a high minimum wage and a much higher unemployment rate than we do. Furthermore, the unemployent rate among those who typically earn minimum wage (workers from 18-25 years old) was something like 23%! This article added evidence of this in our own country. Some time after the minimum wage was instituted, the market price for labor was well above the established minimum. Miraculously, during this same period, unemployment was at record lows! When will people figure out that regulations on a free market often have the opposite effect than was intended?