The New Law Firm Mascot

From here.

Democrats Caucus In Colorado On Tuesday March 1, 2016 (a.k.a. Super Tuesday) Starting At 6:30 p.m.

Find the Democratic party location in your Colorado neighborhood here.

Only people registered to vote as Democrats by now may attend.

If you are a Republican, you can still caucus, but you will have no input on your party's Presidential nominee because your party leaders thought that allowing that would attract too many people to the caucus which was too much trouble (really)!  They were also concerned that somebody might accidentally vote for someone who dropped out of the race before the Republican National Convention at which a Presidential nominee is selected -- freeing those delegates to vote their conscience at the convention without being a party insider.

Republican caucus goers, however, do still have a say in who will have access to the ballot in the GOP U.S. Senate nomination race to some extent - and given the low level of publicity that race has attracted, the information voters can obtain at the caucus on this race in order to allow them to form an informed opinion, is worth the trouble.

If you are unaffiliated or you are not registered to vote yet (it's not to late to register to vote for the general election), you don't have a say in the partisan nomination process.

If you are registered to vote as a member of a political party that is not the Democratic Party and not the Republican Party, consult your political party's website for caucus, primary and nominating procedures (which vary).

Also, a few pet peeves.  There is no such thing as the "Democrat party."  Furthermore, you did not "graduate high school." And, this post was not "impactful" even if it had a major impact on your life.

The Horse Race Going Into South Carolina and Nevada

If the polling in advance of this Saturday's Republican primary in South Carolina and Democratic caucus in Nevada, and Tuesday's Republican primary in Nevada and the upcoming Democratic primary in South Carolina are even remotely correct:

1.  Trump will will both South Carolina and Nevada by large margins, second and third place spots will got to Ted Cruz and Marc Rubio, not necessarily in that order while Carson, Bush and Kaisch will fall far behind in 4th to 6th positions, with other candidates who haven't officially dropped out yet like Santorum and Fiorina disappearing into invisibility in the dust.

These results mirror national polls, which also show that Bush is widely hated by the Republican electorate with a large percentage of Republicans believing that he would be a terrible or poor President, while Kaisch has almost no love (or name recognition) either.

Thus, when the dust settles, Trump will have three first place finishes plus a second place finish in Iowa, and no one other than Cruz and Rubio will look like even remotely viable alternatives to Trump for the GOP nomination.  Rubio is probably done if he can't secure at least a second place victory in either Nevada or South Carolina (having already failed to have done so in Iowa and New Hampshire).

The margin of Trump's lead and its uniformity across all Republican demographics, makes it look increasingly likely that Trump will be the Republican nominee.  Indeed, Trump could have the nomination pretty much cinched as soon as late March.

I put the odds that Trump will win the Republican nomination now at about 60%, with a roughly 25% chance of a Cruz nominee, a 10% chance of a Rubio nominee, and a 5% chance of some other nominee.

2. The polls suggest that Nevada's caucuses will produce a Democratic result almost identical to Iowa, with Clinton having a razor thin lead over Sanders that could flip in an instant.  In South Carolina, Clinton's lead over Sanders is almost as great as Sanders lead over her was in New Hampshire.

There is a good chance that Clinton will need super-delegates (where she has an overwhelming lead) to win the nomination, and that the struggle between Clinton and Sanders for the nomination will continue well into April or even May.  The ordinary delegate count between the two could favor either candidate going into the convention and it may take until the late California primary to even determine which candidate will lead in the ordinary delegate count.  But, it seems unlikely that Sanders will be able to overcome the roughly 400 super-delegate endorsement lead that Clinton has secured going into the convention, so even a small ordinary delegate lead for Sanders going into the convention probably means that Clinton will be the nominee.

I put the odds that Clinton will win the Democratic nomination at this point at about 70%, with a 30% chance that Sanders will win.

The fact that the Democratic nomination race will be close will also provide the Democrats with more free publicity in the late spring and summer, closer to the election, after the Republicans have dominated media focus so far in the race.

3. The other consideration is the Michael Bloomberg has threatened to run a third-party campaign if the race comes down to Trump v. Sanders, running as a centrist.  I think that the likelihood that he actually does so in the situation is roughly 50%, and that the odds that he runs in some other partisan nomination combination is roughly 10%.

I think that Bloomberg's chance of winning in a three way Trump-Sanders-Bloomberg race is only about 20% or less.  But, he could act as a spoiler, taking votes either from Trump or from Sanders. I'm inclined to think that a Bloomberg run would hurt Trump a bit more than Sanders, but it is a very hard call and could have the opposite effect.

4. What does all of this imply for the overall probable lineups:

*  Clinton v. Trump (37.8%) - Clinton advantage
*  Clinton v. Cruz (15.75%) - Stronger Clinton advantage
*  Sanders v. Trump  (9%) - Narrow Sanders advantage
*  Sanders v. Trump v. Bloomberg (9%) - Unclear Impact
*  Sanders v. Cruz (6.75%) - Narrow Sanders advantage
*  Clinton v. Trump v. Bloomberg (4.2%) - Bloomberg draws more from Trump favoring Clinton
*  Clinton v. Other (3.15%) - Clinton advantage
*  Sanders v. Rubio (2.7%) - Best chance for GOP, narrow Rubio advantage

Possibilities with a combined likelihood of less than 5%:

*  Clinton v. Cruz v. Bloomberg (1.75%) - Bloomberg draws more from Cruz
*  Sanders v. Other (1.35%) - Sanders advantage
*  Sanders v. Cruz v. Bloomberg (0.75%) - Bloomberg draws ore from Cruz
*  Clinton v. Other v. Bloomberg (0.35%) - Unclear Impact
*  Sanders v. Rubio v. Bloomberg (0.3%) - Unclear Impact
*  Sanders v. Other v. Bloomberg (0.15%) - Unclear Impact

5.  Applying my subjective sense of the odds in each possible lineup, I conclude that:

* Clinton is the most likely person to be our next President with odds better than one in 3 of being the next President, but less than one in 2.
* Trump's odds are about one in 3 of being the next President.
* Sanders odds and Cruz's odds are each about one in 8.
* Rubio's odds are about one in 40. The odds of a Bloomberg Presidency are less than one in 40.  The odds of anyone else becoming the President are significantly smaller than one in 40.

The odds that I have given to Other Republicans and Bloomberg are probably a bit high, and the odds of Bloomberg running are probably a bit high.

Democrats are clearly more likely to win in the general election given the possible lineups and their relative likelihoods.

Consumers More Thrifty In Energy Consumption

While tweaked by surges and falls in oil and gas prices, the long term trend is for energy to be an increasingly small share of consumer spending because consumers are using less energy than they used to due to a variety of energy conservation practice and technologies.

A New Day For American Justice?

Justice Scalia's death on Sunday marks the first time since the late 1980s, when I was in high school, that there has not been a moderately conservative majority on the U.S. Supreme Court.

President Obama will nominate someone to fill this post, whom the U.S. Senate may or may not confirm, and may make a vacancy appointment to the post if he is given an opportunity to do so (although a recent U.S. Supreme Court decision in a case involving the NLRB leaves the Republican controlled Senate a clear roadmap to prevent that from happening).

The U.S. Senate has not abolished the filibuster for U.S. Supreme Court appointments (although there is now precedent to allow it to do so by majority vote) and a majority vote is required to confirm an appointment, so a Republican controlled Senate could refuse to approve an Obama nominee even in a vote on the merits of the nomination (that they might feel politically compelled to hold).  The Republican controlled U.S. Senate probably would refuse to do so if the nominee was viewed as an unabashed liberal.

But, given the reality that the next President could be Bernie Sanders or Hillary Rodham Clinton, and indeed, is more likely to be a Democrat than a Republican, and given the reality that there is a realistic chance that the Democrats will retake the U.S. Senate in the 2016 election, filibustering a moderately liberal Obama nominee to the U.S. Supreme Court might not be a wise choice for Senate Republicans worried about how much a U.S. Supreme Court appointment could shift the court's jurisprudence.

In the meantime, a U.S. Supreme Court divided 4-4 will affirm the U.S. Court of Appeals or state supreme court ruling appealed in all cases that would have resulted in a 5-4 conservative reversal, while almost all cases that would have resulted in a 5-4 liberal ruling will generally result in a 5-3 liberal ruling now, since Justice Scalia was rarely a swing vote in 5-4 decisions decided on partisan lines.  Even in cases where a conservative majority would have voted 5-4 to affirm a conservative decision below, a 4-4 ruling leaving that decision in place will prevent a ruling applicable only in one circuit or only applicable in one state from having national applicability in all courts.

And, as many observers have noted, the U.S. Court of Appeals has a liberal majority in most circuits as a result of seven years of intermediate federal appellate court appointments by President Obama. So, the U.S. Supreme Court more often reverses federal appellate court decisions in a conservative direction than a liberal direction.

The restoration of a liberal majority on the U.S. Supreme Court after more than a quarter of a century could profoundly chance the character of American jurisprudence (for the better).  And, if a Democrat wins the Presidency in November, further appointments could cement this liberal majority for a long time.

Selected Facts About Race and Juries in England and Wales

In England and Wales, there is a widely exercised right to a jury trial in serious felony prosecutions, but jury trials are almost completely absent from civil cases (eminent domain and defamation cases are two of the main exceptions) and misdemeanor cases.  England and Wales have a unified court system without a separate federal and regional set of trial courts, and criminal jury trials are restricted to the Crown Courts which have jurisdiction over felony cases and appeals from the inferior criminal courts called Magistrate's Courts (appeals of misdemeanor convictions are generally resolved in two to three months).

When there is a right to a trial by jury, it bears a strong similarity with its American offshoot, down to a great many fine particulars, but there is not a prohibition on using preemptory challenges to remove non-White jurors from a jury panel as there is in the United States.

[R]acially mixed juries are only likely to exist in courts where Black and Minority Ethnic groups (BME) make up at least 10% of the entire juror catchment area. 79% of the Crown Courts in England and Wales will not meet this criterion. . . . 

The main factor affecting disparities in jury service . . . were the high residential mobility of BME groups. . . . 

Only 20 Crown Courts in England and Wales have a BME population of 10% or more, and of these 12 are found in London, where 45% of the non-White population live. Nonetheless, catchment areas which have fewer than 10% minority members overall may have significant clusters of BME members, sometimes amounting to nearly 30% of the population of an area. . . . 

Most jury trials in England and Wales result in a verdict, and 64% of those verdicts are convictions. . . . 

[T]he term BME . . . as in much usage in the UK, refers to non-White ethnic groups and generally, though not exclusively, to people of Indian or Pakistani origin.

From Lever, "Democracy, Epistemology, and the Problem of All-White Juries" (November 19, 2015).

* The non-white population of England and Wales is extremely geographically concentrated in London and a few other major municipalities.

* Most often mixed race juries in England and Wales outside of London have just one non-white member.

* The predominant minority members, South Asians who are immigrants or children or grandchildren or immigrants, would not generally be considered a population that faces serious discrimination in the United States (relative, for example, to predominately below average socio-economic status African-Americans, non-Cuban Hispanics, Native Americans and Southeast Asians).  But, this is, in part, a product of U.S. immigration laws that assure that South Asian immigrants in the U.S. are predominantly affluent technocrats or businessmen.

* Still, BME individuals, in general, both South Asian and non-South Asian, tend to be more successful on a variety of socio-economic indicators (e.g. educational attainment) than whites in England and Wales. This may help to account for the findings of a small 2010 study conducted using several dozen mock juries that found that all white juries do not in practice discriminate in a statistically discernible manner against BME defendants.

* Conviction rates in British criminal jury trials are much lower than in comparable U.S. criminal jury trials according to the cited source above.  But, Wikipedia cites contrary statistics:

For 2012, the US Department of Justice reported a 93% conviction rate. . . ."In recent years, the conviction rate has averaged approximately 84% in Texas, 82% in California, 72% in New York, 67% in North Carolina, and 59% in Florida." The Crown Court has a conviction rate of 80%, according to the BBC.

Very few federal criminal cases go to trial (with about 95% being resolved by plea bargains instead), and very few federal grand jury indictments requested by prosecutors of people other than law enforcement officers and celebrities are rejected (far less than 1% and probably less than 0.1%).  In all, more than 99.5% of people charged with crimes by federal prosecutors are convicted of something, and the sentencing penalty for not plea bargaining is usually very severe.  Less than one in 200 people charged with a federal crime in the U.S. are acquitted of all charges.

Indictment rates in U.S. states that have grand jury requirements (they tend to be lower in the South and approach 99% in the Northeast), preliminary hearing dismissals in states where preliminary hearings are held, and plea bargaining rates all differ significantly from state to state (although plea bargains resolve 90% or more of cases in most states).  In general, it isn't obvious what is driving the wide disparities between the criminal jury trial conviction rates above (which omit the two states that do not require unanimous juries in criminal trials).

OSHA Still Irrelevant

When a Greeley man working for an oil and gas company died, the Occupational Health and Safety Administration investigated, found that the death was caused by violations of federal safety rules by two companies working at the site, and . . . . fined one company $5,000 and the other company $9,800.  The original fines of $8,400 and $14,700 were reduced without explanation.

The death was part of a series of nine deaths under similar circumstances in Colorado recent years caused by safety violations by oil and gas companies.

But, they don't really care, and why should they, if they are being economically rational and loyal to their shareholders?

Economics works and firms respond to incentives or the lack thereof.  In the case of oil and gas worker safety, there are no economic incentives for companies to protect their workers.

The OSHA fines are pitifully small relative to the seriousness of the offense and the profits generated by the enterprise, and relative to the administrative and legal costs of investigating and pursuing the case.

The OSHA fines probably aren't even large enough to make it cheaper for the companies to comply with the safety regulations than to incur the fines.  It also is not uncommon for OSHA fines to go unpaid for years.

And, since the oil and gas industry is governed by OSHA, which has a tiny budget to cover almost every workplace in the United States, rather than by the Mine Safety and Health Administration, MSHA, which has a similar sized budget to cover the tiny number of high risk mine workplaces in the United States, OSHA lacks the resources to imposed more rigorous regulations or to enforce them with a frequency that amounts to anything more than random chance in the absence of a workplace death. Yet, oil and gas operations are every bit as dangerous or more so than other kinds of natural resource exploitation jobs governed by MSHA.

The family of the man who died can't sue his employer, even though OSHA has established that it violated safety laws, because worker's compensation pre-empts the right to sue in exchange for paying for the minimal medical expenses present in the case of a death, a four or five figure death settlement, and a very modest pension to his surviving wife and minor children if he has any (if this 57 year old man is single, and has no children or has adult children, worker's compensation doesn't have to pay any death benefits other than a meager sum that will barely pay for a funeral).

The company doesn't even pay a deductible when a worker's compensation claim is made by the man's family, and while its rates could go up based upon the employer's claims history, the reality is that most of the risk of regular deaths is already figured into the worker's compensation premium which sets races based upon occupation and industry, which are high for high risks like coverage for oil and gas workers.

Like most private sector workers in Colorado, he was not part of a union, so there was no one, from his union or OSHA, to effectively advocate to provide him with a safe workplace.

So long as the worker's compensation system is in place, the solution to making oil and gas companies respect worker safety is simple:

1. Increase the amount of fines imposed by MSHA and OSHA when a death or serious injury occurs, or there is a near miss that could have caused death or serious injury by roughly a factor of 100.  The fines in a case like this one should have been on the order of $500,000 and $980,000, not $5,000 and $9,800.

2. Transfer jurisdiction over oil and gas workers from OSHA to MSHA, and increase funding for MSHA by a factor of two or three so that it has the resources to investigate the oil and gas industry in addition to its existing responsibilities.

3. Vigorously insist upon collecting the fines that are imposed even if it shuts down non-compliant businesses.

4. Put someone who is willing to aggressively enforce the laws in charge of the agency which shows signs of industry capture.

5. Acknowledge that the model of having OSHA cover every workplace with the power to impose only minimal fines, when it lacks the resources to do so, has failed.  Instead, limit OSHA enforcement powers to high risk industries and cases of actual deaths or injuries, and create a private cause of action to enforce its regulations (even in the case of violations that don't lead to injuries), which it would continue to promulgate for all industries, in all other cases, on a model similar to the EEOC, the Colorado Consumer Protection Act, or the federal and state securities laws.  Arbitration of these claims should be prohibited and class action lawsuits to enforce these regulations should be permitted.

With reforms like that, worker injuries and deaths would plummet, and yet, it is very likely that the industry would remain profitable.

Endings

Yesterday was the end of my colleague Matt Nelson's life.

A week earlier was another ending, the death of my father, whose funeral was last Friday.  At the funeral, I was reminded of the death of my relative (maternal great-uncle?) Gordon's recent passing at the age of 101.  He survived his wife Erma by 20 years.  Gordon and Erma had lived across the street from the Lutheran church that my mother attended as a child for many decades and were an extra set of grandparents for my brother and I.

Yesterday was the end of the professional football season culminating in the glorious victory of the Denver Broncos in Super Bowl 50 (Super Bowl L for those of you who think they should have stuck to Roman numerals), and likely the end of Denver quarterback Peyton Manning's storied career including the most lifetime wins as a quarter back (200), four tries at the Super Bowl (two wins, two losses), and being the oldest quarterback to lead a Super Bowl team (at 39 years old).  It was a remarkable game.  The Carolina Panthers who were favored to win after losing just one game all season ran some of the most innovative offensive plays in the NFL, featuring lots of quarterback rushing yards, lateral passing and unusual formations.  But, they did themselves no favors with an avalanche of penalties in the second half and were put down soundly by the most effective defense in the NFL (the most valuable player was a Broncos defender and one of the Broncos two touch downs was scored by a member of the defensive team following a turnover) and by the Broncos smart, measured offense.  Lady Gaga proved she could deliver a powerful straight line with the national anthem.  Coldplay's halftime performance was so poor that it will probably hurt their upcoming tour, but was rescued by outstanding performances by Bruno Mars and Beyonce who quite frankly belted not only their own lyrics but also Coldplay's better than their front man. It is the third Broncos Super Bowl in franchise history and oddly reminiscent of the Super Bowl win by John Elway who was himself the oldest Super Bowl quarterback at the time.  Congratulations Broncos! There will be a celebratory parade in downtown Denver from Union Station along 17th Street to Broadway and south to Civic Center tomorrow.

Yesterday was the last day of the East Asian Lunar Year (the lunar calendars used by Jews and Muslims also originate in Asia, even though we more often call it the Near East).  Today is the first day of the year of the Monkey, although celebrations in Taiwan have been muted due to an earthquake that flattened a high rise apartment building, killing several dozen.  About 170 people had escaped alive and another 110 were trapped there or missing as this new year dawned.  The new day will see how many of the rest will live.

Last week was the last pre-primary Republican debate. Tomorrow is the first in the nation New Hampshire primary, in which hometown hero Bernie Sanders is sure to prevail by a large margin among Democrats, and in which Republicans will attempt to cull an overcrowded field.  Hope springs eternal that some of the candidates who are far back in the pack in both Iowa and New Hampshire will decide to throw in the towel at that point, allowing support that has been spread among a variety of "establishment" candidates to coalesce among fewer individuals so that they party can decide who to support for the rest of the contests this spring.

Posting frequency will probably be light here and at sister blog Dispatches From Turtle Island, as I assimilate the endings.

Matt Nelson RIP

My fellow lawyer and colleague Matt Nelson died today after a long battle with cancer.  He died long before his time, but due to some extraordinary cancer treatment, survived almost five years longer than would have otherwise been possible, during the lion's share of which he was in remarkably good health.

He was usually one of the first into the office in the morning, worked solidly, efficiently and quietly each day, interrupted only to discuss our cases or share a bit of goodwill.  His understated and plain writing presented complex concepts simply.  He was always willing to help and always humble.  In his personal life, he thought nothing of comforting others in their times of need even as he toiled cheerfully with a long and sometimes painful medical regime.

We will miss him sorely, and our hearts go out to his family that was blessed to have the time with him that they have had.

Quote of the Day

Gene E. Willeke Has Died

My father, Gene E. Willeke, died this morning of natural causes at the age of 81.  A funeral will be held later in the week in Oxford, Ohio.  His first wife, Carol B. Willeke, preceded him in death.  He is survived by his brother, Lowell Willeke, his current wife, Pat Willeke, his two sons, Jon Willeke and I, and three grandchildren.

Musings On Criminal Sophistication

The lion's share of crimes are extremely simple and unsophisticated.  Theft or burglary or robbery of tangible personal property or currency.  Assault or murder or rape with guns or knives or clubs or their bare hands.  Arson committed was gasoline and matches or a cigarette lighter.

Little or no specialized skill or training is required.  The crime itself is usually committed over the course of less than an hour.  Most of the crimes involve just one, or just a few offenders, and just one or just a few victims.  Sometimes there is some premeditation, but just as often, the crimes are opportunistic or impulsive.

The economic returns from these crimes are often small and are increasingly falling.

A small share of crimes are don't fit this mold.  Perhaps the paradigmatic examples of sophisticated crimes are Ponzi schemes, securities frauds, and cyber crimes that steal credit card and financial account information from large numbers of people associated with a credit card merchant.

These crimes require criminals to have high level information technology, legal and financial operations knowledge, are often committed over periods of time months long or longer, are much more likely to involve some manner of deceit than physical force, and give rise to losses that are many orders of magnitude larger than run of the mill unsophisticated crime.

Another class of sophisticated crimes involve "organized crime" usually involving some form of vice and/or tax evasion.  This don't require quite the same skill levels as truly sophisticated crime, but do required coordinated action from very large numbers of offenders within in the organization, often with collusion from public officials.

Most crimes are unsophisticated crimes committed by unsophisticated criminals because most criminals are capable of committing any other kind of crime.  Sophisticated criminals, in contrast, only commit very lucrative crimes, because they have the skill set necessary to engage in decently playing economic activity.  And, because sophisticated crime is so much more rare, the targets tend to be much softer.

My impression is that while organized crime may make up a quite substantial share of all criminal activity (perhaps more than half by economic value or impact) that really sophisticated crimes don't (perhaps 5% by economic value or impact).  But, this intuition may simply be a function of many of those crimes going unsolved and unpublicized because they are hard to solve and tend to have less of a visceral impact on public sentiment when they are discovered.  Given the much larger losses typical associated with each instance of truly sophisticated crimes relative to unsophisticated ordinary crimes, the percentage of criminals who are sophisticated must be smaller still (perhaps less than 1% of the total).

The fact that the number of sophisticated criminals is small, and their impact is large, suggests that focused investigation, prosecution and incarceration of these offenders might have more impact than similar efforts directed at unsophisticated criminals, because one instant of impulsive or opportunistic action by someone with few skills can replace an unsophisticated criminal who is taken off the streets in an instant.

SCOTUS To Lower Courts: You Must Follow Our Orders

One of the perennial problems in writing legal briefs is finding case law to rule out legal positions that are so obviously wrong that nobody every bothers to appeal the issue and create a reported decision on the subject if the lose on that argument in the trial court.

Moreover, when you can find a case that states the obvious it is often old.  For example, just today I was forced to resort to a Colorado Supreme Court case from 1890 in support of a well established rule of black letter law that every law student learns, but is rarely litigated as a result.

But, every once and a while, such a case is decided providing a more recent precedent, so brief writers everywhere who need a case stating that lower courts are obligated to abide by U.S. Supreme Court rulings, rejoice!

James v. City of Boise, 15-493, challenged the Idaho Supreme Court’s, um, idiosyncratic view that when the Supreme Court construes federal law, it “does not have authority to limit the discretion of state courts where such limitation is not contained in the statute.” In just one-and-a-half pages (more than one-tenth of which consisted of a single quote from the Court’s 1816 decision in Martin v. Hunter’s Lessee) the Court clarified that “[t]he Idaho Supreme Court, like any other state or federal court, is bound by this Court’s interpretation of federal law.” Some have speculated that this case is a shot across the bow of the Alabama Supreme Court. The implications of James will become clearer in the future, once we know what has actually happened.

- John Elwood at SCOTUS Blog (some links in original omitted).

Nixon Is The One

One of my colleagues wore a "Nixon Is The One" button today in honor of the Republican Presidential debates today.

Honestly, I can't disagree that, corruption and all, Nixon would still be better than anyone in the current GOP field.  And, even in his misconduct, Nixon had the decency to be shamed by it enough to resign, rather than wearing his deplorable tendencies as a badge of honor.

Political Scientists Blew This Election

As political scientists and data journalists start to admit that we didn't predict Donald Trump (or Bernie Sanders), it's time for some out-there theories!

From Mischiefs of Faction. Mea culpa. My predictions were just as inaccurate on  the GOP side (I assigned only a 6% probability of winning the Presidency combined to the current GOP front runners).

The author of the quoted post, after a moment of humility, ponders why the establishment wing of the parties didn't prevent these outcomes, and suggests that it is more likely that the establishment wing didn't bother or intentionally tried not to influence the outcome than it is that they were incapable of doing so.

Why would they do that?

The different factions in the party can no longer be reconciled, and the priorities of powerful voices within the party can no longer be reconciled with the national mood and its policy imperatives.

Given an over constrained political environment, elites have decided to simply let the process play itself out and resolve the conflict rather than trying to engineer a result when there are no good solutions.

Even if the Republicans lose this election, they may emerge with a more clear sense of identity and a chastened pool of party extremists as the limitations of what is possible are made manifest for them in the electoral results.

All social science theories and conventional wisdom are basically based on the assumption that the present will work like the past did in our society. Usually, their right. But, the really interesting times, because they show that something about the system and society have changed, are when the models fail as they seem to have this year in the 2016 race for President.

Community College Transfers To Four Year Programs In Colorado Have Subpar Success Rates

About one in three community college students nationwide transfers to another college to pursue a four year degree within six years of starting college.  On balance, I'm not convinced that this budget route to a four year degree is a good thing.

Community colleges would serve us better preparing people for abundant "middle skilled" jobs, a task at which K-12 education has dismally failed because we don't want students to settle for realistic aspirations given their abilities.

42 — Percent of students who transferred from community colleges to four-year institutions who earned bachelor’s degrees. 

32 — Percent of students who transferred out of Colorado community colleges into four-year institutions anywhere in the nation who earned bachelor’s degrees. 

28 — Percent of students who transferred from community colleges anywhere in the United States to public, four-year institutions in Colorado who earned bachelor’s degrees. 

23 — Percent of students who transferred from community colleges anywhere in the United States to private, nonprofit four-year institutions in Colorado who earned bachelor’s degrees. 

38.7 — Percent of students, nationwide, who graduate from a higher education institution in four years, according to the Chronicle of Higher Education 

30.3 — Percent of students in Colorado who graduate from a higher education institution in four years, according to the Chronicle of Higher Education.

From here.  Hat tip to Colorado Public Radio.

Colorado community college graduates who transfer to four year programs are much less likely to earn bachelor's degrees than their counterparts elsewhere in the nation.  But, transferee's from Colorado community colleges likelihood of graduating somewhere (32%) isn't much different from students who start college at a four year institution in Colorado (30.2%) (and I strongly suspect that almost all Colorado community college transferees go to Colorado four year institutions).

And, transferees from community colleges anywhere and transfer to Colorado's public four year institutions are less likely to graduate than the national average as well.  This suggests that the problem in Colorado may be on the receiving end as well as the community college end.  This is also suggested by the fact four year graduation rates are lower in Colorado than the national average.

Community college students who transfer to private four year institutions in Colorado are even less likely to graduate than those transferring to public colleges (unsurprisingly since the latter are usually more selective academically and hence geared to more academically able students on average).

The graduation rate for Colorado's community college transferees isn't great, but a lot of that is due to lower graduation rates in general at Colorado's four year institutions and the downsides of a much less expensive community college transfer to a public four year institution approach aren't decisive, particularly since these statistics don't adjust for the possibly different academic abilities upon graduating from high school of community college transfers and direct to four year college students respectively.

Also, the percentage of community college students who wash out rather than transferring, or who finish a two year program, but don't transfer, is very high.  Peer pressure not to stay the course is significant in a way it would be for an academically able student going directly to a four year institution.  The six year bachelor's degree graduate rate of people who start community college is unsurprisingly, much lower than among those who start in four year institutions.

About 1.6 million people earn a bachelor's degree in the U.S. in a given year and about 100,000 of those graduates community college transferees.  So, only about 6% of bachelor's degree recipients took the community college transfer route.  About 13% of people who start community college in a given year will ultimately earn a bachelor's degree.

A key question is how much of the economic benefit of higher education is due to sorting (for which college is a very expensive sorting tool) and how much is due to what one learns in one's program (something that is almost surely the case in STEM fields but is far less clear in other fields). For example, the economic prospects of people who earn two year degrees is only marginally different from those who attend some college but don't earn a degree.

The full community college transfer report is here.

Lot of Nobodies Seek GOP Nomination For U.S. Senate Race In Colorado

A dozen Republicans you've never heard of are the fools who have rushed in where angels fear to tread to challenge Democratic incumbent Michael Bennet in the race for the Republican U.S. Senate nomination in Colorado.

The big names in the Colorado Republican Party have failed to come forward, seeing the race against the moderate Democratic incumbent in a high turnout Presidential election year as a lost cause.

The absence of a strong candidate seems very likely to concede the race to the Democrats this year, despite the fact that in ideal conditions, this seat would be one of the few potential swing seats in the nation.

Oregon Militia Members Arrested After Shootout That Killed One Of Them And Injured Another

Seven Six members of an armed group in Oregon that was occupying a federal nature preserve office since January 2, 2016, including their leader Ammon Bundy, have been arrested.  Another member of the armed group was killed with the joint efforts of the FBI and Oregon law enforcement.  Five of them were arrested and one was killed in a highway traffic stop.  Two more were arrested separately.

Shots were fired during the arrest of members of the armed group. In a joint statement Tuesday, the FBI and Oregon State Police said one individual "who was a subject of a federal probable cause arrest is deceased." No other information about the deceased was immediately released. Another person received non-life threatening injuries and was taken to a local hospital.Those arrested were: 

• Ammon Edward Bundy, age 40, of Emmett, Idaho

• Ryan C. Bundy, age 43, of Bunkerville, Nev.

• Brian Cavalier, age 44, of Bunkerville, Nev.

• Shawna Cox, age 59, Kanab, Utah

• Ryan Waylen Payne, age 32, of Anaconda, Mont.

Also arrested, in Burns, at about 5:50 p.m. PT, was: 

• Joseph Donald O'Shaughnessy, age 45, Cottonwood, Ariz. 

Officials said all six of those arrested face a federal felony charge of conspiracy to impede officers of the United States from discharging their official duties through the use of force, intimidation, or threats, in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 372.

This statute states:

If two or more persons in any State, Territory, Possession, or District conspire to prevent, by force, intimidation, or threat, any person from accepting or holding any office, trust, or place of confidence under the United States, or from discharging any duties thereof, or to induce by like means any officer of the United States to leave the place, where his duties as an officer are required to be performed, or to injure him in his person or property on account of his lawful discharge of the duties of his office, or while engaged in the lawful discharge thereof, or to injure his property so as to molest, interrupt, hinder, or impede him in the discharge of his official duties, each of such persons shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than six years, or both.

CNN reports that the man killed was LaVoy Finicum and that Ryan Bundy was the individual who sustained injuries which were minor, and notes that another member was arrested. According to the CNN report with more details of the incident:

Ammon Bundy, leader of the armed protesters who took over a federal wildlife refuge in Oregon, was arrested and one of his followers killed in a highway traffic stop Tuesday. A law enforcement official told CNN that authorities pulled over two vehicles. 

Everyone obeyed orders to surrender except two people: LaVoy Finicum and Bundy's brother, Ryan Bundy, the official said. Shots were fired, but it's not known who fired first, the official said. 

Ryan Bundy was injured, but Finicum died, the official added. Finicum was among the most outspoken of the occupiers who took over the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge near Burns on January 2 to protest federal land policies. 

Earlier this month, he said he'd rather be killed than arrested. "Absolutely ... I have no intention of spending any of my days in a concrete box," he told NBC News. . . .

All together, police arrested seven people: five in the traffic stop on Highway 395 with Ammon Bundy; and two others in Burns. All seven arrested face a federal felony charge relating to their occupation of the refuge: conspiracy to impede officers of the United States from discharging their official duties through the use of force, intimidation or threats, authorities said. . . . Those arrested are: Ammon Bundy, Ryan Bundy, Brian Cavalier, Shawna Cox and Ryan Waylen Payne. The other two are: Joseph Donald O'Shaughnessy and Peter Santilli.

Finicum got what he asked for and deserved. He also deserves a Darwin Award.

The charges for those arrested sound entirely too lenient to me, but it appears that the standoff is over and that at least the leaders are being charged with serious felonies.  Also, in general, due to the way that federal criminal sentences are calculated, an offender will generally end up serving all or a much larger share of a federal sentence than, for example, a criminal sentence in the Colorado state courts.

Felony convictions of any kind, of course, also deny those arrested the right to be in possession of firearms or ammunition following their conviction, and subject them to stiff mandatory minimum sentences either for firearms possession or for future crimes.

The group's manifesto, claiming that they own federal property and that they have a right to ignore federal law through force of arms and to establish their own court is delusional.  Honestly, it is embarrassing to see grown men act so idiotically.  Their families and their communities should be ashamed to have crazy people like them trying to speak for their interests.

The story is developing and additional arrest, charges and developments are likely to follow.

UPDATE January 27, 2016:

Militant Jon Ritzheimer, who previously made headlines for leading an anti-Islam protest in Arizona, turned himself in to police in Peoria, Arizona and will face the same charges as the other individuals who have been charged. Thus, nine leading members of the armed militia have been killed or arrested. Other militants continue to occupy the site.

Superbowl!

After a long season of close calls, the Broncos nonetheless delivered the goods and will be going to the Superbowl.  My brother's team, the Patriots, were crushed.  The Broncos' Superbowl adversary will be determined later this evening.

God Hates Chess?

In December, Grand Mufti Sheikh Abdelaziz Al Sheikh, the top Sunni cleric in Saudi Arabia has proclaimed that "the game of chess is "forbidden" in Islam because it wastes time and leads to rivalry and enmity among people."

Apparently he didn't want to be one upped by "Shiite Iran's Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani [who] previously declared that chess is religiously prohibited because it could be used for gambling, which is not permissible in Islam."

This would be nutty and absurd material worthy of the Onion, if it weren't for the fact that these are real pronouncements of the most powerful Sunni and Shiite clerics in the world, respectively.  It is the sort of thing that makes you seriously question the sanity of adherents of a world religion with a billion followers.

In a global clash of civilizations in the 21st century, can anyone serious expect the adherents of a religion in which the most influential figures in its two largest denominations can't tolerate their followers playing chess prevailing?

It feels like the rot of a once intellectually vibrant culture that is on the verge of imploding.

Nota bene: Arab Muslims are the ones who brought chess to Europe, back in the days when the Islamic empire was tolerant and in part as a product of that tolerance, powerful.  Chess has played a storied role in Islamic culture for at least 1400 years.