Update for you all, I got married one week ago on August 18th, to my beautiful wife, Kellee Ann Lewis, and we are happily living in New York City.  She will be teaching at Leahman High School in the Bronx, and I am starting my second year of law school at New York Law School.  This past year has been busy and hectic, but we are both happy.

Now on to the true purpose of this post.  Lance Armstrong is no more a cheat than I am a seal.  He had over 500 drug tests during his career, and none of them ever tested positive.  He had changing hormones, so what.  He was getting over cancer, which might just explain changing hormones, and many experts believe that he was within the standard range of athletes.  This is a witch-hunt.  Being stripped of his victories is a joke, considering the ONLY evidence against him is the testimony of convicted dopers who are trying to make themselves look better.  

There is no evidence.  A grand jury did not indict him for doping, and the only thing you need to show for indictment is a chance of a crime, which is a low standard.  The Federal Court did not throw the case against the USADA out because Lance was doping, but because they had no jurisdiction over the matter.  And since Lance's only further venue for protest is arbitration before the USADA, by an arbitrator appointed by the body, there is no winning.  I do not blame him for not continuing on his defense.

Furthermore, even if he did cheat, so does almost every other cycler in the sport.  So who do you give the tour victory to?  Jan Ulrich was a cheater, so not him.  How far down do we have to go to not find a doper. The fact is that even if Lance were doping, it would not give him the mental ability to fight his way through the pain of the Tour, especially when he was facing more pain from his cancer.  This is a witch-hunt.  Shame on USADA.  You are failing at your mission, and there needs to be some oversight.

Spring Break

Spring Break is not much of a break.  I'm sitting on the fifth floor of New York Law School, looking out over West Broadway, and thinking of the massive amount of work I need to do.  

I recently joined a student run clinic in New York, called the Suspension Representation Project.  SRP's mission is to advocate for children who are suspended at suspension hearings in New York City schools.  Many of these kids have mental disabilities, or come from unstable homes.  Suspending these kids does not help them.  In training, advocates are taught about the school-to-prison pipeline.  If someone doesn't stand up for these kids, they will be more likely to end up in prison.  The schools sweep a lot of these kids under the rug.  What does that say about the future of society?  

Just something to think about.

Just Vote

People have fought and protested and worked hard for their right to vote.
Why do so many people today take that for granted.  I don't care what you vote for, JUST VOTE!  Read about the candidates for just ten minutes if you have to, and vote.  The power is vested in the "people".  The Constitution didn't anticipate people not wanting to vote.  Tomorrow is Super Tuesday.  VOTE!

Weekly Update - Election problems

Had an interesting idea for the political process.  Get the money out!  When we have people in New York influencing an election for a Texas Senator, there exists and implicit disenfranchisement of the constituent.  Not only that, but it makes the process less accessible for those who want to run, but can't afford to.  The choices at the polls becomes limited to who the people with money want to back.  That's not the process anticipated by the founding fathers.  It is not a process that will continue to work.  Get the money out!

Obama's new tax proposal

Surprisingly, I agree with Obama on the overall reported plan.  Lowering the corporate tax rate, decreasing the amount of tax breaks, and taxing offshore corporate income, can help revitalize the U.S. manufacturing sector.  Manufacturing is the cornerstone of the economy.  We'll see how this proposal evolves.  Hopefully it will do some good.

The Maltusian model is back.  According to the Wall Street Journal, the population growth in rural America is slowing.   According to the Maltusian model, long term economic growth does not happen, rather population increases or decreases with economic output.  With the decrease in population caused by the lack of jobs in rural areas, it appears to follow the Maltusian model.

Also reported in the WSJ this week, the amount of jobs for high school dropouts is decreasing at an increasing rate.  Only 10% of high school dropouts have regular jobs.  The return of manufacturing could increase this number substantially.

Byron (Siwelnor)

Electric Cars and Rent Control

I have one real problem with electric cars, and that is their batteries.  They don't last long enough, both when you consider the capacity, and the effective lifespan.  On top of that, you have to charge them in a certain way, similar to how you charge your phone.  When driving them, you have to know where you are going to recharge again, because there aren't many recharging stations.  They also take quite awhile to charge. The point of all of this, is that a car is supposed to be utilitarian.  As of now, electric cars are not.  

On a separate subject, rent control doesn't work.  It only helps the people already living in the apartments.  It acts as an effective price ceiling, meaning that there will be more people wanting apartments, then there are people renting them out.  The problem then, is a problem of volume.  Rent control acts as a disincentive to potential landowners.  This leads to less apartments being let out, and therefore, less apartments available for rent.  

Siwelnor

Growing up.

I've written some things on this blog that I'm proud of, and some I'm not.  I'm taking this blog along a more professional and mature route now.  I also plan to post more regularly on specific subjects.  When there's something interesting in the news I want to talk about or discuss, read it here.  When me and my classmates have discussions about law or politics, I'll repeat it here.  When  I read something in my never-ending reading list that seems interesting and relevant, I'll post it here.  I will publish my sources.  I will cite any cases.  It is past time to grow up.

Starting with this new trend, today I read an interesting case.  Stambocsky v. Ackley, 572 N.Y.S.2d 672* is a hillarious decision based on the doctrine of caveat emptor, or let the buyer beware.  Ackley decides he see's a ghost, and publishes this in the news, and tell's everyone about it.  He tries to sell his "haunted" house to Stambocsky, and later Stambocsky finds out about the "haunting" and decides to break the contract.  Ackley sues for specific performance**, and the judge goes on a Ghost Busters field day.  It's a great case to read, and if you have access to legal research materials, I would read it.

* Volume 572 pg 772 of the New York state Reporter, Second edition. ***
** A court order to do what you promised to do in the contract, in this case buying the house.
*** This is the footnote format I use.