Monday, October 26, 2015

Just Do It.


  • Were you curious about the design of the new Supreme Court/Court of Appeals building being built downtown? Also, the groundbreaking is tomorrow. [RJ]
  • Metro is facing civil rights suits over medical marijuana arrests. [RJ]
  • Yet another challenge to Obamacare. [Fox5Vegas]
  • We've had a good response to the Magic Numbers survey so far, but there are still quite a few firms that we don't have responses for yet. You can take it here

18 comments:

  1. The Lowie design for the new courthouse is excellent and a vast improvement over the monstrosity they camp in up north.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It is an abomination. It doesn't fit with any of the mid-mod to modern architecture downtown. A court does not need chandeliers or gold leaf. It looks like a homage to the Crazy Horse II.

      Delete
    2. October 26, 2015 at 12:58 PM - Neo-Classical design has been a hallmark of government buildings in this country for over two centuries. I'd like to see that tradition maintained. And I dont like the fact your trousers have no cuffs either, so there.

      Delete
    3. Its terrible. Its a duplication of the neoclassical design without necessity. We are in Nevada, beacon of progress and freedom. We don't need a building that looks like its straight out of the 1700s. There are ways to build in dignity, and hearken back to the "neoclassical" roots, without looking like a Rococo Disneyland version of a court. For example, look to the north to see Utah's Matheson Courthouse, (housing Supreme court, Court of Appeals, District Court and Juvenile court, which begs the question of why we aren't planning for expansion here.)

      Jordan - I have cuffs on my trousers and shirtsleeves, and still don't like the design.

      I also wonder if it is the most functional. And why have an ode to luxury in our courts. We need an ode to solidity and a beacon of order. So stone instead of something more temporary/fragile sure (although glass=transparency, which is also needed in courts), but frippery is not needed or desirable.

      Delete
  2. The law school scam is back in the news, regenerated now as the bar exam crisis. Today's bar applicants (and tomorrow's attorneys) are objectively less intellectually able because law schools have lowered admissions standards to keep revenue flowing, this at a time when the United States and Nevada already have far too many lawyers:

    http://www.theatlantic.com/education/archive/2015/10/law-school-scam-getting-worse/412159/

    http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/25/opinion/sunday/the-law-school-debt-crisis.html?src=me&_r=0

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Trust two of the most "progressive" publications in the US to be the very last to realize what many have known for more than two decades. Law school, in general, is among the most egregious academic rip-offs.

      In general, law school tuition payments have an awful return on investment. Borrowing, as a means to make law school tuition payments, makes the situation exponentially worse. And wasting three prime earning years of one's life in a classroom listening to some academic windbag expound on the Rule Against Perpetuities compounds the problem even further.

      Closing 60% of all ABA-accredited law schools immediately would be a good start. Removing the Federal guaranty on student loans and making them bankruptable would be another step in the right direction. Of course, none of this will happen. God forbid some poor mistreated, underprivileged, underserved minority should be denied an opportunity to go into a soul-crushing amount of debt.

      Delete
    2. Non-dischargeable debt.

      Delete
    3. So instead we should just let the rich white people go to law school, restrict the market and then everything will work itself out? You're confusing your political ideologies and not so subtly being racist at the same time. Good for you troll.

      Delete
    4. Agree with 3:02. Every American, regardless of race, religion, national origin, gender or sexual orientation should have the right to take a $150,000.00 gamble on their future. Anything less is racist!

      Delete
    5. 3:02 - Not sure that racism played any part in 1:43's post. But thanks for playing that card anyway.

      I cannot conceive of a scenario where borrowing six figures to attend a second-tier or third-tier law school would be a wise financial choice. This is just as true for whites as it is for any other race.

      I also cannot conceive of a scenario where government-guaranteed, non-dischargeable loans are a good deal for either the borrower or the taxpayer. They are a great deal for bankers (many of whom are rich and white, but I digress).

      Rich whites generally don't need to borrow for law school and neither do rich folk of any other race.

      Delete
    6. Unless you're going to a top 20 law school, then borrowing six figures is egregious. Even if you're in the top 20, it can be a terrible gamble. Even if you're "lucky" and land a job that pays New York big firm lockstep salaries and bonuses, you're a slave to a terrible job that you probably hate. I have a friend that went to Berkeley, and now he's a mid-level associate at a big LA firm making over $250,000 a year. He hates his life, but he still turned down his dream job recently because he'd never be able to pay off his loan. I have friends that went to UCLA and Texas. Despite their best efforts, they've never made over $60,000 a year. Even at top 20 schools there's plenty of unemployed and underemployed graduates.

      Delete
    7. Because racism?

      Delete
  3. Hideous and out of place is the only description for the Supremes' Effort.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I don't know, I think the building takes after Richard Harris' building with a little of the flair of the Venetian.

      Delete
    2. Looks like a cross between a strip club and a Mormon temple.

      Delete
    3. I think 1:19 has described all of Vegas' design aesthetic. Throw in hotel for good measure.

      Delete
  4. Simple solution: Allow student loans to be discharged in bankruptcy. The standard for discharge of student loans should be the same as any other debt. Here's why: right now, if I'm a lender, I know that any loan I extend for student loans will be paid back, even if the payment means garnishment of the person's social security. If I'm an institution, I know if I set tuition at the maximum, there are loans for my students to take out (for-profit schools, I'm looking at you). Therefore, I get paid too.

    If, however, as a lending institution, I know that students can discharge student loans in BK at the same standard as any other debt, I'm going to be a little more discerning about the loans I issue. If you're going to "Dave's AC/Heating School", I'm not going to loan you 75K. If I'm the president of Dave's AC/Heating school, I now know that I can't share tuition at a rate that is the same as the maximum my students can borrow. So I either lower tuition, or close my doors.

    Yes, I know interest rates would increase. That's won't deter anyone from taking them. I don't imagine many students saying to themselves, "....hmmm interest rates are now X, guess I won't take out a loan for school".

    ReplyDelete