PolyScy | a Political Science blog

There are a few stereotypes in our society, probably brought on by network television and the specter of the untrustworthy, that paint attorneys as either hot-shots in the courtroom, all flashy rhetoric and style, or as shysters, dishonest and greedy. Though these both may exist, the majority would probably not fit into these stereotypes.

Attorneys come in many different types, but all have some tie to the practice of law. Attorneys can do many things, though. Attorneys can give legal advice to those who need it, sometimes avoiding the need for a trial. Oftentimes this is the aim of those who prefer to stay out of court and settle matters in a less traumatic manner than a lawsuit. Sometimes attorneys draft contracts for their clients, ensuring that their clients can, for example, dodge liability in some cases. Contract work, as I understand it, can be rather boring, but I must assume that some find it rather enjoyable, and certainly clients enjoy the end result of not being in any kind of legal trouble. Attorneys can and do represent clients in court or in negotiations, ensuring or at least improving the odds that their clients’ travails have a favorable outcome.

But these are really only shallow descriptions of the occupation, and not an explanation of the role. To my mind, attorneys are of service to people who need help. This help is almost always of a positive kind – legal advice preventing an action, a good contract protecting the parties involved and providing direction, or a favorable outcome in trial.

After all this, I think the role of the attorney is the same as any civic-minded person. We should always – every day – ask the question, “How can I be of service?”

Note: Forgive me, this is a combination of a 1L assignment and a memory of an episode of “The West Wing”. Regular programming restarts tomorrow.

Nate Silver explains why unemployment (probably) won’t get to 10%:
Yup, two links to FiveThirtyEight in a week seem a little much, but I thought this article was too good to resist. This is a ballsy prediction, when even the White House is saying unemployment will top out above 10%. That said, Mr. Silver has a great track record, and is as close to a prognosticator as we have today, and so I tend to at least pay very close attention to what he says. Nate is calling it at around a 2:1 against 10% unemployment occurring, Intrade at essentially 2:1 for 10% unemployment occurring. I’d probably bet on Nate.

Guest Blogger Andrew Foley Over at Mightygodking on the Health Care Debate:
Andrew Foley (among others) is blogging at Mightygodking, a blog of diverse topics, and I’m not sure how they select who writes what, but from that metaphorical hat Andrew must have drawn Health Care. Instead of a dry dissertation on why Obamacare will either save or destroy America, he elected to go with humor. For anyone who is too damn tired to read another screed on this (admittedly important) topic, the above link will be as a cool drink to a man in the desert.

Chris Matthews Breaks Down Gun-Toting Town Hall Protestor:

I’ll let the video speak for itself, but I believe a mark against Chris in this interview is when he goes on a 20 second tangent, asking the protestor if he believes if President Obama is an American citizen by birth. It seemed inconsequential to my eyes, but the rest of the interview is great. Bringing guns to town hall meetings, as it turns out, is wrong.

The Full Text of the House Health Care Bill:
Not especially sexy, but we should probably all know what we are talking about. Its a long read.

Christopher Hitchens is a buzz kill (kinda):
Hitchen’s is usually an entertaining and thought-provoking read, and at least on the latter, he delivers in this article on why the U.S., and especially the Obama administration, fouled up the business of retrieving the two hostages of North Korea (Laura Ling and Euna Lee). That said, I feel he ignores, either knowingly or not, the upside of the operation: Laura Ling and Euna Lee are back in America, and not in North Korea. Hitchens’ thesis is that they were always going to be released, and that we should not have given Kim Jong Il what he wanted, namely, any modicum of legitimacy. I suppose whether this was a success or not depends on whether the freedom of these two women, in the mind of the reader, outweighs any perceived uptick in respectability in Kim Jong Il or North Korea.