A profession is a vocation founded upon specialized high educational training (Wikipedia). For example, you can have a doctor union - it doesn't mean that every doctor is a member in it.
Part of this was also structural, if you think about it. the professionals were typically self-employed or partnerships. The professionals, in other words, were the bosses/upper management. The need for a union, somewhat redundant. Notice, that changes when the State becomes involved. Then you do see, say teachers unions. Hope this helps.
Historically, professions = Upper/Ruling Classes. Members of the ruling class don't (at least historically want/need) form unions precisely because they are/were the ruling class. [Edit: Professional Associations i believe were fairly common, as a vehicle to further the interests of a specific profession.]
Perhaps within the last 100 years, but not "historically" in a general or broad sense. The historical ruling class didn't have professions, they had power.
Up until 1812 or so, I would agree with you. But the landed classes were forced into the professional ranks throughout the 19th C. "To makes ends meet." The Corn laws, ca1830 & ff.
Edit: If I may elaborate on this.
Also, i did not mean the political sense of "ruling class". I meant, strictly speaking, their status as economic agents. If you are a partner in a partnership, you have legal control rights. Same as if you are a material shareholder in a stock-company. You are not an "at-arms-lenght-employee" in other-words. So, the idea that you would need a union for what were in essence "company directors" just does not make logical sense. Again, that changes when (whatever the expertise) thes folks are forced to work for the state; they are then stripped of their control rights and take on a position more akin to Labour, structurally.
I must agree that I specified too short a time period before which the "ruling" class simply ruled and weren't strongly connected to professions and investment activities.
According to the one other source I found, it wasn't the video which led to the charges.
He recorded a subsequent phone call with the police department without notifying them that the call was being recorded. According to Wikipedia, regarding the recording of telephone conversations, New Hampshire is an 'all parties consent' state, and seemingly by his own admission he broke this law. Thus the calls for jury nullification, to ignore a law which they find unjust.
Good question. Here is a complete transcript that I have typed up of the 24 second long phone call that is the controversial call in question. (source: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sEhFwI6IyMU)
Patrol Captain Office, can I help you?
Ah yes, I was calling to see if there was a comment about a video that is surfacing on line of Detective Murphy slamming a 17 year old child on top of a table.
While I agree with your larger point, that retribution (and worse) is not justice, I wouldn't put too much weight on the study you mention.
It's extraordinarily difficult to 'give details' in a completely neutral frame. Without knowing the details of the study, its hard to say more. It seems likely to me that they probably found what they were looking for.
Given the complexity of legal issues, you can explain away every legal study ever the way you just have.
The point that the study was making is that the vociferous folks frothing from the tabloids aren't operating from an informed position, so their opinion shouldn't be held as the canonical one to base policy on.
My favourite example is this: Politicians love to say "it's the will of the people" on topics like this. "Hey, you industry professionals might not like it, but it's what the uninformed general public want". Strangely, they never seem to take the same attitude when it comes to their own pay packets - all of a sudden it becomes "what the public doesn't understand"...
Originators lend the money and sell the loan. It is agreed that the originate to sell model has perverse incentives. However, the point is that home borrowers are not the victims of this fraud. The people who bought securities backed by these loans are the victim of the fraud.
The homeowners got the money, the investors lost the money because the homeowners can't pay it back. The originators and the securitizers (Citi) facilitated the fraud, because they got their cut as the money passed through the pipeline.
Homeowners were mislead as to the viability of the housing market & the concept that a house was a great investment. Many wanted to get in before it got "too expensive". Many of the loan products on the market were misleading as far as the actual costs and mortgage brokers who were hungry to get people into houses often glossed over explaining the viability of the loan.
Some homeowners were stupid, but most people are their own unpaid, untrained, part time financial adviser. The banking, investment & real estate industries have extremely well paid employees who should know better and are paid as though they do.
Absolute twaddle. This is not science -- this is the science industry.
This work is so subjective on so many levels as to be worse than worthless -- rather than increasing humanities knowledge by even a modicum, this 'research' positively reduces human knowledge by simply adding noise. It's a shame that PhD's can't just lecture and are forced to do research. This is the crap we end up with.
The first sentence is not an argument nor is it true. The next sentence follows it up with a non sequitur hypothetical.
Let's say his aging mother died and he continued to cash her Social Security checks for a year, to continue to pursue his dream, would you consider it unethical? The federal government certainly has the money, and he is tenaciously pursuing his dream.
Threatening to bankrupt someone with a nuisance lawsuit that has no merit is not looked favorably on by judges, and a lawyer who says as much risks sanctions from both a judge and the bar association.
