Rep. Kawasaki Writes Back, Is A Buffoon

Dear Scott,

Because you didn't bother actually reading the email I sent you, I'm not going to bother taking the time to write you back personally. But I will gladly rip to shreds the lame reasons you provided for wanting to produce little Alaskan attorneys.

1. Alaska is unique in that we deal with international treaty and tribal sovereignty unprecedented in other states. We continue to send our best and brightest to learn law and some come back to practice here. Why should another states (sic) legal program dictate interpretation of our state laws? It can be done here and there is a market/talent pool of students who want to learn. We are the only state that imports all of its law students (ed. - you mean lawyers?) from the lower 48.

First of all, neither international treaties nor tribal sovereignty issues are "unprecedented" (do you even know what "unprecedented" means?). There is a festering mass of international law specialists who would love to work for cheap floating around D.C. and L.A., and tribal sovereignty issues are present in Oklahoma, Kansas, the Dakotas, and any state that deals with Indian Gaming. American Indian law is an interesting sub-field that, as far as I know, isn't desperate for specialist attention.

As the 2004 report notes, Alaska has very few law applicants each year, among whom only a select few are truly the "best and brightest." You are ignorant if you think 165+ LSAT people are going to go to UA-Fairbanks law school when Duke or Harvard offers them a substantial scholarship to claim their "students in all 50 states" thing. You have neither the talent pool nor the market to sustain a good law school.

And this idea "another states (sic) legal program dictate[s] interpretation of our state laws" is nothing short of ignorant. Even if that wouldn't continue to be the case, there is no magical trick of statutory interpretation that the UA would teach its students that would be one lick different than what [random lower 48 school] would teach.

2. Alaska has a huge need for physicians and specialties (sic) in rural medicine, alternative medicine and telemedicine. I think that we can become the best institution (ed. - Alaska is an institution? Who is "we?") for what we need the most. It is extremely difficult to recruit (I worked at a hospital) because of various factors. There is proof that students who graduate in an area tend to settle in an area (ed. - huh? Did you mean "in THAT area?") and I support growing our own workforce.

That's great. I said nothing about medicine, so I don't care.

3. There are roughly 16000 doctors and 16000 lawyers produced in a year. It has remained the same since 1980 and there is obviously a need. Roughly half of all physicians who are licensed in the US are from foreign schools right now! The need for quality health care (ed. - you mean the need for quality doctors, right?) will only increase as people live longer.

Scott, are you capable of organizing thoughts coherently? Or is this the "Alaska" mode of rhetoric and e-mail interpretation? For the record, there are 45,000 lawyers produced every year and the number has risen dramatically (unsustainably) since 1980. As I tried to explain to you, medicine and law live in different galaxies and cannot be equated. Stop doing it, you silly third-tier state representative.

4. Having a JD or an MD after your name doesn’t mean that will be the career you end with in the future (ed. - as opposed to ending with it in the past?). I have lots of associates who have JD’s but they run small businesses instead. We should encourage growth and self development and a higher level of education. We are all served better when people are no longer ignorant and Universities (sic) are to accomplish that mission.

My God, you have JD friends who aren't working as lawyers and you don't get it? How about you send them to business school if you want "growth and self development and a higher level of education?"

Or better yet, if you really want "growth and self development and a higher level of education," why not take the money you would spend on a law school and give your "best and brightest" a broad liberal arts education? At least then, they'd have a slightly more "enlightening" degree if they couldn't land a job, they wouldn't have the stigma of a J.D. (and yes, Scott, it's a stigma), and they would likely write and argue better than you.

I think I might move to Alaska. The cost of living is high, but the requirements to be a state representative seem awfully darned low. Anyone want to bankroll this carpetbagger?