That's News To Me
Tuesday, April 13, 2004
The Academy of Arts and Sciences: Law
I was interested to see which Chicago Law people were members. I don't know if the AAS is anything more than a bunch of hoity-toity people rewarding other hoity-toity people, but "they" say it's prestigious. Here are the Chicago guys (and yes, they are all guys):
Baird
Currie
Dam
Easterbrook
Epstein
Helmholz
Levmore
Meltzer
Mikva
Posner
Stone
Strauss
Sunstein
Note that Nussbaum is also a member, but in philosophy. And you could throw some of the econ-law guys in there if you really wanted (ahem, Coase). I won't count these people.
13 in all. I count 163 members total. That means 1/12 of all members are at Chicago, which I think is pretty good. Plus, Scalia, McConnell, and Bork all have close ties. They would put us at 1/10th.
Now, of course, the discussion must devolve into a competition, or else it wouldn't be interesting. Compare our numbers to, say, Northwestern (1 member), and we look real good. Yet, Harvard and Yale beat us, so now we don't look so good. We might suck even. But Virginia has 2, so now we look fantastic. But NYU has 9, which is too close for comfort. But Stanford has 5, which is like one less than we have on our 4th floor. But Columbia has 14. Conclusion: We need more! My nominees:
Fischel (really should be on there already, based upon what Ben tells me)
Landes (I think he's omitted on a technicality - not a lawyer)
Hamburger (wrote famous book that changed an area of con law. Perhaps one more book needed?)
Hutchinson (seems like he knows all, and Helmholz made it as a legal historian, so why not?)
MacKinnon (only because she's famous, I don't know if she's any good)
Picker (wrote important parts of the UCC)
E. Posner (up-and-comer. Watch out!)
Sykes (I hear he's impressive. Can't help him much more than that. Ben?)
Alschuler (I guess he's important in crim law)
I think this is a good list of people who aren't so young that they have more promise than accomplishment, and yet aren't so old that their opportunity has passed them by. Ok, Landes is a little old. But the rest are right there. Whoever is in charge of whatever, make this happen.
Does all this have a little air of braggadocio to it? Rest easy, friend.
First of all, I am assuming my entire audience is Chicago people. This is because only Chicago people read this site. I think that fact puts me on pretty firm ground re: my first assumption.
Second, I am not a member. Ben can't become a member because of his extensive criminal record. Tom already turned down their offer - the sumo code places him above such pleasantries.
And last, never forget that all of us at the law school might be compensating for something.
Monday, April 12, 2004
More on corporate obligations
I see my link from yesterday has gotten some attention. To respond to the interesting responses... First, it could be that I've misunderstood (I often do), but I think Carey and Heidi are speaking orthogonally. Heidi seems to be focusing on the corporation qua corporation and Carey seems to be talking about corporate officers. Let me start by responding to Heidi, although I think that my previous post really dealt with Carey's category (even if I missed his main point... sorry!). Heidi writes:
...I don't think there's a lot you can do to change the fact that corporations serve their shareholders. So far we agree!
But this doesn't mean that you can't manipulate what's in the shareholder's best interest. We agree on this too -- this is the basis for my comment that I don't think you really need to worry about corporate directors following the law -- just set the penalties right and their obligation to shareholders will take care of the rest.
Continuing, "As an example: a corporation may want to maximize shareholder profit. In the absence of rules about taxation, it may very well choose not to give the government any money. Shocking? Not quite. And yet--rules about taxation exist. They punish corporations for the "honest mistakes" that Ben finds so shocking to the conscience. Screwing up on your taxes is essentially strict liability."
Now this is totally wrong, unfortunately. I have no problem with punishing the corporation -- obviously that's necessary to my non-regulatory approach (discussed more below). But, Carey was talking about punishing corporate officers, not corporations. To quote the man himself (I've now learned that Carey is, in fact, male): "It's a sad fact of human frailty and intellectual limitation, but the sad result is that the human beings running the corporation are too often not held accountable for even their honest mistakes--let alone their calculated misdeeds."
There's a huge difference between what Carey is saying and what Heidi is saying. Punishment of the corporate officers carries with it the whole parade of horribles I mentioned before (principally, that no one is going to lead the corporation). Punishment of corporations is, as I said above, just fine (so long as we recognize the costs to society). Those issues aside, Heidi's approach ignores the disconnect between punishments and benefits: When one cheats on one's taxes, the benefits redound to the cheater. If GM's CFO cheats on GM's taxes, he benefits only obliquely -- but if you adopt Carey's approach, he takes the whole brunt of the punishment. That, I think, is bad policy. At the least, we should avoid talking at cross purposes.
Moving on to Carey's point, made here. I quote: "But accountability requires more than mere openness. In the case of government, it requires an active electorate who will take note of the behavior of officials and respond to mistakes and misdeeds in whichever way they think is most appropriate. This response can vary from simply noting the mistake and filing it away in memory, to writing a letter expressing disapproval, to voting against an elected official in the next election, to starting an impeachment drive or a campaign to have an appointed official fired."
Fair enough -- I'll agree that corporate managers should be "accountable" to their shareholders, to the extent that that means that they should be punished for poor performance. But let's be very, very careful here: The differences between corporate governance and political governance are, to put it mildly, big. The political values that we care about (equality, for example) just don't matter when we're talking about corporations (and for good reason). We care, for example, that individuals in a democracy are treated according to a one-person, one-vote rule. But there are no large corporations that have adopted such an approach. Rather, corporate governance is about getting those with economic incentives to make the corporation's decisions, as we (reasonably) think these people have the right set of incentives. My point simply is that in the end, it's not clear what "accountability" is left that is appropriate for the corporate setting. Largely this is because corporate law is founded on the "Wall Street Rule" -- you don't like a corporation, you sell your shares. It's easy, and if enough people do that, it will punish management sufficiently (because stock values go down and the company becomes vulnerable to takeovers). The main point, lest we lose the forest for the trees, is that accountability, while good in politics functions differently with corporations.
This slides nicely into my last point, which is simply that we should control corporations through incentives. Let me explain what I mean: Say we want GM to stop polluting some river -- and we decide as a society that we're willing to sacrifice greater wealth, more jobs, higher pay, etc. in order to stop this polluting (we should always recognize trade-offs!). There are a variety of ways to approach this situation, but as I read Carey he would at least partially advocate some sort of "accountability" for corporate officers who decide to pollute despite the law. My point is simply that there's no need for this. If the corporate officers decided to pollute, this simply means the penalty is too low. Rather than setting criminal penalties, or something that distorts other behaviors, just raise the penalty. At some point it will become wealth-maximizing not to pollute, and as long as the managers recognize their first duty is to shareholder wealth-maximization, everyone is the better. Once we start with individual punishments, community allegiances, etc, we get into a world where the whole purpose of a corporation is put at risk -- we no longer know what managers should do (obey the law, or listen to shareholders?), what corporations are (entities which are required to obey the law, or a series of contracts, in which case the duty is still to maximize wealth), etc.
So those are some thoughts... I'm very curious to hear responses.
Not picking up the slack
I was writing a response to Carey's clarification in response to Ben's post from earlier today, then got distracted by a bright shiny object (oooh!), and when I came back, I decided I didn't like anything I'd written and deleted it. I may revisit the issue tomorrow, if Ben doesnt, but will post this instead...
You know you're reading a law WHEN you see the phrase "liquid and gaseous hydrocarbons" used to refer to what the other members of my immediate family, who are employed in the industry, refer to as "oil and gas." 11 U.S.C. § 541(b)(4).
Citecheck Funnies
For some fun reading check out Carolyn Merchant, Radical Ecology: The Search for a Livable World (Routledge 1992). You can find the book by looking for its cover: it shows some sad-looking native people standing in the jungle holding a sign (no doubt provided by the photographer; I mean, if they're so native, where'd they get the sharpie?) which says: "TIMBER COMPANY: YOU ARE SELLING OUR HOME." One could imagine an addendum to the sign: "TIMBER COMPANY: YOU ARE SELLING OUR HOME TO MAKE THE PAGES FOR THIS BOOK."
Merchant (great last name, huh?) then dedicates the book to, who else, "the Earth." I'm sure the Earth appreciates that. Next, under "Acknowledgments," Merchant notes that "Many people, as well as other organisms and the entire planet, have made this book possible." Where the hell is my cut then?
You get the idea.
Response to "Corporate Obligations"
Check out this semi-interesting, but ultimately incorrect post about corporate obligations. My response:
Carey is correct that individuals are moral actors and they should be held accountable when they do bad things. That's both clearly right and not interesting. No "conservative," or anyone else, thinks that Ken Lay should be immune from regulatory policy, or that his actions were excusable or desirable. (After all, Fact #3 about corporations shows that Ken Lay really screwed over the one group he was supposed to be protecting!)
So the post is a nullity in terms of content, except for the odd non-sequiturial conclusion tacked on. The conclusion, that we should have iron-clad regulations, doesn't seem to follow from the lack of openness. Because "Carey" doesn't really discuss why we should regulate further, it's hard to respond appropriately. If the purpose of further regulation is to make society better, that's silly for lots of reasons, not the least of which is that it is futile and antithetical to the concept of corporations that exist (again, per Rule #3) only for shareholders. As I've posted before, when a corporation is answerable to both its shareholders and society, really this just means that the management has free reign to do whatever they want, because they can always find some constituency to whom they are legally accountable to explain their actions.
It actually appears that Carey is a big fan of openness qua openness, but at least to me it's unclear why this is good for corporations. This seems like something that could be adequately addressed through the market. If a company doesn't report its income fully, then investors will back off. It's in a company's interest to be as open as shareholders require (or will pay for, to be more exact). No more, no less.
That, at least, is an interesting debate, but lots of the other stuff Carey says is just wrong, for example, his / her conclusion that those running a corporation aren't "held accountable" for their "honest mistakes." But that's just silly. First, I'd like to know who would volunteer to run a corporation under the Carey-rule of liability for "honest mistakes." I think it's clear that without limited liability for corporate officers, no one, but no one, will serve. Why expose yourself to massive liability by running a corporation? What makes this doubly silly is that Carey has the gall to compare this to a political-type accountability -- but we all know that politicians, for example, aren't (and shouldn't be) exposed to liability for mistakes they make. If Bush's EPA head chooses the wrong benzene limit, it could cause gajillions of dollars of damage, but Bush doesn't have to pay -- at least not with money.
The interesting question, I think, which Carey takes as a given, is Bainbridge's #3, which insists that directors "act within the law." Frankly, I don't see why they should have to. I think that if society wants to control the corporation's activities, it should do so through the obligation to maximize wealth, not by creating new constituencies (i.e. duties to the community).
More to follow...
Antitrust and Texbooks
The Tribue in an article here discusses Gov. Rob Blagojevich's assault on college textbook publishers. Of course, the arsenal of any attack whose basis is "I don't like how X is sold" is the antitrust laws, whose loosey-goosey formulation make them amenable to free-spirited, civic-minded politicians out to score some cheap points. (Sarcasm intended.)
Governor Blagojevich states, "College is the time for our young people to explore those subjects that spark their interest, but that journey could come to a screeching halt due to what looks like price gouging." Actually that quote came from a released statement, which makes it doubly laughable. Or it would be, if accusations of "price gouging" weren't serious. The article notes, at the very end, that textbook publishers make a modest profit on their business. Even if they were making hayloads of money, all the same arguments that apply to the development of drugs (i.e. high fixed-costs, very low marginal costs) apply with equal (if not greater) force here. Low marginal-cost industries are an easy target for politicians because the politicians, unlike the publishers themselves, can take a quaint myopic view that paints the textbook publishers greedy capitalist demons.
The accusations are also dangerous because they encourage enterprising politicians to devise idiotic "solutions." Case in point (from the same article): "the [education] board may look at whether state-led volume textbook buying, on the model of Blagojevich's effort to import lower-cost prescription drugs from Canada--would bring savings." So now we're talking about getting the state into the business of buying books in bulk and then distributing them... This proposal actually really causes me physical pain. It's just such a bad, bad, bad idea for all the reasons that free markets are good... The government just isn't good at responding to market forces, and given the low profit-margins recouped by the publishing industry, it doesn't seem like much benefit would redound to society. In this second-best world of ours, I would much, much rather have the government subsidize textbook purchases than get in the business of buying and selling. (It should go without saying that I would rather the government not be involved at all...)
There's a lot more to say about this, but I leave that to Tom or Brian. For now, it's sufficient to say that antitrust laws in the hands of politicians are dangerous. If something expensive because it costs a lot to make, antitrust laws simply cannot help -- this category of goods is simply beyond their jurisdiction.
TV Quake Film Has Experts Shaking -- Heads
Associated Press
"In NBC's disaster epic '10.5,' massive quakes topple the Golden Gate Bridge, send the Pacific Ocean sloshing over Los Angeles, swallow trucks and chase trains. An attempt to stop the temblors by fusing the San Andreas fault with a series of atomic explosions fails.
. . .
Howard Braunstein, executive producer of the miniseries, acknowledged that the film is meant as 'fun entertainment' and plays loose with the facts."
All well and good. But this is the part I like:
"Asked whether he consulted scientists in developing the project, Braunstein said: 'Not really. We went on the Internet for backup research.'"
Glad to see NBC uses the same time-tested research techniques utilized by 8th graders everywhere. Not that real movies are much better (Sam Houston was at the Alamo? I guess we don't remember it as well as we thought!).
The real question is: why bother? Perhaps this internet research consisted of going on imdb to find actors and actresses who haven't worked in a while, but were once mildly famous. Kim Delaney and Beau Bridges seem to fit the bill nicely.
All in all, I'm anxiously awaiting '10.5,' but in the same way I anxiously await a real earthquake.
Sunday, April 11, 2004
This is intelligence?
So the (in)famous August 6 memo was released over the weekend. Granted, this is the first PDB I've ever seen, but that is it? Anybody who heard, let alone saw, Nic Robertson's interview with Osama a while back heard him say exactly what U.S. intelligence sources report him to say to other people. The new information is the end, namely the FBI's "patterns of suspicious activity [] consistent with preparation for hijackings" and the 70 OBL-related full-field investigations. Of course, that doesn't mean much in and of itself, but it is at least something.
Missing the Point
Fareed Zakaria has this review of Hans Blix's new book in the NYTimes. Decent enough review, but here's the key point:
But if getting Iraq right was tough, getting the diplomacy right was much easier. Reading this book one is struck by how, at the end, the United States had become uninterested in diplomacy, viewing it as an obstacle. It seems clear that with a little effort Washington could have worked through international structures and institutions to achieve its goals in Iraq. Blix and ElBaradei were proving to be tough, honest taskmasters. Every country -- yes, even France -- was coming around to the view that the inspections needed to go on for only another month or two, that benchmarks could have been established, and if the Iraqis failed these tests the Security Council would authorize war. But in a fashion that is almost reminiscent of World War I, the Pentagon's military timetables drove American diplomacy. The weather had become more important than international legitimacy.
One of the key problems with fighting a war seven thousand miles from home is that it's difficult to hide what you're doing. This means the start of the window where the invasion of Iraq could take place was fairly clear. On the flipside, there was also a last-day date, beyond which the invasion would become much riskier. Zakaria's implicit assumption in the above is that success was guaranteed, but that simply was unknown at the time. Had the U.S. waited, say, six weeks, that means a kickoff into May, and daily temperatures into the triple digits. More likely than not, a longer, harder campaign, and more dead Americans, with no guarantee that Zakaria's counterfactual does indeed come true, given the nearly dozen prior years of stonewalling. No thanks, Fareed.
Saturday, April 10, 2004
Beating the Airport Lines, Part I: Check-in
. . . continuing on. Ok, you've entered the airport, and now you see that big ol' line wrapping from here to Santa Fe. What to do?
1. Stay calm. Most people forget this one right away. Some seem incapable of following it. Don't be that person. Corollary: be nice too. Believe it or not, all laws of courtesy and respect for humanity still apply in an airport, unless some unique aspect of the airport compels a different result (aka, if you have an "A" card on Southwest, don't tell an old lady with a "C" card to go in front of you. The Southwest people don't like that). If you can only understand things once their compared to legal concepts (poor you), think of the Butner principle in bankruptcy.
2. Don't get into the first line you spot. You see, because you're calm, you don't feel insecure about not having a line right away. You don't need the line. You're you're own line, damnit. You'll join another line only when it suits your interests.
3. Look for electronic check-in. "But I have a bag I need to check!!!!!!!!" you say impatiently. That is why you fail. Many airports have at least one post where you can check a bag and check-in electronically. This includes the crazy Southwest section of Midway Airport. Look through the vast seas of people for the group of electronic check-in machines, and then look for the only guy Southwest guy not doing anything. That's where it is. These terminals are vastly underutilized. But that's ok, because now you know.
4. Look for the "preferred customer" line. Most airlines have one. It's usually very short. "But Brian, I'm not a freaking preferred customer!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I fly only to attend cousins' confirmations and bar mitzvahs!!!!!!!!!!!" Once again, that is why you fail. Since I fly alot I have some kind of "preferred status" with an airline or two. Let me let you in on a secret: they don't ask. I can't remember one time I've ever been asked what my "MVP number" was for, say, Alaska Airlines. Same goes for the others. They don't expect you to remember. Just act like you belong. They're busy. They'll just check you in. If for some reason they don't, feign the confusion on everyone else's faces (see step 1) and move on. You still have more options.
This step is the only one that's on the ethical borderline. I'm a little ashamed of it. But only a little. We'll make it optional.
5. Check the sky-cap line. Sometimes this line is worse than the line inside, but it often isn't. Shell out the $3 and save yourself the hassle of rolling your bag around it 5-inch increments for 40 minutes.
6. If all else fails, compare the lines inside. There's often more than one, and one is usually significantly shorter than the other. If I were you, I'd take the shorter one.
That's my 6-step program for getting past the check-in line at the airport with your sanity intact. If anyone knows of any other great airport line advice, be sure to comment. But by advice, I don't mean "cut in front of old people. They don't seem to notice."
Check out this site for future installments on airports, including "Airport Ethics" and "Beating the Lines, Part 2: After Check-in."
Friday, April 09, 2004
New York Minute
The Department of Movies That Once Released We Won't Know How We Lived Without presents: New York Minute. Even Eugene Levy and Andy Richter can't withstand the awful stinking power of Mary-Kate and Ashley (and Jack Osbourne). Maybe it's my imagination, but it looks like one of the Oslens spends the whole movie in a towel. Isn't it wrong for Michelle Tanner to be wearing a towel around? Danny would not approve.
Blogging From The Airport: Beating the Lines
. . . ok, they've called my boarding group up. But trust me, there are ways. More later.
Thursday, April 08, 2004
Currie Quip
Professor David Currie has the honor of teaching Con law to Brian, Tom and me. Lucky guy. And talk about cool clerkships, Currie clerked for Judge Friendly and Justice Frankfurter (during the session when the Court decided Baker v Carr). Also of note, Currie has published 27 articles just in the University of Chicago law review.
Point being, today in class we were discussing Yakus and Professor Currie, discussing Justice Rutledge's dissent (which was joined by Justice Murphy), quipped, "Rutledge was a good judge. And Murphy... was in good company."
It's not a good sign when that's the best thing you can say about a judge...
Koizumi and Yasukuni
IE just flipped out and ate my post, so I'll try to recreate it. Yesterday, a Japanese district court ruled Prime Minister Koizumi's 2001 visit to Yasukuni Shrine an unconstitutional mingling of state and religion. When told of the ruling, Koizumi said, "I don't understand why visits are unconstitutional." For those of you who are interested, Art. 20 of the Japanese Constitution (English version here) reads, in relevant part, "The State and its organs shall refrain from religious education or any other religious activity."
For those of you unfamiliar with Yasukuni-jinja (Shrine), it has an English web site in addition to the Japanese one. Basically, it's a shrine to Japanese war dead from the Meiji restoration in 1867 until the end of the World War II. Most controversially, it includes the 8 Class A War Crminals, headed by PM Hideki Tojo, who were executed by the Allies. Visits normally occur on Aug. 15 in honor of Japan's surrender in World War II. On a personal note, I visited Yasukuni in the fall of 1998, and found it probably the most disturbing place I've ever been to. The question of how you should honor participants in what was basically an orgiastic death cult for the last year of the war is a difficult one, of course, but it's still a little bit unusual to see what are essentially flying bombs and swimming torpedoes, particularly when they were used in (generally not very successful) efforts to kill your countrymen. After visiting there, though, I can see why Lee Kwan Yew said that allowing Japan to participate in overseas military peace-keeping is like giving whiskey-filled chocolate to an alcoholic.
"Front-Runner's Fall"
An interesting article from the Atlantic Monthly, "The Front-Runner's Fall" about Dean's campaign. I tend to find behind-the-scenes articles interesting... Reading between the lines there's an odd mentality, not unique to the Dean campaign, but I think endemic in politics generally. The author writes, "exhausted and unbriefed, Dean was forced to admit, under fire from Al Sharpton, that he had never hired an African-American to a cabinet post during his time as the governor of Vermont." Personally, I think that's an odd way to convey what happened. I'm sure Dean was tired, and it may be that Sharpton was going at him, but even so -- the end result was that Dean made a truthful statement (gasp!). I'm curious what being exhausted has to do with it... and I don't understand how briefing Dean would have changed his truthful answer (although I suppose he could have pointed out that his cabinet "looked like" Vermont). Anyway, I think the article displays an interesting mentality -- worth a read.
Also, check out P.J. O'Rourke's article about John Kerry, available here. (Courtesy of Ex Nihilo. Also, Will points out that P.J. has a new book coming out!)
SportsNotReallyCenter
I just noticed this Slate column that captures why SportsCenter is often replaced by The Blank Screen Show around my house. Excerpts:
In contrast, the current roster of Dan-and-Keith wannabes offers all the critical distance, and all the journalistic detachment, of a Gatorade commercial.
[...]
Pro basketball offers a telling test case in the decline of SportsCenter because it is at once the most heavily hyped and the most decrepit major sport.
True, so true. HT to WSJ's Daily Fix (non-permalink).
Wednesday, April 07, 2004
Today's Journal
Make way, lawyer driving!
Today's Wall Street Journal, p. D2 (article here, chart not included), contains a chart showing vehicle accident rates by profession. At the top, unsurprisingly, is student (152 per 1,000), followed by medical doctor (109), lawyer (106), and architect (105). The other side of the list? Politician (76), pilot (75), fireman (67), and the champions of safety, farmer (43).
Building codes
According to this B1 story on converting old office buildings to apartments, it's mentioned that the New York City Building Code requires ventilation (apparently 27-752) and light (perhaps 27-735, same link, but it's not clear how difficult this is to comply with) for a room to be called a bedroom. Ah, government regulation. I mean, how do other cities possibly get light and ventilation into rooms with NYC's Building Code.
Whoops
In the subheading of this B1 story, the capital of Colombia is referred to as "Bogata." They do, however, get the spelling correct in the article.
Local heroics
E-Pos and John Yoo have an op-ed attacking the "International" Court of "Justice" for its recent death penalty decision attacking the U.S. ("scare quotes" mine), and suggest the U.S. take its ball and go home before the ICJ tries to steal it again. Hey, I like to be flippant, what can I say.
OOPS: Here's the op-ed link. Alas, they didn't put it for free on OpinionJournal.
Aren't you (non-existent) glad I don't do this every day.
Tuesday, April 06, 2004
The Wisdom of Christopher Dodd
On April 1, 2004, Sen. Robert Byrd (D-VW) cast his 17,000th Roll Call vote. Below are the excerpted remarks of Sen. Christopher Dodd (D-CT) (HT to friend Bill for bringing this to my attention):
[...] It has often been said that the man and the moment come together. I do not think it is an exaggeration at all to say to my friend from West Virginia that he would have been a great Senator at any moment . Some were right for the time. ROBERT C. BYRD, in my view, would have been right at any time. He would have been right at the founding of this country. He would have been in the leadership crafting this Constitution. He would have been right during the great conflict of civil war in this Nation. He would have been right at the great moments of international threat we faced in the 20th century. I cannot think of a single moment in this Nation's 220-plus year history where he would not have been a valuable asset to this country. Certainly today that is not any less true.
[...]
There is no one I admire more, there is no one to whom I listen more closely and carefully when he speaks on any subject matter.[...]
[End excerpted remarkts]
Robert Byrd voted against the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and filibustered it. Was he right at that time, or was he right when he later repudiated those positions? Was he right when he was a member of the Ku Klux Klan, and when he wrote "[] I should die a thousand times, and see Old Glory trampled in the dirt never to rise again, than to see this beloved land of ours become degraded by race mongrels, a throwback to the blackest specimen from the wilds," or when he repudiated those remakrs? Was he right when he voted against the Supreme Court nominations of Thurgood Marshall and Clarence Thomas, granted the latter probably on partisan grounds? Was Robert Byrd right when he used the phrase "white niggers" multiple times during a 2001 interview with Tony Snow? Was Sen. Byrd correct when he said of Martin Luther King, "And I hope that well-meaning Negro leaders and individuals in the Negro community in Washington will now take a new look at this man who gets other people into trouble, and then takes off like a scared rabbit"?
Well, back to work.
Monday, April 05, 2004
Baseball Season Begins!
Actually, it kinda began a few days ago, but it feels like it began today. Let me put a few things out on the table now:
God/Ichiro will really take-off this year, batting .350 and staying strong through September.
Jamie Moyer will come close to 20 wins. Freddie Garcia will too.
Raul Ibanez will get some attention. Rich Aurilia won't.
Radical prediction: Both John Olerud and Edgar Martinez will bat around .300, hit around 25 home runs, and score around 100 runners. They've only been doing that every year since the dead ball era (aka the '80s).
Oh yeah, I guess there are some other teams too. Here's some more crazy guesses:
Some superstar-laden team will win the AL East, while some minor league team will win the AL Central.
There won't be a subway series. You know, between the Cubs and the White Sox. No one takes the red line between those two parks anyway. Why start now?
Pitchers won't even bother will Barry Bonds. 600 AB, 600 IBB. He'll end the season batting 1.000, or .000, depending on what your childhood was like. Ok, just saw him hit a game-tying home run. He'll get some of those too somehow.
Cubs, Cardinals, and Astros fans will all contend that their team is by far the best in the NL Central long into October, despite the fact that only one of those teams will still be playing.
The Braves will win the NL East again, all this Phillies nonsense notwithstanding. Atlanta just doesn't know how not to.
The Padres will feel much better about themselves now that they have new digs. They'll need it, since they're still a bad team. I guess Arizona will win the NL West. I don't really know. That's what the smart people say.
Ken Griffey Jr. will get hurt again. Oh wait, that's already happened!
(Real) radical prediction: The Mariners will win AL West. Anaheim will be a wild card (and thus the peace between my girlfiend and I will be kept until October). Tough luck, A's and Red Sox.
By the way, check out Espn Page 2's day by day predictions. I can't top that.
I end with a nice point Peter Gammons made (paraphrasing): with all this talk of money taking over baseball (like always), it's useful to remember where the crown has ended up the last three years: with the Diamondbacks, Angels, and Marlins.
What a great game.
Rice Testimony
This whole Condaleeza Rice testifying snafu is really baffling... I just read this article at CNN, "Photo may have nudged Bush on Rice testimony." The photograph in question "shows Adm. William D. Leahy -- White House chief of staff under Franklin Roosevelt and Harry Truman -- appearing before a congressional panel investigating the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor, spokesman Al Felzenberg said."
The article continues, "Felzenberg said commission Executive Director Philip Zelikow faxed the photo Monday to the White House counsel's office to show there was a historical precedent for Rice to testify publicly and under oath." But if a photo of a National Security Advisor testifying is evidence of precedent, does that mean that no matter what Rice says now--no matter how strenuously she insists that this is a one-time act--that a simply photograph is enough to transform her testimony into precedence? Admiral Leahy may have also insisted that his testimony not become precedent -- but the funny thing about precedence is it just needs to exist. After that point it's kinda hard to control.
Sunday, April 04, 2004
Citecheck Funnies
In the course of a citecheck you inevitably run across a few interesting things. There are just too many cases and law review articles, and the law's characters are just too weird, not to run across something. I know Ben agrees with me on this. Last time, I ran across this person, for example. This time, I've run across an article by this person. Somebody explain to an ignorant American how this name can possibly exist. And I'll need something more than "he's French." Perhaps there's nothing more to say.
Ah, but I kid you, Mitchel de S.-O.-l’E. Lasser.
Southern U Scandal
The scandal at Southern University (see CNN article here) is not "news," but I still feel compelled to comment on the administration's handling of the problem. CNN (or the AP, actually) quotes the Chancellor as saying, "I strongly suspect when we start revoking grades, we'll start revoking degrees." Does that strikes anyone else as lukewarm?
In an interview with NPR, the Chancellor was more specific. When asked what had happened, the Chancellor replied that, "Well, I guess some people got a little anxious to get some good grades and chose the wrong path and may have found themsevles in considerable trouble because of it." Excuse me? Some people got a "little anxious"? The Chancellor explained that, "we will revoke those grades, and any degrees had because of those grades," after necessary hearings, if the charges are proven.
Taking a step back, it has become national news that hundreds of SU students obtained their degrees fraudulently. I can't believe how blase the administration appears to be. There are hundreds of students walking around with degrees they didn't earn and don't deserve - this simply isn't a matter of excusable immaturity or "anxiety." For the sake of the thousands of alumni and current students whose degrees deserve to be respected, nothing short of total expulsion (for current students) or revokation of degrees should be acceptable. Or at least, that's what I'd do.
Conan's future
Check out this should-read article on Conan O'Brien's future. It's quite in-depth and very interesting. Unless I am mistaken, Brian and I are in agreement that Conan's show might not work at 11:30. It's just a little too... quirky. That said, the article floats the possibility that Conan might be toying with an 11:30 show on Fox. If any network has the viewer demographics and ability to whither the firestorm the "masturbating bear" brings, it would be Fox.
Saturday, April 03, 2004
On Language On Recusal
William Safire wonders whether a judge "recuses himself" or simply "recuses." Scalia seems to prefer the latter approach (in his recent memorandum, he wrote: ''I do not think it would be proper for me to recuse.''), but I'm pretty sure the former is more common.
A judge from my home state of Washington offers this insight:
". . . [T]o recuse is to challenge the judge. In response, the judge may or may not disqualify himself; he does not recuse himself. Recusal is the process that results in the judge's disqualification."
This statement, if true, would mean my paper on the subject is stuffed full of mistakes - I used the terms interchangeably. While it is entirely possible (likely even!) that I wrote a paper full of errors, I think I have good support for my choices this time: Justice Scalia. Check out these portions of Liteky v United States, 510 US 540 (1994), in which Justice Scalia, writing for the majority, last spoke on recusal in a published opinion:
"Petitioners appealed, claiming that the District Judge violated 28 U.S.C. § 455(a) in refusing to recuse himself." Id at 543 (emphasis added).
"Since 1792, federal statutes have compelled district judges to recuse themselves when they have an interest in the suit, or have been counsel to a party." Id at 544 (emphasis added).
Until Justice Scaila responds to this post and explains himself, I'm going to stick with his earlier choice in my future recusal writings. Stare decisis and all that.
Frakes returns
As I was clicking around watching trailers, I found the trailer for "Thunderbirds," an "Action and Adventure / Family" movie (IMDB here). The exciting part? (You might want to sit down for this.) Thunderbirds is directed by none other than Jonathan Frakes.
Fascinating.
SW DVDs
Will Baude over as Crescat has noted my post last night celebrating the release of the original Star Wars trilogy on DVD. While I share his attitude that seeing only the "Special Edition" version on DVD is lamentable at best, and I will certainly be keeping my VHS copies of the movies as they were actually made, my joy should be nothing more than an expression of my strong preference for DVD as a superior format. Should the Real Edition be released on DVD at any pont in the future, then the "Special Editions" shall be relegated to the dustbin of history.
Friday, April 02, 2004
Book News
USAToday this week released its list of the top hundred best-selling books of the last decade. #1 was Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone. The highest-ranking 2003 release is, oh, gee, Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix. Overall, I've read 31 of the top 100, and unlike, say, AFI's 100 Best Films, or the Top 100 English Novels of the 20th Century, there are very few of those I haven't read I feel I should read.
Also from today's WSJ is a review of The Meaning of Ichiro by Robert Whiting, whose excellent but slightly dated You Gotta Have Wa I highly enjoyed.
This week's NYTimes favorably reviews Rick Atkinson's In the Company of Soldiers about his time with the 101st Airborne Division and Philipp Bobbitt, whose The Shield of Achilles I couldn't force myself to slog through, reviews Lee Harris of TCS fame's latest, as well as a Occidentalism, a response to Edward Said's famed Orientalism, by Ian Burumua, whose previous book on Chinese dissidents Far Outliers has been quoting from lately.
Yoshi!
I have NO idea how it took me this long to find this out, but the originai Star Wars trilogy is being released on DVD (Amazon link).
UPDATE: To everyone reaching this post directly from Crescat, I totally agree, as I said here, or just scroll up a little bit.
Thoughts on the Peloponnesian War
As I mentioned more times than I cared to count, I was going to write a post on Donald Kagan's The Peloponnesian War when I finished it, so, well, here we go. As a book, it's good, I liked it. I'm afraid my copy of Thucydides is still sitting on my shelf, the same place it's been for the past four years. I don't have much to add to the details of the book either in the Amazon reviews or in this New Yorker article, but I will make a few comments anyway.
Normally, when you think of a long, drawn-out war, it's a war of attrition, where one side gradually grinds down the other side to a point where it's quite clear that one side will "win" the war, or at least improve its strategic position compared to the status quo ante bellum (see, now you know where "status quo" came from, if you didn't already), and it's just a matter of how long the one side will keep fighting. To use the War of Southern Stupidity as an example, the secessionists could not have achieved their strategic goal after Gettysburg, but it took until Appomattox for them to acquiesce to that reality. The Peloponnesian War was nothing if not a long, drawn-out struggle, as the 431-404 B.C. date span suggets. However, It was not quite like that archetype. For Sparta to defeat Athens, they needed a navy that could defeat the Athenian navy. They had the rare naval success, but as late as Callicratus and the battle of Arguinsae in 406 B.C. didn't have a navy that could grant them the strategic victory they needed to break Athens' overseas empire. Without some fancy constitutional manipulation to put Lysander back in charge of the Spartan naval forces, giving Sparta access to the Persian Empire's financial resources they needed to build a new fleet, it's not inconceivable that Athens could have emerged victorious, or at least achieved a stalemate. At least implicitly, that raises the question of precisely what the war accomplished, besides killing a few people, but I don't know enough about post-404 B.C. Greece to give a vaguely credible answer.
I was reminded time and again throughout the book that Europe, and the Hellenistic world in general, is really friggin' small. The whole of modern Greece, for example, is just a tad smaller than Alabama, which is the 23rd-largest state. Athens and Sparta themselves were not more than 50 miles apart as the crow flies, and what major land combat there was took place in that piddly little area between the two countries.
To be fair, it was not a constant 27 year struggle. In some respects, it's the ancient version of the Hundred Years War. There was always tension, and always hostility, but the level of intensity of armed conflict was fairly low for much of that time.
When I picked up Geoffrey Parker's Success Is Never Final, review here, one of the things I was hoping his book would deal with is how the origins of the modern state came when a monarch needed to keep his country operating when he and his army were in the field for an extended period of time. Back in the days of really yore (the 5th century B.C., namely, in the days of Victor Davis Hanson's yeoman farmer), the campaign season was shortened by the need to take care of crops and the difficulty in properly supplying and moving an army beyond the campaign season (roughly April-October). The kind of thing you (I, at least) don't really think about these days.
I have long been a fan of reading history. For almost as long, I've wondered just what it is I'm getting out of reading history. What lessons, truly, can you draw from a 27 year war fought by two city-states in a piddly part of Europe over two millennia ago? As the New Yorker article inked about indicates, the standard narrative was Athens-Sparta = U.S.-U.S.S.R. But to make that parallel, should we look at the war itself, or would it make more sense to look at the years before war broke out, from say, Salamis, Marathon, and Thermopylae, where the Greeks fought the Persians (US+USSR v. Nazis) to the start of the war? Or should we compare the Hellenic world and the contest to draw in the Persians to break the deadlock to George Kennan's idea to protect the key industrial bases of western Europe, Japan, and the U.S.?
Does that mean we should take a more atomistic approach to interpreting history then? What to make of, say, the Melian Dialogue, which is still read in International Relations classes? How much can be extilled from the background historical context? To the extent you can extill anything, what does that tell us? That human relationships are universal across time? That humans haven't learned anything in over 2400 years?
Personally, I'm more comfortable with the atomistic approach, which is largely how history is done, anyway, but almost all I read is the works of grander scope. I'm not sure what, if anything, that means. As the preceding paragraphs suggest, I don't claim to have any answers, but I'll go on reading history all the same.
Next up, though, Bruce Schneier's Beyond Fear: Thinking Seriously About Security in an Uncertain World. It won't take nearly as long, and I'll almost certainly have something to say about it.
EEZs and Navassa
In his latest round of general posting, Geitner Simmons notes a dispute between Canada and Denmark over a piddly litte island (details here). There are no details as to why this is important; perhaps the Danish and Canadian foreign ministries are simply bored. One possible reason for why Hans Island may matter is the exclusive economic zone (EEZ). The EEZ was created as part of the 1982 U.N. Convention on the Law of the Sea, Article 5. As the Wall Street Journal editorial page recently noted, riposte by Sen. Lugar here, the U.S. is not a signatory to the 1982 UNCLOS, primarily because of its provisions relating to extraction of materials from the deep seabed (briefly, it's who owns the materials: the world community, or the extractors, with the sides being predictable. at this point in time, it's a moot issue because of cost, but there's no guarantee it won't be in the future). The U.S. does, however, choose to obey some of the provisions of UNCLOS as customary international law, including the 12-mile territorial sea and the 200-mile EEZ. Back to the EEZ, as ably explained and demonstrated by Portuguese government site, it serves as a 200 mile zone where all economic exploration and exploitation rights reside in the possessor country, though it does not include other rights, most notably exclusion. Of those economic rights, the most important is probably fishing, and it's easy to see why 125,000 square miles of fishing rights could be mighty important. That brings us to tonight's tiny speck of land, Navassa.
For those of you poor, deprived souls who've never heard of Navassa, here's the Factbook page. It's a small Caribbean island 70 miles off the coast of Jamaica. First landed on by Westerners by some of Columbus's sailors, it was a pirate hangout during the 17th century, but was without a state claim until a U.S. sea captain landed on it during the 1850's and found it rich with guano. Under the Guano Act, the U.S. claimed possession of the island, and licensed phosphate extractiion rights. The day of phosphate mining eventually passed, but the U.S. Coast Guard placed a lighthouse on it, as it's the first chunk of land you come to in that direction after passing through the Panama Canal (if I get around to it, I may clean up and post an email I wrote on the U.S. and its Panama Canal protection strategy). The lighthouse was torn down in 1996, and the island is now under the Department of Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service. Navassa has also been claimed by every Haitian constitution except that written by the U.S. Marine Corps and also by this guy. According to a story told in class by Prof. Pirtle, the Haitian military has at least once in the past attempted to militarily wrest control of Navassa from the U.S. As told in Pirtle's inimitable style, the Haitians neared Navassa, only to find that the island was occuped by a detachment of United States Marines. Unwilling to provoke a confrontation, the Haitians retreated short of invasion, forced to be content with merely cartographic aggression, to use Nehru's classic phrase. Anyway, here's a links page, a page with pictures, the USGS page, and the Wikipedia page.
Music Suggestion
After watching Britney Spears' video for Toxic (which isn't bad, considering it's, well, bad), I was inspired to suggest better music for those who don't find listening to scantily-clad young women all that inspiring.
My choice this time is Fiona Apple. Many will roll their eyes at this pick, but that's because they forgot about Fiona after her first album, Tidal. That was a big mistake.
Her second album, When the Pawn . . . (the full title is a poem, ignore that), is one of the best albums I've ever heard. Really. It would be in my desert island top 10 - I still listen to it all the time, 5 years later. Produced by the incredible Jon Brion, it's the coolest fusion of pop, rock, jazz, and soul out there. But it's also experimental enough to be more than the sum of its parts. Here's one of those cool picture links if you're interested (disclosure: apparently I get paid like 5 cents if you buy it from my link, but I just used it because it's cool; shop around if you like):
P.S. Fiona hasn't released an album since When The Pawn . . ., but after a five year break she'll be returning to the scene with "Extraordinary Machine" (read about it here) this year.
Thursday, April 01, 2004
A Link From How Appealing . . .
. . . is a wonderful thing. Thanks to Howard Bashman for this one (not to mention placing us in his "Especially Appealing Blogs" section!). We get about a quarter of our hits from that permalink. If it weren't for Howard, we would have to make pestering Crescat for links a full-time job, rather than the 25 hour-a-week venture it is now.
Is GMail real?
I don't know if GMail is real. (For anyone who isn't "in the know," GMail is Google's new email system, through which users get a gigabyte of storage space -- free.) GMail has gotten lots of press coverage see New York Times here or Chicago Tribune here. Of all the articles I've read, only this one from CNN Money suggests that GMail may be an April Fool's Day joke. That seems more plausible than a free gig of storage space (Yahoo charges for just 100 megs). Maybe, we expect more from Google, but as the CNN Money article reminds us, Google is known for pulling pranks.
Readers -- Keep your wits about you, there may be treachery afoot!
Wednesday, March 31, 2004
Computer Trouble
Once again, my computer is out of commission. Put another way, the computer is no more. It has ceased to be. It's expired and gone to meet its maker. It is a late computer. It's a stiff. Bereft of life, it rests in peace. If I hadn't lain in down in my backpack, it would be a monolith, or perhaps a paperweight. It's rung down the circuitry and joined the wires invisible. It is an ex-computer.
So I might not have many posts for the next few days.
Quotes
I've found teachers and my fellow students often say things that are amusing, even if only out of context. Here are some of the better quotes I heard in Winter Quarter:
Frank Easterbrook: "Maybe the chairman of the SEC would make a decision just so he could be invited to more of Katharine Graham's parties." An especially compelling reason for making a decision one way or the other, especially when you consider that Ms. Graham is dead. Sorry, Your Honor.
Also Frank: “You’ve got the 7th Circuit on one side and the 9th Circuit on the other side. What could be more simple? Our job here is not to use those easy cues.”
Randal Picker: “This is important, actually. So was my discussion of ‘Finding Nemo’.”
Picker: “Antitrust conspiracies are always held in smoke-filled rooms. That’s why antitrust conspirators don’t live very long.”
Ditto: “If I told you Landes and Posner did this in an article, how does that affect what you think about it?”
Same: “You live here. Everywhere you want to get to is there. Just like Hyde Park.”
Yep: “Isn’t Jesse Helms right? Isn’t that a good starting premise?”
Cass Sunstein: “Would it be acceptable for Congress were to say ‘We’re going out of business for a year, and appoint to the University of Chicago faculty the power to appoint laws for the next year?” Student's response: “I hope not.”
Cass: “I must confess I’m pondering over a statement by Britney Spears’ ex-husband. When asked if he would like to be married to her permanently, he said, ‘Yes, we’re just friends.’ I’m not sure if that’s profound.”
If you want the rest of them and didn't get the whole list, just ask.
Park This
Candace Parker of Naperville Central H.S., previously mentioned here, has attracted national attention in the past day, including a mention on SportsCenter last night, this ESPN.com story and front page Washington Post story, for winning the McDonald's All-American Game dunk contest. Congratulations to her, though the event was, like the same event at this year's NBA All Star Game, marred by multiple misses from some of the competitors.
The Grade Rant
Those who know me find it difficult to avoid my self-indulgent and slightly condescending speech about what is important about school and what isn't. How's that for a sales pitch! But a recent David Brooks piece brought it to mind, and blogs are an inescapably self-indulgent enterprise anyway. So here it goes. Read on at your peril.
My general philosophy is that you should never confuse "getting good grades" with being a good student. Good students are people who like to learn things and become interesting people as a result. These students should be contrasted with people who don't try, don't care, and just get by.
Good students should also be contrasted with neurotic types whose life will be a failure if they don't achieve X, whether X provides an interesting or rewarding experience for them or not. These people may know a lot, and have a great resume, but they aren't interesting. In fact, they're quite difficult for interesting people to talk to. Law students know this type well: by the end of school, they'll be able to make mention of any doctrine, case, or article you can think of, but you'd never want to sit down and have a nice dinner with them. Subjects of conversation could never be too attenuated from grade-related endeavors. Their intellectual curiousity only extends as far as their assignments.
The lesson is that grades aren't ends, and you shouldn't think of them as valid means to an end either. They're just an externality of learning stuff. Thus, if you are interested in the subjects you take, hopefully you get the side-benefit of good grades, and the opportunities that come with them. But never forget that grades are not the point - the point is that you learned things and became a more interesting person. And if the grades don't come as expected, well, don't dwell on it too much. You must avoid at all costs making choices based upon your marks - avoiding that Corporations class because its low curve places your clerkship resume at risk is a sorry approach to your education. You've got to see the forest through the trees. Opportunities will come to good students, though they might not be the "right" opportunities for the status-symbol-oriented. Plus, people with good character will like and respect you. Their friendship, combined with your interests, will make for a far better life than your grade-obsessed peers'.
That's my speech. A little annoying, I know. And not a little hypocritical, since I don't always live up to its tenets myself. But I still think the general principles are sound.
Given this rant, I enjoyed David Brooks' op-ed in the New York Times yesterday. Here's a snippet:
"Many of you high school seniors are in a panic at this time of year, coping with your college acceptance or rejection letters. Since the admissions process has gone totally insane, it's worth reminding yourself that this is not a particularly important moment in your life.
. . .
You learned to study subjects that are intrinsically boring to you; slowly, you may have stopped thinking about which subjects are boring and which exciting. You just knew that each class was a hoop you must jump through on your way to a first-class university. You learned to thrive in adult-supervised settings.
If you have done all these things and you are still an interesting person, congratulations, because the system has been trying to whittle you down into a bland, complaisant achievement machine.
But in adulthood, you'll find that a talent for regurgitating what superiors want to hear will take you only halfway up the ladder, and then you'll stop there. The people who succeed most spectacularly, on the other hand, often had low grades. They are not prudential. They venture out and thrive where there is no supervision, where there are no preset requirements."
Amen.
Tuesday, March 30, 2004
In 12th Book of Best-Selling Series, Jesus Returns
New York Times
"Like Christian booksellers across the country, Bob Fillingane is doing everything he can to prepare the way for 'Glorious Appearing,' the climactic installment in the 'Left Behind' series of apocalyptic thrillers that goes on sale tomorrow.
Mr. Fillingane, owner of Lemstone Books in Hattiesburg, Miss., has arranged television, radio and newspaper advertisements and even a marquee over the front of his local mall, and next week he will hold a book signing by the authors, Tim LaHaye and Jerry B. Jenkins, on a Bible Belt bus tour from Spartanburg, S.C., to Plano, Tex.
Not that 'Glorious Appearing' needs his help, Mr. Fillingane said.
'I really believe that there is a blessing on this series from the Lord,' he said. 'Just like with the Passion movie, it is all part of the warning we get before Christ returns.' He added, 'Many people have asked me, Do you think they will finish the series before Christ comes?'"
If Jesus does come, does that mean they won't make another god-awful movie? If so, count me in.
Monday, March 29, 2004
A Bohemian Mixer, Anyone?
Tonight I ran across Microsoft's home buying guide. You can enter your zip code and Microsoft will tell you what your neighborhood's make-up is, as well as what the typical resident is like. Apparently, Hyde Park is predominantly filled with "Bohemian Mixes." Sounds like a type of feline. Check out what we are:
"Bohemian Mix is America's Bohemia, a truly integrated mixture of executives, students, actors, and writers who live high-rises. This educated group is dominated by singles, and has the nation's second lowest index for children."
Other categories include "Young Influentials," "Inner Cities, ""Winner's Circle," "Kids & Cul-de-Sacs," "Blue Blood Estates," "Countryside Acres," and "Millionaire Estates." Ok, so those last two are from the board game Life, but you get the idea.
Now check out what Microsoft thinks we in Hyde Park are like:
Go to bars/nightclubs
Play billiards/pool
Do painting, drawing
Use an ATM card
Have a VISA card
Own a Mitsubishi
Drink bottled water
Own a Volkswagen
Buy $100+ jeans
Buy lots of film
Watch Seinfeld
Watch Star Trek-Voyager
Read Travel & Leisure
Read Self
This all gives me a vaguely sick feeling. Still, I'd better get that Mitsubishi . . .
Updating Bundling
Alex Tabarrok of Marginal Revolutions here explains better the point I tried to make about double marginalization a few days ago.
MR's Tyler Cowen also links to lists of the top ten most successful kleptocrats and influential businessmen.
And it's back to work for me.
Sunday, March 28, 2004
Articles of Confederation funnies
Reading over the Articles of Confederation I found this particularly funny phrase: "... unless such State be infested by pirates..." Too bad there aren't more pirate infestations nowadays.
Also I'd forgotten that Article XI of the Articles of Confederation allows Canada to join the US without approval of the states. Pirates and eating up Canada -- they really were the good old days.
Last, can anyone tell me what the proper name for Rhode Island actually is? I've always known it as "Rhode Island," but the official Rhode Island state web site says the name is "Rhode Island and Providence Plantation," and so does the Constitution (see article I). I'm sure there's a good reason for that silly long name, but I'm too tired to look it up. Perhaps I'll update tomorrow.
Indian tikka and cancer
From the If It Tastes Good It Must be Bad Department, (courtesy of Butter Pig) the Guardian reports here that the dye used in tikka masala -- at least the British version -- contains potential carcinogens. Fortunately, it appears from the article that the alleged carcinogen is found in a dye banned in the US (and Norway), so we're safe on that count. However, other dyes used in tikka can cause a litany of bad stuff, ranging from purple skin splotches to hyperactivity in children. I had no idea dyes were so dangerous (but maybe they don't call them "dye" for nothing), but then I love the color of tikka masala, so it's almost a wash :-)
This may help explain why my Indian cooking comes out looking bland in comparison to the real thing. Unfortunately, I don't think this helps me understand why my Indian cooking tastes bad. . .
Sumo Day 15
Results are here. What follows is more or less a running narrative, written as I the action happened, with a few after-comment added in.
Well, I'm only an hour 10 into the broadcast, and the first thing interesting enough to make me stop web-surfing finally happened: a competitive match! Not just one, but three in a row, all of which involved 8-6 Buyuzan against 9-5 Kyokutenho. Naturally, at least one of the first two matches could almost certainly have been decided using a good instant replay system, but the human eye lacks such accuracy, and a constructive tie results in a rematch (most notably, at least during my watching time, I seem to recall the Wakanohana-Chiyotaikai playoff in January '99 going to a replay even though it seemed fairly clear from NHK's replay that Waka had won). Oh, in other early results, Chiyotenzan lost to fall to 3-12 and probably a return to juryo ranks, Georgian (ex-SSR) Kokkai lost to Takekaze, but came in with kachi-koshi (guaranteed wining record), and 8-7 will certainly get him a promotion from West Maegashira #9. As for the Mongolians, Kyokutenho at 10-5 in West Maegashira #2 will be at least a komusubi in May, and possibly a sekiwake. Kyokushuzan went 5-10 at West Maegashira #1 and will probably fall to the M #5-#7 range (I seem to have lost my chart from a couple years ago showing how wrestlers with what records were ranked).
As for records with 7-7 records, Wakatoba (a Juryu rikishi facing off against M-16 Wakanoyama) won, Ushiomaru lost by no contest, which indicates a withdrawal and likely a serious injury, Tokitsuumi won, Tochinada won, Kotoryu beat Dejima in a match-up of 7-7 rikishi, Takamisakari won, Iwakiyama lost, and Wakanosato won. 6-3, 5-2 without the guaranteed result, and really 5-1 when you discount Ushiomaru's injury. I'd say 83% is a pretty good winning perfect for people who heretofore had been .500, though of course correlation =! causation.
Yes, Asasekiryu falls to Wakanosato in a more spirited bout than I was expecting. If it was fixed, as seemd reasonable ex ante, it was done very well. Anyway, this eliminated Asasekiryu from yusho contention, but 13-2 is a fine performance and often enough to take the yusho, tied for 2rd with Kaio and Chiyotaikai
Finally, the yusho match. At the tachiai (start of the bout, or, perhaps better, "face-off"), Chiyotaikai started out with a furious tsuppari (slapping/arm thrusts to the upper body & face), driving Asashoryu back. Chiyo apparently thought he was on the verge of driving Asa back out of the dohyo (ring), or perhaps he merely thought tsuppari was his best/only chance of beating Asa, as he seemed to overcommit himself to that. Asa got in control of himself, side-stepped Chiyo's thrusts, and pushed him down to the dirt to claim his second consecutive zensho yusho, the first time that's been down since Takanohana in 1994 (I think I already mentioned that, but it was in the preview, I think). Prior to Takanohana was Chiyonofuji (Chiyotaikai's stable head, FYI) in 1985. I believe the record for most consecutive bouts won is up in the 69 by Futabayama in 1936 and in the post-war era, 53 by Chiyonofuji (assuming this is accurate). Standing at 30 right now, Asa has a long way to go, but we shall see.
Oh, yokozuna promotion. Relatively few yokozuna have been promoted after two consecutive yusho. Normally, I think you've seen something like wins+yusho=27 leading to yokozuna promotion possibility. With Kaio and Chiyotaikai falling at 13-2 this time around, 13-2 with a yusho next time around would probably be enough. The harder case is a 14-1 second-place finish. I don't know enough sumo history to know if they've promoted to yokozuna without a yusho in the past two tournaments, but I'm not so sure you shouldn't expect it here, particularly if the Kyokai (Nihon Sumo Kyokai, the Japan Sumo Ass'n, the official governing body of the sport that governs rankings and rules) has a perceived need for new blood, as was almost certainly the case with Chiyotaikai's ozeki promotion after his victory in Jan. '99.
What's next? The Natsu (Summer) Basho starts May 9, with the banzuke being release on April 26, so look for more sumo content (though likely not nearly this much) around then. Until then, look for TNTM to be a sumo free zone (and there was much rejoicing!).
UPDATE: The champions list for all divisions is here. In addition to Asa the Mongolian winning the top division, Mongolian Hakuho wins juryo, the second-highest dvision, Bulgarian Kotooshu wins makushita, the third-highest division, and Minaminoshima (lit. "southern island) from Tonga wins sandanme, the fourth-highest division. Unsurprisingly, Asasekiryu took the Shukun-sho (Outstanding Performace Award) and the not-always-awarded Gino-sho (Technique Prize). All in all, not a bad basho for the gaikokujin.
The Pot Is Hairy
The second trailer for "Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban" has been released and can be viewed here. In other HP news, J.K.R. had an online chat earlier this month in which she gave her normal mix of answering questions that would be obvious if you actually bothered to read the books, giving non-answer answers to the good questions, and giving a few discrete pieces of limited information (e.g., new Minister of Magic in Book 6, but not who it is).
Saturday, March 27, 2004
Trailer watch
The Department of Movie Names that Scream High-Brow Comedy presents: "White Chicks."
The trailer actually seems kinda funny.
"Awaking to a Dream"
From the Giving Credit Where It's Due department, check out Thomas Friedman's Sunday editorial.
Least favorite bit of the article: "I want to wake up and read that General Motors has decided it will no longer make gas-guzzling Hummers and President Bush has decided to replace his limousine with an armor-plated Toyota Prius, a hybrid car that gets over 40 miles to the gallon."
How uncomfortable does that "a hybrid car that gets..." clause sound? Yikes. A bad editor at work?
Anyway, I don't agree with some (perhaps many) of the substantive points, but overall, I share in the spirit -- sometimes predictability is suffocating and depressing.
Sumo
Day 14 is over. Results are here, and we have the potential for a three-way playoff. Asasekiryu started off by beating Miyabiyama to improve to 13-1, then Chiyotaikai lost to Kaio, pushing Chiyo's record to the same 13-1, and Asashoryu pushed out Musoyama to keep his drive for back-to-back zensho yusho alive. This sets up the key senshuraku (Day 15 of 15) bout between Asashoryu and Chiyotaikai. If Chiyo beats the Mongolian, then we'll see a playoff involving at least those two (head-to-head results don't count in sumo). If Asasekiryu manages to beat sekiwake Wakanosato, then we'll have a three-way playoff. It's been a few years since the last three-way playoff, so I don't remember quite how it works, whether they do a full round-robin or whether they streamline the process by having first the two lower-ranked wrestlers battle (in this case, Chiyotaikai and Asasekiryu), then the winner faced the other for the yusho. Either way, it should be an interesting final day.
Keep in mind, though, that Wakanosato is 7-7 and needs the win Sunday against Asasekiryu to avoid demotion. The research of Steve Levitt and Mark Duggan provides some hard data to back up my casual observation that wrestlers with a 7-7 record win on the last day all out of proportion to their perceived relative quality, and really, 13-2 is a very fine record for a low-ranked wrestler like Asasekiryu. We shall see, though. Oh, since I'm a law student, I feel I should also point out Mark West's article on sumo, Legal Rules and Social Norms in Japan's Secret World of Sumo, 26 J. Legal Stud. 165 (1997).
As for Ben's comment that this is all gibberish, well, let's break out his problematic sentence. "Chiyotaikai faces off against Kaio, while Asasekiryu is against 8-5 Maegashira #1 and former ozeki Miyabiyama (Musashigawazeki, fer shure) and stablemate Asahoryu faces 9-4 ozeki Musoyama." Chiyotaikai, Kaio, Asasekiryu, and Miyabiyama are all wrestler names. 8-5 is a record of performance through 13 days. "Maegashira #1" is a sumo rank; most wrestlers in maknouchi (the top division of the six divisions in sumo) are maegashira of descending ranks (two wrestlers at each M-rank, an East (higher-ranked) and West (lower-ranked). Depending on how many sanyaku (literally, the top three ranks, but actually includes the top four ranks of komusubi, sekiwake, ozeki, and yokozuna; only "three" since there used to be VERY few yokozuna), you may see Maegasahira going as few as 14 (27 or 28) or as many as 17 (33). Ozeki is, as just noted, the second-highest sumo rank. To become an ozeki requires you to meet some vaguely defined criteria; to become a yokozuna, you must first reach the rank of ozeki. Another special benefit of being an ozeki is you have to have a non-winning record in two consecutive tournaments to be demoted. Ozeki who had a losing record in the previous tournament and thus are vulnerable to demotion if they have another losing record are referred to as being "kadoban."
Finally, the only personal invention in that sentence is referring to Miyabiyama as a "Musashigawazeki." Miyabiyama is a member of Musashigawabeya (Musashigawa stable). When he was promoted to ozeki, Musashigawa dominated the upper ranks of sumo. Take a look here, and you can see what I mean. Of the top-ranked rikishi (lit. "fighters", but "wrestlers" is more accurate, really), Musashimaru, Dejima, and Musoyama are all members of Musashigawa. Stablemates don't fight each other, so Miyabiyama immediately has a strong advantage over non-Musashigawa rikishi. When you look at his performance as an Ozeki (here, from 2000 Nagoya to 2001 Aki), you find no record higher than 9-6, a losing record in 4 of 8 touranments, and an overall record of 57-58. This is DECIDEDLY not up to expected ozeki standards, and why I was so dismissive of him.
Day 15 update coming after the conclusion of the action, and it'll probably be a fairly close to live update. I'll also probably say something about what effect this unusual basho might have on yokozuna promotion, though I could save that until the next tournament preview.
Friday, March 26, 2004
It's all Greek (?) to me
Is it just me, or do other people look at Tom's recent posts on Sumo wrestling and see gibberish? :-)
Maybe it's just me. . . To grab a (not) random sample:
"Chiyotaikai faces off against Kaio, while Asasekiryu is against 8-5 Maegashira #1 and former ozeki Miyabiyama (Musashigawazeki, fer shure) and stablemate Asahoryu faces 9-4 ozeki Musoyama."
Sumo Update
Day 13 results are in, and Chiyotenzan lost again. Of course. But that's not what's really important: that's the battle at the top. Asashoryu topped Kaio to move his record to 15-0 and eliminate the latter from the yusho race. In the clash of two unbeatens, Chiyotaikai beat Asasekiryu. So after Day 13, we have Asashoryu and Chiyotaikai tied with perfect 13-0 records, with Asasekiryu one loss back at 12-1. On the Day 14 schedule, Chiyotaikai faces off against Kaio, while Asasekiryu is against 8-5 Maegashira #1 and former ozeki Miyabiyama (Musashigawazeki, fer shure) and stablemate Asahoryu faces 9-4 ozeki Musoyama. This, of course, sets us up for the climactic senshuraku battle for at least a yusho playoff shot between Chiyotaikai and Asashoryu.
Thanks to Joel over at Far Outliers for linking to my previous sumo posting. Joel, whom I discovered through mentions by Geitner Simmons, has a post from yesterday linking to an excellent Asia Observor article by a Canadian journalist about her dinner in Burma with a Spanish artist.
Thursday, March 25, 2004
Sumo Update
Day 12 of the Spring Sumo Tournament has just been completed, and the results are in. With Chiyotaikai, Kaio, Asashoryu, and Asasekiryu all undefeated after 11 days, something had to give, and today it did when the Kyokai in its infinite wisdom decided to match up Kaio and Asasekiryu on Day 12. Before I get to that bout, though a few notes on some of the earlier ones.
While watching the webcast, the first bout I saw involved Toki. Good to see he's still easily recognizable even after five years.
I saw Chiyotenzan lose to Jumonji today, dropping Chiyo to 2-10 and probably back down to juryo no matter what he does the next three days. He looks like the random generic bottom of makunouchi/top of juryo slob, nothing at all like I remember him being at the start of his time in sumo's top division. That bout did at least involve an unusual kimarite, susoharai. What happened was Jumonji got a good hold of Ten-chan's mawashi at the tachiai and Tenzan kept trying leg sweeps and the occasional kinda-sorta-throw attempt, and Jumonji eventually used one of the leg sweeps against him.
Kotomitsuki put up a fairly furious, but quite brief, tsuppari battle against Chiyotaiki, but the ozeki quickly pushed him out to improve his record to 12-0.
As for the most anticipated bout of the today, it wasn't that, let alone all that and a bag of chips, or even all that. Over in under 2 seconds, according to my watch. The nice thing about TV rather than the direct feed is that you get commentary (yes, most of it is just as banal as your basic basketball and football commentary, but it's still nice language practice for my quite poor and getting worse Japanese) and, more importantly, replays. A normal tachiai, with both thrusting at the other, then Kaio moved to his right and went down. I'm not sure if he slipped on the dirt, or if he tried to do a henka (jumping out of the way of a thrusting opponent at the start of the bout, generally considered in quite poor form, especially against a lower ranked opponent). The kimarite for the match was hikiotoshi, which makes it seem like Asasekiryu pulled a sort-of henka, but that's now how it appeared to me in real-time.
Unusually, the best bout of the day was the last one, as Asashoryu had to deal with a furious challenge from Wakanosato, but managed to reverse an inferior start, manage not to go down when attempting a throw or leg sweep out of the inferior tactical position, turn the tables to a superior tactical position, and finally come through with my favorite kimarite, at least to say, uwatedashinage.
So, at the end of the Day 12, we have a three-way tie for the lead between Chiyotaikai, Asasekiryu, and Asashoryu, with Kaio 1 loss behind (Kotonowaka with 3 losses was eliminated from yusho contention today). Tomorrow's schedule could either provide a clearer picture of the yusho race or significantly cloud matters, as Chiyotaikai battles Asasekiryu, and Asashoryu faces off against Kaio. Note that Asashoryu and Asasekiryu are members of the same heya (sumo stable), and thus won't face each other before a playoff in the event of a tie, so we /could/ end up seeing two zensho (15-0) rikishi facing off come Sunday.
Definitely will be updated come Friday, though almost certainly not at the same time.
Ah, Microsoft
Thanks to Ben, I noticed this post from Prof. Bainbridge on Microsoft and bundling. Bainbridge argues that bundling is anti-competitive and serves to reduce innovation. "Preventing Microsoft from bundling [stuff] into the Windows operating system is critical to preserving competition and promoting innovation." Except that not-bundling may also serve to reduce innovation and kill competition.
Computers and their peripherals are one of the clearest examples of network effects (telephones are probably the best; who'd want a one-phone phone system. sure, you could talk to yourself, but you don't need a phone to do that), where you see intense competition to enter into a market and then once you reach sufficient size you enjoy a monopoly. The suggests that you'll see not just a common OS, but also a common browser, probably a common media player, a universal word processing program, and etc. Microsoft's bundling of a browser, a media player, etc. into their monopoly OS merely helps to ensure that those monopolies are in the hands of Windows. Is this necessarily a bad thing? Bainbridge certainly seems to think so, but it's not at all clear to me that he's right. The literature on double marginalization (a.k.a. the Cournot effect) suggests that if you're going to have a monopoly in two linked products, then it makes a great deal of sense to have them be tied to one supplier, to avoid the problem of two monopolists seeking monopoly rents and thus increasing price and reducing output (the two things that are anathema to antitrust authorities).
Additionally, Bainbridge's flat opposition to bundling seems to say that we have reached the ideal state of the Operating System, and nothing may be added to it, ever. Perhaps he doesn't mean it quite so strongly, but some people do. This assumes, however, that we have reached the ideal state of the Operating System, and it's not at all clear to me that we have. As I noted in a previous post, WSJ columnist Walt Mossberg argued ($) for the bundling of an antivirus system into the Operating System, something that was rather surprising when I read it, but it seems to make a great deal of sense. After all, why shouldn't the generalized hierarchy that makes all the bits of electronics give you something on your screen (the OS) include something that deals with all the threats to that. Symantec (Norton) and McAfee would cry bloody murder and run to the DOJ and Congress, of course, but so what? I don't really see the theoretical problem with antivirus software bundling, though I am sympathetic to the "I don't trust Microsoft to do it well" argument. If, however, M$ did it and didn't do it well, Norton and McAfee would be able to keep selling their products, the same way Corel keeps selling WordPerfect.
UPDATE: Note to self: after hitting Preview Your Post, click Publish Your Post instead of letting it sit on your computer screen for six hours.
Wednesday, March 24, 2004
The Grey Album's next step problem
Tyler Cowen here links to this article discussing the "Grey Album," a mixture of The Beatles' White Album and Jay-Z's Black Album. The "best argument against" this type of mixing:
""A one-off, isolated thing like 'The Grey Album,' yeah, it's interesting," Carter says. "But I think we're going to be getting a lot of it. You're going to get 'The Dark Side of the Moon' album put together with this, 'Sandinista' with Bob Marley. It's gonna be crazy. I think it's gonna get out of control.""
I think that stops one step short of providing a satisfying answer. After all, there's nothing inherently wrong with things getting "out of control" -- what does that even mean? And why would it be bad? I think the potential problems are two: First, those who have a strong aversion to the manipulation of their music--those with a strong desire a type of moral right over their work--will not release music. At least on the margin, this may influence some behavior. It doesn't strike me that a lot of musicians will change their behavior however, and even so, mixing arguably increases demand and may spur other musicians to create more. So that strikes me as more of an empirical question, and not something we can answer in the abstract.
Second, an argument put forth by Landes and Posner is that we want to give broad derivative control over copyrighted works so that authors don't sit on their works. In the cleanest case, this means that we want George Lucas to release Star Wars: A New Hope, and then later go back and do Empire Strikes Back and Return of the Jedi. But if Lucas doesn't have control over derivative works, and he suspects the first movie will be a hit, he may sit on it for several years while he makes the sequels. Thus, if things really get "out of control," some musicians may hold their works back -- that is, Jay-Z doesn't release the Black Album until he's finished mixing the Grey Album. Everyone loses when we wait longer for the things we want.
Even this argument, while somewhat stronger, isn't an airtight case. I'm not really sure, realistically, what the danger is. It seems unlikely to me that the vast majority of artists will stop producing music either because they are offended by the use of their works, or because the return to producing is lower (and, as I mentioned above, there are countervailing forces at work as well). The best argument is still that this creates an incentive to sit on the works -- Jay-Z will release the Black and Grey Albums together, to satisfy demand in both markets. Even so, how big an effect can this be, and how often will it crop up?
Tuesday, March 23, 2004
Random-ish
Reimporting prescription drugs / what's it really good for / killing lots of people.
During the recent blogging outage, I went home and spent some time with my cousins, who happened to be in town on their Spring Break. I ended up watching a lot less basketball and playing a lot more Super Mario Brothers 3 than I expected.
As for basketball, from what I did see, it didn't seem that I missed that much. Most teams have apparently adopted NBA-style iso offenses where you have one player with the basketball, dribbling, looking at his defender, and four guys moving, Monty Python-like in the direction of action every once in a while. Perhaps that's why Syracuse managed to win the title last year: the teams they played were too amazed to see 5 people actually moving on defense that they lost the ability to play basektball; that, and everybody else's inability to make outside shots, the perennial key to beating the zone defense. Of course, the absolute nadir of offensive execution was turned in by Utah, when they got a shot clock violation WITH 13 SECONDS TO GO, DOWN BY 3 in their first-round loss to Boton College. Pathetic.
As for SMB 3, it had probably been at least 10 years since I'd played it, and even with the passage of time, it's still a very impressive, long game for an 8-bit system and a tremendous improvement over the original, which was HUGELY inferior to its old Sega Master System's counterpart Alex Kidd in Miracle World. I don't actually care enough to look and see if I can find sales figures, but apparently Zelda, a game I never played back in the day, but finally acquired and beat a couple years ago more out of a sense of obligation than enjoyment, was one of the games that carried the system.
In other gaming-related news, I also completed my sixth Nethack ascenion over the weekend. That's a Samurai to go with 2 Valkyries, a Knight, a Barbarian, and a Wizard. Next up, who knows.
Still in the pipeline: Kagan's Peloponnesian War, reading history, and soccer transfers.
Sad, and scary
So Hamas has a new leader now.
Quotes the New York Times (from the above article):
"The Israelis will not know security," Dr. Rantisi told the crowd at a memorial service on Tuesday for Sheik Yassin. "We will fight them until the liberation of Palestine, the whole of Palestine."
And in remarks directed at the "military wing" of Hamas, he said: "The door is open for you to strike all places, all the time and using all means."
Barbaric and sad.
Shrink-wrap licenses and personal property servitudes
In the spirit of Brian's earlier post on restrictions on alienability and ebay, check out this clever article by UVA professor Glen O. Robinson on personal property servitudes and shrink-wrap licenses, essentially arguing that the terms and conditions in shrink-wrap licenses constitute servitudes... very interesting.
Evolution and Harvard Law Review
For anyone who missed out on this little kerfuffle, check it out.
Harvard publishes the book review.
Leiter attacks the Harvard law review, with references to this excellent Scientific American article.
Then the National Review publishes a response to Leiter.
Then Leiter fires back at National Review, and conservatives generally.
What a kerfuffle! Leiter clearly has the better argument with respect to ID (science has a way of winning arguments -- or should, at least). I'm not so sure that his animosity toward student-run journals is fair... but more on that later.
Dismay at CNN
Sometimes I read articles from CNN and I shake my head (left to right, not up and down) and sigh. This is one of those articles. I'm not surprised to see how CNN is reporting the news of Israel's missile attack on a known terrorist and murdered--I'd be much more surprised if the news and commentary was thoughtful and neutral.
The above article is entitled "Iraqis express outrage at Hamas leader's killing." You would think, based on that title, that, perhaps, many (or all) Iraqis were expressing outrage at the "killing" (Note: at least they refer to it as a killing, rather than a murder). But reading on, we find that the "Anger welled up in parts of the 'Sunni Triangle,' a region north and west of Baghdad that's a hotbed of anti-U.S. sentiment." That alone, you might think, would be reason to discount the protest as not emblematic of all Iraqis.
CNN goes on to say that "About 1,000 people gathered to protest the Israeli action at a government center in Ramadi." Holy crap! 1,000 people! Now this line is just great (not because it's biased, but more because it's just funny): "It was peaceful until someone tried to fire a rocket-propelled grenade and another person ran a truck into the center's gate, a U.S. military source said." Oh. Well, at least it was peaceful at the beginning. I'm really not surprised that rocket-propelled-grenade-launching-protestors are the ones supporting Hamas...
The article then states that "The international community also condemned Israel's attack." I love how that "also" works to legitimate the views of 1,000 violent protestors.
And then, "Israel's most important ally, the United States, criticized the move as a hindrance to peace but stopped short of condemning it." This is so stupid, it hardly bears explication.
Personally, I couldn't agree with this post by Oliver Kamm any more. Kamm makes a good point about Yassin's wheelchair: "What moral relevance the Foreign Secretary imagines inheres in being old and infirm is beyond my training in casuistry to identify." (Note: CNN couldn't pass up the wheelchair point either: "Israel killed Yassin in a missile strike Monday as the founder of Hamas left a Gaza mosque in his wheelchair.")
Anyway, that's my rant for the day. None of the stuff in the article is over-the-top... but every now and then it's good and healthy for everyone--both sides of the political spectrum--to point out how idiotic CNN is.
Monday, March 22, 2004
Sumo Update
Through Day 9 (of 15) of the 2004 Haru Basho, yokozuna Asashoryu's quest for his second consecutive zensho yusho is still on pace. It's crowded at the top, though, as ozeki Chiyotaikai and Kaio and fellow lowly-ranked fellow Mongolian Asasekiryu are all also 9-0. Suffice to say it's EXTREMELY unusual for four wrestlers to all be undefeated this far into the tournament.
In other results of some note, Georgian Kokkai, the first European to compete in sumo's top division, stands at 7-2, Mongolians Kyokutenho and Kyokushuzan are at 5-4 and 2-7, respectively, my old favorite Chiyotenzan a disappointing 2-7 in his return to the top division, and Tochiazuma, 2 1/2 months ago two good weeks from becoming a yokozuna, dropped out on Day 3 with an injury after losing his first two matches.
To be updated as the situation warrants...
Arrrr!
Avast and ahoy, ye mateys! While it's been over three centuries since Captain Kidd was hanged by the neck until dead and the Jolly Roger no longer terrorizes Spanish galleons, piracy is still alive and well in some areas of this world, as this post by Geitner Simmons shows.
Speaking of Geitner, he also has quality recent posts on warmaking and police work and the South and Adlai Stevenson's 1956 campaign.
Whither the Whats
As I joyously noted last week, Georgetown University fired men's head basketball coach Craig Esherick last Tuesday. I've been away from internet access for the past few days (that should be the next post), so I didn't catch the broader reaction to the firing. Since the athletic department is frankly pretty much all about G'town I care about these days, I thought I'd first link to the articles and then add my commentary.
First, the WashPost's Tom Boswell's column, talking about how wonderful a person Craig Esherick is. Great, wonderful, fine, it's nice to have such a wonderful person as a basketball coach. Unfortunately, he was a mediocre recruiter and a lousy coach, leader of teams that tended to play stupid. Singularly, any of those three could be overcome, but the combination was just deadly.
The real issue with the future of Georgetown basketball is raised by alum Pat Hruby in the WashTimes, and it really isn't limited to the basketball team. The University lacks a clearly defined identity. In the 1970's (and before), it was a Catholic school with Ivy-type pretensions and athletic programs. Then, John Thompson arrived in 1972 and by the early 80's had built a basketball power and raised Georgetown to a level of national prominence. Except he didn't do it within the confines of the university; they shared the 37th & O St. N.W. campus, but it always seemed a marriage of convenience between a basketball coach who wanted to make his mark his way, and an administration willing to give him what he wanted if they got the money they wanted.
After the great Ewing run of 3 national championship games in 4 years, though, the program didn't enjoy the same level of NCAA tournament success. The last real hurrah was the Elite Eight team of 1996, featuring Allen Iverson, Othella Harrington, and Jerome Williams, all three of whom would be first-round draft picks that year. Since then, the only NCAA appearances have been a first-round blowout loss to Charlotte the next year and a fluky Sweet Sixteen trip in 2001, thanks to a buzzer-beater in a win over Arkansas and facing MEAC school Hampton rather than #2 seed Iowa State. The story of the past 8 years, though, has been more tawdry than anything else, featuring more transfers than I can remember and memorable players such as Victor Page (longest suspension in the history of the CBA; declared for draft after sophomore season to avoid being kicked out), Ed Sheffey (97 in a 55, complete with dime bag), and Kenny Brunner (transferred to Fresno State and somehow got kicked off JERRY TARKANIAN's team, mock tryout for Highlander by attacking teammate with samurai sword), and, oh, I can't really bear it.
Anyway, right now Georgetown has the trappings (power conference, historic reputation, massive arena) of someplace that's still a college basketball power, but none of the substance (players, schedule, attendance, coaching, current reputation). Whoever comes in as the next coach will have to know whether he is expected to, and will have the resources to, become a college basketball power once again, or whether the expectation will simply be not to embarrass the university.
Saturday, March 20, 2004
Programming Note
I'll be on vacation all this week. However, Ben and Tom will be around, so expect good stuff from them.
Friday, March 19, 2004
Restrictions on Alienability, Anti-Commodification, and eBay
A few days ago this article appeared in the New York Times about the problem of girl scouts selling cookies on eBay. The girl scout rules forbid this, in order to promote "the activity" of selling to the public. I see their point. Unfortunately, market forces are tearing the rule apart. In some areas, there's a surplus of supply because of high scout concentrations. In other areas, you can't get ahold of the cookies to save your life.
It doesn't take Milton Friedman to see what's going to happen - the scouts use loopholes to circumvent the restriction. The most popular way, it seems, is to auction off cookie order forms. However, I'd advise the method often used with Southwest Airlines' rapid rewards tickets (which also have a restriction on alienability) - people sell "one free alcoholic beverage" tickets for about $180, with the "bonus" gift of a rapid rewards ticket. It seems the difference is whether something is purchased or given, but clearly the distinction is spurious in practice.
This situation reminds me of the general principle in property law against restrictions on alienability. As I was taught it, the ultimate goal was to avoid the European problem of land being tied up for ages by complex wills. For example, a great case in this area is Johnson v Whiton, 159 Mass 424 (Mass 1893), in which then-Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court Justice Holmes faced a will with the following restriction:
"After the decease of all my children, I give, devise, and bequeath to my granddaughter, Sarah A. Whiton, and her heirs on her father's side, one third part of all my estate, both real and personal . . .." (emphasis added)
The effect of this condition was to keep the property in the Whiton side of the family for time eternal - if you weren't a blood relative to Whiton, you couldn't receive the fee. Professor Helmholz noted that the backstory of this case was Mr. Royal Whiton's distaste for Mrs. Whiton and her side of the family. This condition in the will was Royal's creative way of paying her back for years of nagging. Justice Holmes wasn't having it. After noting the English and French rules allowing restrictions by blood, Holmes grandly announces that "inherited property may pass from one line to the other in Massachusetts." And that was that.
Justice Holmes' opinion is grounded in little more than a policy preference, but it's a good one. Restrictions on alienability usually impede the transfer of goods to increasingly efficient uses. This preference is also seen in property law concerning adverse possession, the rule against perpetuities, and others I probably don't even know of.
From this discussion, one could conclude that eBay, like the market entire, should be open to anything. Fighting market forces is as futile as it is inefficient. Consider this recent news story, however:
"EBay halted an auction this week and suspended a Taiwanese user who allegedly tried to sell three Vietnamese girls on the Internet site for a starting bid of $5,400.
The auction, which began March 2 on eBay's Taiwan site, did not include a detailed description of the goods for sale but said the 'items' were from Vietnam and would be 'shipped to Taiwan only.'
. . .
San Jose-based eBay strictly forbids the sale or purchase of humans, alive or dead."
Recall that in the girl scout cookie context, eBay stated this position:
"As far as eBay is concerned, these cookies are private property. We are not going to ban people from reselling them."
I think most of us would agree that eBay's positions in both cases are correct. But based upon what principle? Some conception of proper property rights? The inherent dignity of man? A Stockholm-syndrome-like belief that the Vietnamese women’s' choice wasn't truly free?
Imagine that the women were well-educated 40-year-olds who just want a chance to leave Vietnam and work for someone in Taiwan, but need a middle-man to handle the details of getting there. We would be hard pressed to say they weren't thinking clearly. They're only commodifying themselves to the extent that they're looking for work - they do not wish to be sex slaves and the like. Perhaps we would prefer they phrase the auction as "Vietnamese women looking for work in Taiwan. $5400 as lump sum for salary." Maybe we just prefer people commodify the work, rather than the person.
Now imagine that the facts are true to life, but Vietnam has a clear conception of women as a property right that men may control. If eBay denies them auction space, it's imposing a view of commodification upon the world. I don't have a problem with this, but I do think that these examples signify that an anti-human commodification view is, in the end, rooted in a human dignity conception. I don't think most of us care whether the sale is voluntary or what the Vietnamese position is on property rights. We feel that human life is of incalculable worth, and to commodify it is to demean it.
But if one really subscribes to this view, I think you must comes to terms with valuing human life in risk assessment. Every day the OMB evaluates regulations based upon calculating the value of our lives. If saving our lives costs too much, the agency won't regulate. Moreover, Professor Sunstein mentioned the other day that there is a modern trend towards valuing "life years," not lives simply. Thus, a regulation that adds 7 years of life to an old person is not worth as much as one that saves 3 years of a child. How does one rectify these ideas with the anti-commodification viewpoint above?
For me, the difference is best explained by example: imagine a fireman rushes into a burning house, and must choose between saving five people by lifting a piano or two people by moving a small table. Obviously, his time is scarce. In the end, he chooses to move the small table and save two people, rather than trying to move a piano, which carries high costs in time, and a lower risk of success. Now, if the five under the piano were children, perhaps he would take the risk and attempt to save them. I doubt any of us would disapprove of these choices.
Yet, in a sense, the fireman placed a value on human life, and took into consideration costs when making the judgment. The fireman made the smart decision to save as many lives as he could, using quick calculations of success rates, and taking into account scare resources in time and ability. Moreover, adding children to the picture changed his calculations of value.
Similarly, money is scarce. The OMB can't save everyone. It must make choices. In these scenarios, the commodification is not an effort to value a life as a good for sale, but to make value judgments on whom to save. I think the benevolent purpose is some comfort, and perhaps an important distinction between these actions and an eBay auction.
My rationales of "human dignity trumping free choice/the market" and "benevolent purposes trumping anti-commodification principles" probably wouldn't fly with a true libertarian, and perhaps others have different reasons for supporting/rejecting these positions. I'm certainly curious what eBay's policy people would think about all of this. I have a feeling most of our views are heavily influenced by our gut reactions, but maybe a true rationalist can set me straight. Speaking of guts, some thin mints sound pretty good right about now . . .
Thursday, March 18, 2004
Claremont Professor Suspected of Staging Hate Crime
Associated Press
It really speaks for itself. I personally think this is a good development (see previous news here) in the larger scheme of things, if it turns out to be true. Now, instead of worrying about racist students, Claremont can tackle the real problem - crazy visiting assistant professors.
UPDATE: Here's the audio of the professor's speech at a rally after the "hate crime" incident.
If this whole hate crime is a hoax, this speech is really quite funny, particularly in light of the professor's current position that she "didn't want any of this from the beginning. This is so overshadowing the bigger problem on campus, which is that the administration has turned its head regularly on hate speech and hate crimes." In the speech, she self-aggrandizes, espouses her views on diversity, applauds the administration, and does it all with liberal smattering of obscenities. This is not the speech of a reluctant warrior. I think the professor herself put it best:
"...these acts aren’t ignorant. This isn’t the result of some covert thought. This was a well planned out act of terrorism."
Wednesday, March 17, 2004
Hallelujah! Hallelujah! Hallelujah!
Contrary to the previous post, I'm not in transition, simply silent. Still, I can't resist sharing this piece of wonderful news
Whats everywhere are surely rejoicing tonight, as CRAIG ESHERICK HAS BEEN FIRED! Yes, that's right, Craig Esherick, head coach of Georgetown University's men's basketball team since John Thompson's resignation during the 1998-99 season, was fired Tuesday. During his 6 years, Georgetown played in the NCAA tournament once, the same number of times as IUPUI, a school that's had a Division I basketball program for 6 years! Esherick's teams made the postseason 4 times in six season, declining an NIT bid in 2002, and failing to make the postseason this year.
It's unclear at this point who will replace Esherick, but choices that I can't definitely say would be worse include you, me, St. Francis Xavier, and the rotting corpse of Ayn Rand (inside joke, don't worry).
Tuesday, March 16, 2004
Service Interruption
All bloggers are in transit to spring break destinations. Expect normal programing tomorrow. We miss you too.
Monday, March 15, 2004
Blogging From The Airport: Potbelly Sandwich Works and Segway
For those of you in Chicago who have never experienced a Potbelly sandwich, do so. There's one at Midway Airport, and you can see it, standing like an oasis, at the end of the security lines. Get "The Italian."
Since last I was here (two weeks ago), the airport police have all received Segways. People are taking pictures of them. They're like celebrities now. I want one kinda, but I don't want to grab anybody's attention. Plus, I can't afford it. So that's that.
Sunday, March 14, 2004
Sports update
Law, schmaw, I've been a sports fan longer than I've cared about the law.
As most of you probably know, the NCAA tournament released its bracket. The most notable omission was AP #23 Utah State (25-3), which made the unforgivable mistake of losing in its conference tournament to become the first team ranked by the AP not to make the NCAA tournament since #25 UNLV in 1993. As for who's going to win, beats me.
One team it definitely won't be is the Georgetown Hoyas. The Whats started off 10-0 by playing teams like St. Francis of Assisi the Actual Dead Guy, then ended the year by losing 15 of 18 including their first loss in the first round in the 24 year history of the Big East Tournament. This is the first time since 1974-75 G'town was not invited to play in the postseason (they declined in NIT bid two years ago). Save the Hoyas!
The Ovechkin race tightened slightly today as the Pittsburgh Penguins tied for their fifth consecutive non-loss in a row, while the Chicago Blackhawks lost.
Last, but by no means least, sumo. Sunday was the first day of the Spring tournament, results here. It was a good day for Mongolia, as Asashoryu won, Kyokushuzan topped ozeki-not-promotable Tochiazuma, and Kyokutenho yorikiri'ed ozeki Musoyama. Alas, Chiyotenzan fell to Harunoyama.
I'm still working on Kagan's Peloponnesian War, and a Parmalat-inspired soccer post likely of interest to anyone who may have taken an exam that deals with MLS is also on the way.
Linkfest
Posts from all 3 UofC TNTMers on the same day? It must mean finals are over!
In this post, Brian questions whether Trey Parker & Matt Stone are really Republicans. I don't really have any greater insight on this than anyone else, but it does give good cause to mention one of the funniest TV commercials no one's ever seen. It was for the NFL Network and featured Parker and Stone saying something along the lines of "While growing up in Colorado, in between shooting elk and harassing liberals, we watched the Broncos make it to the Super Bowl four times, and lose all four times. Then, South Park came on the air, and the Broncos immediately won back-to-back Super Bowls." Quite true, and something I didn't realize before seeing this commercial.
Ben links to this interview with R. Hewitt Pate. One thing I found interest was his negative response to the first question about Oracle (plus PeopleSoft) becoming the American champion to battle German champion. His answer dovetails nicely with his claimed (in the last question) focus on the law rather than other factors, but the externalization of antitrust harms is a common topic in looking an antitrust from an international perspective. See, e.g., Hartford Fire Insurance Co. v. California, 506 U.S. 764 (1993). Also the Foreign Trade Antitrust Improvements Act, 15 U.S.C. § 6a, creates an exception to the antitrust laws to allow American companies to better compete. Granted, this isn't quite the same issue, but I at least found it an interest side note.
I've avoided linking to the WSJ in the past because of the paid subscription requirement, but I'm violating that for a few stories.
First, Lee Gomes had a column, reader response here, last Monday asking whether the innovation from Microsoft was sufficient given its resources. Second and relatedly, highly-respected Personal Technology columnist Walt Mossberg had a column arguing M$, or if not them, anybody else, should add a comprehensive update security service that doesn't require user intervention. Both columns have at their gist interesting ideas, but I don't think either one is on balance particularly wise.
Third, this Page One story from Thursday discusses how the (very real) threat of Eastern Europe has caused European unions to agree to contract renegotiation, including wage cuts, to avoid layoffs. Given the traditional story of union intransigence, this strikes me as a prime example of a realistic appreciation of market forces.
Fourth, this article from last Monday was perhaps the highlight of my week. James Minder was chairman of Smith & Wesson Holding Co., the gunmaker. Unfortunately, he had a secret buried in his past: he spent time in prison for armed robbery, including a $53,000 bank heist in the 60's.
More on Microsoft's Antitrust Mess
CNN reports that the "EU set to recommend sanctions against Microsoft". As suspected by those "in the know" the EU report appears to recommend that Microsoft offer a MediaPlayer-less version of Windows. The theory, I suppose, is that this is the new locus of competition in the software industry. . . From one perspective, I guess this makes sense, since media-playing exhibits huge network externalities (since it is difficult to port media to several different players, and companies would rather just offer one type of file and be done with it, so media-providers will just go with whatever consumers are using...) -- so whoever gets the biggest share of the market will dominate into perpetuity. The EU wants to keep Microsoft from getting this monopoly. In theory that might be good, if the EU believes that the alternative to Microsoft's monopoly is competition, but given the strong network externalities, it seems more likely that one company is destined to dominate the market. That said, perhaps we're better off having that one company be Microsoft (the theory being that it is better to have one monopolist than to stack monopolies on top of each other, an inefficient result known as double marginalization).
PeopleSoft Merger
In other antitrust news, this is a must read interview with the DoJ's Hewitt Pate. The interview focuses on why the DoJ moved to block the PeopleSoft merger despite the growing dominance of Germany's SAP.
My favorite bit:
CNET: "Years from now, how would you like your role as head of the antitrust division to be defined?"
Pate: "...On monopolization and unilateral conduct, I would like to be thought of as someone who has a great degree of faith in the market and a lot of skepticism over the ability of antitrust agencies and plaintiffs to engineer competitive outcomes in the market."
Microsoft Giveaways
Read here an article about the government refusing free copies of Microsoft Office. This isn't particularly interesting, I guess, except that it shows how important network effects are, and to what ends Microsoft will go to create them...
Microsoft Office played a very interesting role in the Microsoft antitrust suits several years back. Readers will recall that the first proposed remedy divided Microsoft into an OS company and an Apps company. It's pretty clear that that was a bad idea, but I think people probably often underestimate the market power of Office. One suggested--and rejected--antitrust remedy, actually, was to force Microsoft to port Office to any operating system that requested it (this following their threat to cancel Mac Office -- until Apple agreed to install Internet Explorer).
Coerced Virtue
From The Crimson:
"Harvard Business School has dropped a rule barring white and Asian students from a summer program after two groups opposed to race-based admissions threatened to take legal action against Harvard.
The Summer Venture in Management Program (SVMP)—which brings incoming college seniors to Allston for a week in June to study under Business School faculty—will no longer restrict participation to racial and ethnic minorities.
The American Civil Rights Institute and the Center for Equal Opportunity alleged in a letter to Harvard officials last March that the Business School program’s race-based restriction violated Title VI of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, which prohibits recipients of federal funds from discriminating on the basis of race or national origin."
Check out the admissions director's sudden enlightenment:
"Business School admissions officer Juan F. Jimenez, who is in charge of the SVMP, said that dropping the race criterion would strengthen the 20 year-old program. 'It will broaden the base of what diversity stands for,' he said."
What a revelation! It's like these admissions people know what the right thing to do is, but they just can't resist the powerful logic of arguments like this:
"Alliah D. Agostini ’04, the only Harvard undergraduate to participate in SVMP last summer, said she was concerned that the program could be diverted from its original mission of reaching out to minority groups.
She said that socioeconomically disadvantaged students did not face the same obstacles as members of racial and ethnic minorities.
'While one can change [one’s] economic status, there’s no changing your race and how others may view you because of it,' Agostini wrote in an e-mail to The Crimson."
I'm sure it was a comfort to the dirt-poor white and asian kids (who, say, worked 30 hours a week while in high school just to eat) to know that even the rich black and hispanic kids in the program faced hardships no poor kid (even of another minority) will ever be able to comprehend.
Thank goodness someone thought differently. (from How Appealing)
Link Fest 2004 - Wacky Washington (State) Law Stuff
Rick Hansen's Election Law Blog reported on this Ninth Circuit case involving the disenfranchisement of felons in Washington. The majority struck the law down because "disparities in the felon conviction rates of certain minority groups in relation to their presence in the general population lead to a disparity in the rate of disenfranchisement." Noted video game reviewer Judge Kozinski led the dissenters. It seems to me the best answer to this problem is to not send any minorities to jail at all. That way you can be sure race-neutral punishments won't have a disparate impact on them. (from How Appealing)
The Washington State Supreme Court isn't just known for drunks - it's also known for power lifters. (from How Appealing)
At least no one on the Washington Supreme Court is eligible for this distinction: "Worst Federal Judge in the West 1983," otherwise known as Washington federal district Judge Jack Tanner, or "Maximum Jack" to his friends. Read about him here. (from How Appealing)
Tanner reminds me of another 1983 winner: Georgia district judge Robert Elliott, or "Maximum Bob." See here, for example. Judge Elliott was so bad, he worked his way into my first year Civil Procedure casebook, in an opinion that begins "This case illustrates the mischief that results when a district court effectively abdicates its responsibility to manage a case . . ." Chusasama v Mazda Motor Corp, 123 F 3d 1353 (11th Cir 1997).
Link Fest 2004 - Random Stuff
During finals, I compiled a bunch of links that I intended to blog on, but just never got around to it. I could just let them languish, but what would be the fun in that? So here are some things you may have missed on the internet over the past week (I'll probably have a few posts):
Headline: "Rosie weds longtime girlfriend, slams Bush." (from Instapundit)
Headline: "Drunken Polish nun crashes her tractor."
Jonah Goldberg finds the coolest stuff on the internet . . . listen (and watch) this.
Hubble pictures of other galaxies can be seen here.
Did anyone know that Patricia Heaton from Everybody Loves Raymond is pro-life?
The South Park Republican argument is boosted a bit by this admission - or are they kidding?
The presidential election is more online than ever this year, particularly at The Sims Online.
And lastly, "The O.C." may be know for cool, but perhaps not smarts. It wouldn't have either if this ban had held up. (from Instapundit)
Friday, March 12, 2004
Quote Of The Day
Groucho Marx: "Those are my principles. If you don't like them I have others." (from Opinionjournal)
Century City
For those of us who are soon to be lawyers working in Century City, the CBS premier of the eponymously named "Century City" is a sure hit.
Plus, for others of us, obsessed with Ioan Gruffudd this is a double treat!
Thursday, March 11, 2004
From the department of not-very-surprising correlations...
The NY Times reports here that "Gays' use of Viagra and Methamphetamine is Linked to Diseases."
So people who have more sex (Viagra users) and those who use hard drugs (meth) are more likely to get sexually transmitted diseases, such as syphilis. . . Well that is just so surprising. I'm floored.
Wednesday, March 10, 2004
Hard Cases Make Bad Law . . . But Only If You Have Bad Judges
So I’m reading this case, Planned Parenthood of the Colombia/Willamette, Inc. v. ACLA , 290 F 3d 1058 (9th Cir 2002), in which a 6-5 en banc court of the Ninth Circuit upheld civil awards against a pro-life group ("ACLA") that published information about abortion doctors in the form of "Wanted" posters. These posters offered a $500 reward for anyone who could convince the doctors, through legal means, to stop their activities. However, in the past some individuals killed 3 abortion doctors featured in other pro-life groups' "Wanted" posters. There's little doubt some members of the ACLA are evil people.
But however you feel about ACLA, based upon the law, their speech cannot be silenced. The requirements for losing First Amendment protection in this situation are 1. express advocacy of unlawfulness (the ACLA's conduct is perhaps endorsement, maybe even implied advocacy, but certainly not express advocacy) and 2. immanent harm (virtually all of the named doctors were never hurt, and the 3 past murders occurred, at the earliest, 7 months after the publishing of a "Wanted" poster). In fact, besides the list, the ACLA had nothing to do with any of the murders at all. Thus, the majority's affirmance is wrong.
The Ninth Circuit has some wishy-washy “true threat” jurisprudence, so you could chalk up the majority’s error to that. One problem: the majority admits this isn’t a direct threat. Thus, "true threat" or not, to reach the majority’s result, you’d have to ignore Supreme Court precedent stating (as paraphrased by Judge Kozinski):
Where the speaker is engaged in public political speech, the public statements themselves cannot be the sole proof that they were true threats, unless the speech directly threatens actual injury to identifiable individuals. Absent such an unmistakable, specific threat, there must be evidence aside from the political statements themselves showing that the public speaker would himself or in conspiracy with others inflict unlawful harm. NAACP v Claiborne Hardware Co, 458 US 866, 932-34 (1982).
There was no evidence of such a conspiracy. Thus, ACLA should not face liability for speaking their mind, even if we despise what they have to say and how they've said it.
So the Ninth Circuit messed up again, no big deal. Maybe the majority just needs some dissenting viewpoints. But oh boy, there were some dissenting viewpoints alright:
KOZINSKI, Circuit Judge, with whom Circuit Judges REINHARDT, O'SCANNLAIN, KLEINFELD and BERZON join, dissenting.
That’s the who’s who of good judges on the Ninth Circuit from both sides of the political spectrum. If I had to make a list of the best conservative judges on the Ninth, Kozinski, O’Scannlain, and Kleinfeld would be near the top. Clearly, Reinhardt is the Ninth Circuit’s most famous liberal judge, but Berzon was one of Clinton’s most-favored, and most controversial, appointments. Berzon is supposedly as liberal and as smart as Reinhardt (these are just things I've heard; I haven't read many of Berzon's opinions). Regardless, few would disagree that these judges represent some of the best and the brightest minds in the Ninth Circuit. This is just about as impressive a crew as one could concoct.
If you were in the majority here, wouldn’t you look at the dissenters and think: goodness, maybe we’ve made a mistake? I know no judge would ever admit it, but when this kind of group tells you you've rigged the result, more reflection is probably in order. The majority can’t even explain away the dissenters as those “anarchist libertarian/ACLU liberals,” because Kleinfeld and O’Scannlain signed on too. And they certainly can’t claim the dissenting judges are too insensitive to abortion rights – Reinhardt and Berzon basically think a woman has a right to eat her baby for lunch, so long as she moves on to dessert before the 3rd trimester.
I'm not saying that "smart" judges are always right and "dumb" judges should always cow to them. I just think that the majority's actions signal much of what’s wrong with the Ninth Circuit – they didn’t like the ACLA’s behavior, so they crafted an opinion to fit their desires. The dissenters remind them that this is lousy judging (though every judge does this sometimes), but the majority just doesn't seem to care. As Judge Berzon put it:
"This case is proof positive that hard cases make bad law, and that when the case is very hard -- meaning that competing legal and moral imperatives pull with impressive strength in opposite directions -- there is the distinct danger of making very bad law."
My corollary: this danger only comes to fruition if you have very bad judges.
Tuesday, March 09, 2004
Passion Pt. IV
Maybe I was indistinct in my post, but Ben still doesn't get it. He says I tried to expand the category of people who love Jesus into a more diverse crowd; I don't give a tinker's dam about who loved Jesus, or paid attention to his teachings. What I did, or at least tried to do, was given an alternative, superior (or so I believed) explanation, supported by the biblical references, as to why MARSTEN used the word "love" and why it didn't break the world down into the Christians=Good Jews=Bad split my esteemed coblogger tried to put it into.
As for Ben's statement that he doesn't love his neighbor as himself, but wouldn't want to see somebody tortured to death, it's an unnecessary and irrelevant distinction. My equating "loving your neighbor as yourself" and the Golden Rule (y'know, do unto others as you would have them do unto you) in my previous post was an attempt to show "love" having a meaning encompassing not just (1) following the Gospels of Christ (Ben's sole reading) BUT ALSO (2) NOT TORTURING AND KILLING SOMEONE BECAUSE HE REPRESENTED A THREAT TO THE ESTABLISHED POLITICAL STRUCTURE.
Ok, that's enough religion talk for my non-believing-yet-still-confirmed Catholic carcass. Maybe I'll talk about something less controversial, like how much I hate Tolkein's classist, Luddite, overly verbose, dull as all hell, intellectually masturbatory travelogues masquering as adventure novels, and how incredibly tedious it was to sit through all three of those movies and how you couldn't pay me to sit through any one of them again for under $1000. The Hobbit was actually good, though.
On a lighter note, clowns!
And back at ya...
I don't think Tom gets this at all right, I'm sorry to say.
Tom may have a point if there are lots of other people in the angry mobs (or in general) that believe in loving everyone. In that case, the Jews in the crowd that love Jesus may actually not be Christian in any sense.
Tom equates those who bear Jesus no ill will (potentially lots of Jews) and think he is being treated unfairly (potentially lots of Jews), with those who love him (very, very few Jews, except, by Tom's account those that follow the Gospel). If there were people in the crowd pictured who were part of this middle ground, that would be fine, and it would do a lot to combat accusations of antisemetic undertones. Unfortunately, Marsten clearly states that there are two groups of Jews: Those that love Jesus and those that wanted him dead.
Tom wants to expand the category of people who love Jesus to include a diverse crowed... but he does so by relying on Jesus's teachings, or assuming that Jews would rely on his teachings. Considering that the only people who would follow Jesus's gospel are... Christians (therefore not Jews), this doesn't really get us anywhere (or the "where" it gets us is completely tautological).
I, for example, don't love my neighbor as myself. On the other hand, I wouldn't want to see someone brutally tortured to death. So I don't fit in either of Marsten's categories, and Tom's explanation doesn't help me to fit in either... unless, of course, I believe in Christ's teachings, in which case I would love Christ, as my neighbor. Then, of course, I'm not really Jewish anymore, since I've adopted an alien set of morals. Again, the Gibson's / Marsten's dichotomy stands. Unfortunate, but true.
Also, Rush sucks.
"Compassion for Mordor"
I've been a fan of Dennis Prager for years now. This column from a couple of months ago is just terrific. The beginning bit from the article (which, by the way, is a tongue in cheek speech by President Carter discussing why The Lord of the Rings is dangerous):
"For three hours in this latest installment of 'Lord of the Rings,' young people the world over watch my work in the United States and your work here in Europe -- to get nations to disarm, not to make moral judgments about any nation other than America or Israel -- undone.... Who knows what might happen if enough young people start thinking that war is an option, or that some people or countries can be labeled 'evil,' or that there is something noble about a soldier who kills for a 'just' cause?"
Homina?
I must confess to being seriously puzzled by Ben's post today about the Passion of the Christ. Not having seen the movie, I can't really comment on the substance of the post by David Marsten linked to, but I may be able to clear up something for my esteemed coblogger. Ben critique's Marsten's reference to two types of people: (1) those that want Jesus dead and (2) those that "love Christ." Ben's (I believe mistaken) take on this is that people who "love Christ" is a subset of people that overlaps entirely with the group Christians. Notwithstanding these people, I think we have a nomenclature problem. I'm not qualified to debate Biblical meaning, but one of the commands of Jesus mentioned in all four Gospels (see here and scroll a bit for quotes) is to "love your neighbor as yourself." Now, I don't pretend to be qualified to debate biblical interpretation, but as I've always heard it explained is as a form of the Golden Rule (not to be confused with the Golden Ratio). This makes the people who "love Christ" not just His followers, but also those people who bear Him no ill will, or believe He is being treated unfairly. Conveniently, this interpretation of "love" also dovetails quite nicely with Marsten's disgust towards those who wish Christ dead.
Alas, there's no such nomenclature problem in Ben's dislike for Rush. De gustibus, perhaps, or merely the stress of impending finals. Either way, pity.
A middle ground?
So many stupid things are being said about Mel Gibson's new movie... It's hard to say whether I'm adding fuel to the fire by trying to point out really dumb statements. If history is any indication, however, this will probably be equally dumb. Anyway, I happened to click over the Catallarchy.net, a blog I don't know anything about. There I found this analysis of The Passion, by blogger Michael Masten:
"I failed to find any of the anti-semitism the critics have found... In every scene there are Jewish individuals who love Christ and do not want to see him in pain, as well as the Jewish individuals who wish him dead. I left the movie wanting to hurt people who think they should have authority over others."
Now, I haven't seen this movie, so take what I write here with a well-deserved grain of salt. I don't need to have seen the movie to recognize that this is a really silly quote. Let's be clear. The movie, according to Mr. Masten, has two types of Jews: Jewish people who "love Christ" and those that wish him dead. The fact that some fall into the former category is enough to obviate any finding of antisemetism, if I read him correctly.
Fast forward 2,000 years and we can see why the movie is considered anti-semetic. Those "Jews" who "love Christ" are now "Christians." Meanwhile, there are the rest of us Jews, such as myself. The movie would be anti-semetic if it implied that because I'm not in the former camp, that I am (or would have been then) in the latter camp. See, in order for the movie to not be anti-semetic, it would help to portray some Jews as not wanting to see Jesus killed, but still not "loving" him. Where are the Jewish people who just didn't want to see Jesus die, because killing people isn't right? Or where were those that just didn't care? Gibson's (or Masten's) dichotomy is antisemetic, if all non-Jesus-loving Jews are pictured as wanting Jesus to die. Isn't there a middle ground?
By eliminating that middle ground, how is Gibson not antisemetic? The implication seems clear to me: You're with us, or you're against us. Since those with Jesus are no longer considered Jewish, that leaves only those who wanted Jesus dead. Call it what you will, I don't appreciate the implication.
Pastorelli Dies
According to CNN, Robert Pastorelli died today. Sounds like drugs.
Pastorelli played Eldin on Murphy Brown back in the day. One of my favorite scenes occurred when Eldin finally decided to show some of his work at a gallery. He invited all these critics and it was very hoity toity and finally he opened the door to the gallery to reveal his works.
All the critics walk into this white room with a "No Smoking" sign in the middle, and a light switch on the wall. There's some silence, and then the critics start raving about how powerful his message is... they go on and on about the simplicity of our lives (as seen through the light switch) and how the "No Smoking" sign conveys the way we're destroying the Earth, or something like that. Anyway, after several minutes of this Eldin breaks in and says, essentially, "That's great guys... but actually my painting is on the ceiling." Get it? See, the light switch and No Smoking sign weren't his art... but art critics are so... you know.
Classic scene. It's been years since I've seen the show. I may not be remembering it correctly. Or it may actually be another show entirely that I've transposed into Murphy Brown land. Still, classic.
Judging Judicial Activism
Randy Barnett points to this Boston Globe article on judicial activism, which includes comments from both he and Cass Sunstein. Or is it?
