Friday, April 30, 2004
Hats off to John Miller
Julia
So everyone in my office feels the need to ask me if I knew the NYU "Pot Smoking Princess." I find my desk littered with pages torn out from the Daily News and the New York Post. The media is obsessed with the 18 year-old beauty from Rumson, NJ. Every person who graduated from my high school has read the "Druggie With a Heart" article in yesterday's New York Post. How can we resist reading about how the homeless drug addict from Washington Square Park urged young Julia to get back to her books and give up her gig as a dealer on the streets. It's all filth (ok I bought it -- but it was only 50 cents...)
The story here is simple and sad. The girl was nearly burned alive at the age of 3 during a house fire. She still bears terrible scars on her arms and legs. She was a sweet and popular girl in high school living in her successful older brothers' shadows and trying to make a name for herself. She enters NYU and is desperate to fit in. Gets wrapped up in the drug culture and starts dealing, not to make money but to buy friends. She stuck out like a sore thumb in Washington Square Park -- trolling around in her Juicy Couture sweat suits dealing the coke, pot and shrooms. So of course she gets caught. It seems to me that she either didn't care or knew and wanted the attention. How could someone be so stupid? Because she probably developed an addiction. Add depression and the stress of freshman year in college on top of the drug problem. What do you get? Potentially 25 years in the slammer.
I have no problem sending the rapists and murderers to jail. But sending a teenage who is a first time offender to prison doesn't sit right with me. New York's Rockefeller Drug laws are among the harshest mandatory minimums in the nation. From what I gather she faces a mandatory minimum of one year and up to 25 years because she was dealing in a school zone. The media is drooling for more more more. At NYU we've got a Pot Smoking Princess and The Library Sleeper (a whole other disturbing story). Just last week the body of a Wellesley College first-year (KatieLynn Palmer) was found in the shrubs by her dorm. She disappeared on a Monday but her roomies didn't report her missing until Wednesday. It's been rumored that she killed herself because she was disappointed in her grades for the semester. Although their issues are totally unique each of these college students have one thing in common: Something was wrong and either nobody cared or nobody noticed.
Press Release from April 27, 2004:
Manhattan District Attorney Robert M. Morgenthau today announced the indictment of an 18-year-old freshman at New York University on charges of dealing drugs out of her dormitory room.
The defendant is JULIA DIACO. Using her dormitory room as a base of operations and communicating via cellular telephone, DIACO sold illegal drugs, including marijuana, concentrated marijuana, cocaine, hallucinogenic mushrooms, and LSD, to an undercover officer on eight occasions. The sales occurred inside Washington Square Park, on West 4th Street and Sixth Avenue, and inside the Hayden Hall dormitory at New York University.
The indictment stems from an investigation, conducted jointly by the New York City Police Department's Manhattan South Narcotics District and the Firearms Trafficking Unit of the New York County District Attorney's Office, into street-level drug dealing and other crimes in the area of NYU and Washington Square Park. Utilizing undercover detectives and surveillance techniques, the investigation revealed the ongoing sale of drugs from NYU's Hayden Hall dormitory, located at 33 Washington Square West, by DIACO, a dormitory resident.
DIACO is charged with Criminal Sale and Possession of a Controlled Substance in the Third Degree, and Criminal Sale of a Controlled Substance In or Near School Grounds, each a class B felony upon which she faces up to 8-1/3 to 25 years in prison on each count, Criminal Sale of a Controlled Substance in the Fifth Degree, a class D felony which carries up to 2-1/3 to 7 years in prison, and Criminal Sale of Marijuana in the Fourth Degree, a class A misdemeanor, which carries a maximum penalty of one year in jail.
The defendant was arrested this afternoon while walking near St. Mark's Place, en route to a pre-arranged transaction with an undercover officer. The defendant was in possession of several ounces of high-grade marijuana and a scale at the time of her arrest. The investigation is continuing.
|
The story here is simple and sad. The girl was nearly burned alive at the age of 3 during a house fire. She still bears terrible scars on her arms and legs. She was a sweet and popular girl in high school living in her successful older brothers' shadows and trying to make a name for herself. She enters NYU and is desperate to fit in. Gets wrapped up in the drug culture and starts dealing, not to make money but to buy friends. She stuck out like a sore thumb in Washington Square Park -- trolling around in her Juicy Couture sweat suits dealing the coke, pot and shrooms. So of course she gets caught. It seems to me that she either didn't care or knew and wanted the attention. How could someone be so stupid? Because she probably developed an addiction. Add depression and the stress of freshman year in college on top of the drug problem. What do you get? Potentially 25 years in the slammer.
I have no problem sending the rapists and murderers to jail. But sending a teenage who is a first time offender to prison doesn't sit right with me. New York's Rockefeller Drug laws are among the harshest mandatory minimums in the nation. From what I gather she faces a mandatory minimum of one year and up to 25 years because she was dealing in a school zone. The media is drooling for more more more. At NYU we've got a Pot Smoking Princess and The Library Sleeper (a whole other disturbing story). Just last week the body of a Wellesley College first-year (KatieLynn Palmer) was found in the shrubs by her dorm. She disappeared on a Monday but her roomies didn't report her missing until Wednesday. It's been rumored that she killed herself because she was disappointed in her grades for the semester. Although their issues are totally unique each of these college students have one thing in common: Something was wrong and either nobody cared or nobody noticed.
Press Release from April 27, 2004:
Manhattan District Attorney Robert M. Morgenthau today announced the indictment of an 18-year-old freshman at New York University on charges of dealing drugs out of her dormitory room.
The defendant is JULIA DIACO. Using her dormitory room as a base of operations and communicating via cellular telephone, DIACO sold illegal drugs, including marijuana, concentrated marijuana, cocaine, hallucinogenic mushrooms, and LSD, to an undercover officer on eight occasions. The sales occurred inside Washington Square Park, on West 4th Street and Sixth Avenue, and inside the Hayden Hall dormitory at New York University.
The indictment stems from an investigation, conducted jointly by the New York City Police Department's Manhattan South Narcotics District and the Firearms Trafficking Unit of the New York County District Attorney's Office, into street-level drug dealing and other crimes in the area of NYU and Washington Square Park. Utilizing undercover detectives and surveillance techniques, the investigation revealed the ongoing sale of drugs from NYU's Hayden Hall dormitory, located at 33 Washington Square West, by DIACO, a dormitory resident.
DIACO is charged with Criminal Sale and Possession of a Controlled Substance in the Third Degree, and Criminal Sale of a Controlled Substance In or Near School Grounds, each a class B felony upon which she faces up to 8-1/3 to 25 years in prison on each count, Criminal Sale of a Controlled Substance in the Fifth Degree, a class D felony which carries up to 2-1/3 to 7 years in prison, and Criminal Sale of Marijuana in the Fourth Degree, a class A misdemeanor, which carries a maximum penalty of one year in jail.
The defendant was arrested this afternoon while walking near St. Mark's Place, en route to a pre-arranged transaction with an undercover officer. The defendant was in possession of several ounces of high-grade marijuana and a scale at the time of her arrest. The investigation is continuing.
|
Tuesday, April 27, 2004
Judge Michael Chertoff (former chief of the criminal division at DOJ), recently gave a lecture as part of C-SPAN's America and the Courts series. He discussed the disconnect between intelligence and law enforcement. Here's the hypo he posed:
The United States has obtained information on U.S. citizens (not aliens, which would allow use of immigration laws), in the form of highly classified intercepts. The information is crystal clear but if it's disclosure would compromise a very sensitive method of interception. If the information were revealed, the interception method would also necessarily be revealed, effectively shutting it down. Corroboration of this information is provided by a foreign government based on information it obtained from interrogations of people held by that government. However, that government would never admit it had these people in custody, and would not deal with us again if we disclosed the information. Finally, we have information from an informant that the CIA has been paying for years. This informant's credibility is questionable and he has lots of baggage, but in this instance his information dovetails nicely with the other information we've obtained. Finally, the information calls for imminent action, but because of the general nature of the information, we can't simply post guards or warn the public (all we could tell the public to do is not to the leave the house).
So what do we do? Well we have to apprehend or incapacitate the people we know are planning to carry out the plot. (Judge Chertoff asks us to take it on faith that simply following the conspirators around for long periods of time is too imperfect a solution.)
In the hypo, the paradigm of intelligence clashes with the paradigm of law enforcement: None of the evidence described in the hypo is admissible in court. The intercepts would require review by the court and the defense attorney, at the very least. The foreign government's information is hearsay. The informant almost certainly wouldn't show up for trial, but even if he did, he is easily impeached.
Therefore, Judge Chertoff proposes three solutions (though he makes clear that he is not advocating any of them, but rather trying to start a discussion):
1. Should the U.S. system allow detention of its citizens outside of the judicial system in order to prevent acts of terror. This is the enemy combatant rule that the administration is arguing for in Padilla and Hamdi this week. This solution parallels with the logic of incapacitating enemy soldiers overseas in order to prevent them from taking up arms.
Here, we are not interested in punishing, just in incapacitating. The evidentiary problems are eliminated by this solution. Further, as Padilla and Hamdi have made clearer (though not crystal clear by any respect), enemy-combatant designation does have some procedures, i.e., it's not some willy-nilly process--though you have to take the Executive's word for it. The biggest problem with this solution is continued detention. We would need a control or check within the executive branch (DOJ or DOD?) to justify holding a person for weeks or months on end.
2. A more judicial-type of resolution of this type of terrorist threat is the use of military commissions--a sort of compromise position. Currently, however, by the President's order, citizens are outside the ambit of these commissions. Should the President's order be amended?
Going this route would add another element of due process. But the need for proof is just as compelling here as in an Article III court, thus many of the evidentiary problems remain.
3. Finally, we could use the ordinary criminal justice process but modify it to allow conviction of terrorists through the use of types of evidence and procedures not normally accepted.
Can Article III courts be adapted to try terrorism cases? Of course, constitutional limitations operate most significantly here. One legitimate concern is that if courts are used differently for terrorism cases, there will be a spillover into drug cases, organized-crime cases, etc. This solution would require a good definition as to what a terrorism case is, to act as a sort of gate, because we want to use the different procedures only when necessary.
Judge Chertoff identified some hints in the Supreme Court's caselaw that it might view terrorism cases differently, i.e., tweak the rules in those cases. See Richmond Newspapers v. Virginia, 448 U.S. 555, 598 n.24 () (Brennan, J., concurring in the judgment) ("For example, national security concerns about confidentiality may sometimes warrant closures during sensitive portions of trial proceedings, such as testimony about state secrets." (citing United States v. Nixon, 418 U.S. 683, 714-16 (1974)); see also United States v. Salerno, 481 U.S. 739 (1987) (upholding against constitutional challenge a provision of Bail Reform Act requiring pretrial detention of arrestees charged with certain crimes if government can demonstrate by clear and convincing evidence that arrestee would be a danger to the community).
My immediate question is how to define terrorism. That's the key to any of these proposals. Anyway, wanted to open this up for comment.
|
The United States has obtained information on U.S. citizens (not aliens, which would allow use of immigration laws), in the form of highly classified intercepts. The information is crystal clear but if it's disclosure would compromise a very sensitive method of interception. If the information were revealed, the interception method would also necessarily be revealed, effectively shutting it down. Corroboration of this information is provided by a foreign government based on information it obtained from interrogations of people held by that government. However, that government would never admit it had these people in custody, and would not deal with us again if we disclosed the information. Finally, we have information from an informant that the CIA has been paying for years. This informant's credibility is questionable and he has lots of baggage, but in this instance his information dovetails nicely with the other information we've obtained. Finally, the information calls for imminent action, but because of the general nature of the information, we can't simply post guards or warn the public (all we could tell the public to do is not to the leave the house).
So what do we do? Well we have to apprehend or incapacitate the people we know are planning to carry out the plot. (Judge Chertoff asks us to take it on faith that simply following the conspirators around for long periods of time is too imperfect a solution.)
In the hypo, the paradigm of intelligence clashes with the paradigm of law enforcement: None of the evidence described in the hypo is admissible in court. The intercepts would require review by the court and the defense attorney, at the very least. The foreign government's information is hearsay. The informant almost certainly wouldn't show up for trial, but even if he did, he is easily impeached.
Therefore, Judge Chertoff proposes three solutions (though he makes clear that he is not advocating any of them, but rather trying to start a discussion):
1. Should the U.S. system allow detention of its citizens outside of the judicial system in order to prevent acts of terror. This is the enemy combatant rule that the administration is arguing for in Padilla and Hamdi this week. This solution parallels with the logic of incapacitating enemy soldiers overseas in order to prevent them from taking up arms.
Here, we are not interested in punishing, just in incapacitating. The evidentiary problems are eliminated by this solution. Further, as Padilla and Hamdi have made clearer (though not crystal clear by any respect), enemy-combatant designation does have some procedures, i.e., it's not some willy-nilly process--though you have to take the Executive's word for it. The biggest problem with this solution is continued detention. We would need a control or check within the executive branch (DOJ or DOD?) to justify holding a person for weeks or months on end.
2. A more judicial-type of resolution of this type of terrorist threat is the use of military commissions--a sort of compromise position. Currently, however, by the President's order, citizens are outside the ambit of these commissions. Should the President's order be amended?
Going this route would add another element of due process. But the need for proof is just as compelling here as in an Article III court, thus many of the evidentiary problems remain.
3. Finally, we could use the ordinary criminal justice process but modify it to allow conviction of terrorists through the use of types of evidence and procedures not normally accepted.
Can Article III courts be adapted to try terrorism cases? Of course, constitutional limitations operate most significantly here. One legitimate concern is that if courts are used differently for terrorism cases, there will be a spillover into drug cases, organized-crime cases, etc. This solution would require a good definition as to what a terrorism case is, to act as a sort of gate, because we want to use the different procedures only when necessary.
Judge Chertoff identified some hints in the Supreme Court's caselaw that it might view terrorism cases differently, i.e., tweak the rules in those cases. See Richmond Newspapers v. Virginia, 448 U.S. 555, 598 n.24 () (Brennan, J., concurring in the judgment) ("For example, national security concerns about confidentiality may sometimes warrant closures during sensitive portions of trial proceedings, such as testimony about state secrets." (citing United States v. Nixon, 418 U.S. 683, 714-16 (1974)); see also United States v. Salerno, 481 U.S. 739 (1987) (upholding against constitutional challenge a provision of Bail Reform Act requiring pretrial detention of arrestees charged with certain crimes if government can demonstrate by clear and convincing evidence that arrestee would be a danger to the community).
My immediate question is how to define terrorism. That's the key to any of these proposals. Anyway, wanted to open this up for comment.
|
Friday, April 23, 2004
A True Patriot
I just heard that Pat Tillman died in Afghanistan today. Here's the news story. And, here's another.
As Bill Maher points out in his book, Tillman is a true hero. Rather than remain stateside and earn a boatload of money playing football (he was an Arizona Cardinal), Tillman decided to work for a cause he believed in, and wound up giving his life to the cause. I can't say how impressed I am by his courage to step up and do what he felt his country needed, rather than wait for someone else to do it. What a loss.
|
As Bill Maher points out in his book, Tillman is a true hero. Rather than remain stateside and earn a boatload of money playing football (he was an Arizona Cardinal), Tillman decided to work for a cause he believed in, and wound up giving his life to the cause. I can't say how impressed I am by his courage to step up and do what he felt his country needed, rather than wait for someone else to do it. What a loss.
|
Slight Supermajority Voting Rules
I was thinking a bit about the United States Senate's filibuster, which is really the product of needing a supermajority (60 votes out of 100) to invoke cloture—end debate and bring a proposal to a vote.
Most voting systems require simple majorities (i.e., 50% plus 1 vote of those participating). But is this automatically the "best" thing? After all, some situations are thought to operate better by requiring supermajorities. For example, the U.S. Constitution requires supermajorities of each house and of the states to amend the Constitution, and a supermajority of senators to vote to convict in cases of impeachment. These supermajoriteis are fairly substantial—2/3ds in most cases, 3/4ths in some.
The obvious virtue (or vice) of supermajorities is that they tends to be hard to attain, and therefore require some work. This is a good thing in, say, cases of impeachment, since that should not be undertaken lightly. But can becomes a vice in that it produces the potential for deadlock—as in a case where some action needs to be taken, but no single proposal can command the requisite supermajority to put it into effect.
A less obvious virtue (or, again, vice) of a supermajority rule is its conservativism, by which I mean its tendency to insulate proposals adopted in the past by a thin margin from suddenly getting switched back the other way when there's a thin margin the other way. For example, if a body is split 5-4 on an issue, and one vote changes, it will go 5-4 the other way. Now, institutions like courts (think the Supreme Court on this one; the 5-4 thing wasn't an accident) have values like stare decisis to protect against this instability. But legislatures don't.
Which brings me to the question of whether slighter supermajorities—say, 5/9ths or 11/20ths—wouldn't be superior to simple majorities. A legislature with a supermajority rule could be protected from shifts that turn on a single vote: Suppose a 100-member body (like the Senate) must pass a proposal 55-45 for it to take effect. In that case, the vote cannot be reversed unless fully 10 senators change their votes. Under the current system, a 51-49 vote can be reversed by just 2 votes shifts.
Now I don't know that the Senate, or any other legislature, has this sort of flip-flop problem. There may well be informal institutional constrains on this sort of flip-flopping. But you could at least imagine it. And you could imagine that different subjects might benefit from different rules—the Framers certainly thought so, since they provided that treaties had to be approved by a supermajority (2/3ds) of the Senate. Might there be other functions that could benefit from slight supermajorities? Tax policy is one area that comes to mind as benefitting from some consistency (although revenue raising can make for nasty deadlock problems). Criminal laws, maybe, since they would be clearer if they didn't shift.
I realize that this is sort of half a thought—or more accurately, a solution in search of a problem. But maybe others have further thoughts?
|
Most voting systems require simple majorities (i.e., 50% plus 1 vote of those participating). But is this automatically the "best" thing? After all, some situations are thought to operate better by requiring supermajorities. For example, the U.S. Constitution requires supermajorities of each house and of the states to amend the Constitution, and a supermajority of senators to vote to convict in cases of impeachment. These supermajoriteis are fairly substantial—2/3ds in most cases, 3/4ths in some.
The obvious virtue (or vice) of supermajorities is that they tends to be hard to attain, and therefore require some work. This is a good thing in, say, cases of impeachment, since that should not be undertaken lightly. But can becomes a vice in that it produces the potential for deadlock—as in a case where some action needs to be taken, but no single proposal can command the requisite supermajority to put it into effect.
A less obvious virtue (or, again, vice) of a supermajority rule is its conservativism, by which I mean its tendency to insulate proposals adopted in the past by a thin margin from suddenly getting switched back the other way when there's a thin margin the other way. For example, if a body is split 5-4 on an issue, and one vote changes, it will go 5-4 the other way. Now, institutions like courts (think the Supreme Court on this one; the 5-4 thing wasn't an accident) have values like stare decisis to protect against this instability. But legislatures don't.
Which brings me to the question of whether slighter supermajorities—say, 5/9ths or 11/20ths—wouldn't be superior to simple majorities. A legislature with a supermajority rule could be protected from shifts that turn on a single vote: Suppose a 100-member body (like the Senate) must pass a proposal 55-45 for it to take effect. In that case, the vote cannot be reversed unless fully 10 senators change their votes. Under the current system, a 51-49 vote can be reversed by just 2 votes shifts.
Now I don't know that the Senate, or any other legislature, has this sort of flip-flop problem. There may well be informal institutional constrains on this sort of flip-flopping. But you could at least imagine it. And you could imagine that different subjects might benefit from different rules—the Framers certainly thought so, since they provided that treaties had to be approved by a supermajority (2/3ds) of the Senate. Might there be other functions that could benefit from slight supermajorities? Tax policy is one area that comes to mind as benefitting from some consistency (although revenue raising can make for nasty deadlock problems). Criminal laws, maybe, since they would be clearer if they didn't shift.
I realize that this is sort of half a thought—or more accurately, a solution in search of a problem. But maybe others have further thoughts?
|
Annoying Packaging
I don't want to sound too much like Andy Rooney, but why is it that retail packaging is so frickin' un-user-friendly? I'm thinking in particular about that really molded hard clear plastic that entombs razors, small consumer electronics devices, memory cards for digital cameras, etc. You can't open it with your hands. Can't open it with your teeth. You can sometimes cut it with really sturdy scissors (although I've broken more than a pair hacking away at the stuff), but then you're left with knife-sharp edges. What circle of hell did they find this stuff in?
|
|
Why Hadn't I Heard of Operation Bojinka?
Maybe I've been hiding under a rock since 9/11, but how did I not know about Operation Bojinka? Basically, it's associates of the folks who brought us 9/11 trying a similar plot in the mid-90s. For what it's worth, logistically speaking, 9/11 was the little brother of Operation Bojinka, which was to involve (a) killing the Pope, and (b) simultaneously blowing up about a dozen airplanes over the Pacific. Anyway, the media was on to it shortly after 9/11, but why haven't we heard anything of this in front of the 9/11 commission?
Or have we and I'm the last to know?
|
Or have we and I'm the last to know?
|
Wednesday, April 21, 2004
Counter
As you'll see on the left, the administrators of this blog (of which I am one) have chosen to add a counter. Though I support this addition, I'm wary of it, and encourage you to be as well. Counters, as far as I can see, threaten the integrity of the blog in two ways.
First, depending on how quickly the counter increases, the participants of the blog either get bored because no one else is reading our thoughts and give up, or are excited by all the hits and start writing for an "audience." Either outcome is bad. When we conceived of this site, it was as a way for us all to dialogue and exchange ides and keep in touch. It wasn't to create the next How Appealing or Volohk Conspiracy.
Second, those visiting the site judge it based not on the content, but on the number of hits. A site with a lot of hits must be "good" and "interesting," while a site with few hits is "boring" or "dumb." The counter becomes a proxy. (Note: I'm not sying that if people did read the content that they'd necessarily have a positive view of the blog.)
So anyway, the counter is here, take it for what it's worth. I suppose this post sounds very nervous and defensive, and I guess it is. I just don't want potential participants (of which there are currently many; compare the list on the left to those who have actually posted) to be put off by a low number of hits. At the same time, I don't want anyone joining just becaue they think they've got an audience (though I admit that's far, far less likely).
|
First, depending on how quickly the counter increases, the participants of the blog either get bored because no one else is reading our thoughts and give up, or are excited by all the hits and start writing for an "audience." Either outcome is bad. When we conceived of this site, it was as a way for us all to dialogue and exchange ides and keep in touch. It wasn't to create the next How Appealing or Volohk Conspiracy.
Second, those visiting the site judge it based not on the content, but on the number of hits. A site with a lot of hits must be "good" and "interesting," while a site with few hits is "boring" or "dumb." The counter becomes a proxy. (Note: I'm not sying that if people did read the content that they'd necessarily have a positive view of the blog.)
So anyway, the counter is here, take it for what it's worth. I suppose this post sounds very nervous and defensive, and I guess it is. I just don't want potential participants (of which there are currently many; compare the list on the left to those who have actually posted) to be put off by a low number of hits. At the same time, I don't want anyone joining just becaue they think they've got an audience (though I admit that's far, far less likely).
|
Tuesday, April 20, 2004
Is the Interest Rate Party Over?
In keeping with my finance-themed musings today, I'll direct your attention to today's op-ed by Paul Krugman, who has (see Mike's earlier post) thankfully returned to writing about something he's qualified to opine on. He wrote about how the anticipated rise in interest rates is going to bitch-slap all of us who have gotten used to low interest rates. He's talking about a 3% rise.
It's going to hurt in a lot of places. Obviously, there won't be any more 3.99% credit card rate offers, which have made it practical for some to (over)extend themselves. If you're carrying a $10,000 balance, a jump up from 3.99% to, say, 9.99% is going to move you from paying $35 a month in finance charges to paying $85 a month. Whether this will have any effect on minimum payments is doubtful, though, I guess. (And before somebody claims I can't do math, I think my guess about the rate bump is right because (a) I don't know that anybody can get 3.99% right now anyway, and (b) credit card rates seem to be leveraged, compared to prime rates, so a disproportionate jump is to be expected.)
And think about student loans. The law students among us are looking at about $100,000 of variable-rate loans being repaid over about 20 years, presently at about 5%. Jack that up to 8% and the monthly payment goes from about $660 a month to about $840 a month (yes, that's almost a 30% jump).
Rough, when you consider that there's not much you can do.
|
It's going to hurt in a lot of places. Obviously, there won't be any more 3.99% credit card rate offers, which have made it practical for some to (over)extend themselves. If you're carrying a $10,000 balance, a jump up from 3.99% to, say, 9.99% is going to move you from paying $35 a month in finance charges to paying $85 a month. Whether this will have any effect on minimum payments is doubtful, though, I guess. (And before somebody claims I can't do math, I think my guess about the rate bump is right because (a) I don't know that anybody can get 3.99% right now anyway, and (b) credit card rates seem to be leveraged, compared to prime rates, so a disproportionate jump is to be expected.)
And think about student loans. The law students among us are looking at about $100,000 of variable-rate loans being repaid over about 20 years, presently at about 5%. Jack that up to 8% and the monthly payment goes from about $660 a month to about $840 a month (yes, that's almost a 30% jump).
Rough, when you consider that there's not much you can do.
|
Credit Card Expiration
As we all know, credit card have expiration dates--usually dated a few years after you receive the new card. My primary credit card was set to expire this month, and like clockwork, without me even having to ask, they sent me a new card, with a later expiration date. No real surprise, right?
Anyway, thanks to some reminders from various merchants (like my cell phone and PayPal), I realized before I activated the new card that I'd need to update my expiration date to avoid mass chaos. All told, there were about a dozen places that had my credit card info for regular or semi-regular automatic billing. This took about two hours last night, and a phone call or two this morning. I experienced everything from smooth, quick web sites, to god-awful confusion and phone calls to customer service, to asbolutely clueless customer service reps.
Anyway, all this got me thinking: Why do credit cards have expiration dates? It's not like they're actually used as expiration dates, since the credit card company invariably sends you a new one right before the old one is set to expire. And it's not like credit card issuers wait around for the expiration date to take action on a delinquent account, or deal with a stolen card by "just waiting for it to expire." And they'll send you a new card if the old one physically wears out. So what purpose do expiration dates serve, beyond effectively adding another four digits to your credit card number? In fact, I treat my expiration date just like that--I follow the 16 digits of the card with the four digit expiration. (And that three-digit "security code" on the back is swiftly becoming de rigueur as well.)
The only explanation I can think of is that it's a crude (very, very crude) antifraud measure to protect all eleven of the merchants out there who still don't have dial-in verification that your card is valid--you know, the kind that uses the hand-slid carbon-paper physical impression device. But all the expiration date accomplishes in this case is preventing a would-be fraudulent user from using the card after its expired; of course, there's nothing to stop our hypothetical miscreant from using the card this way in the three years before it expires (by getting the card, cancelling the account, and using the card at merchants that don't dial-in).
So for this astonishing lack of benefits (am I missing something?) from the use of expiration dates, we get in exchange enormous hassles when the date changes. This is only going to get worse as more and more accounts bill auomatically to credit cards, since the internet makes that so easy to set up.
What gives? Why can't I have an expiration-less credit card?
|
Anyway, thanks to some reminders from various merchants (like my cell phone and PayPal), I realized before I activated the new card that I'd need to update my expiration date to avoid mass chaos. All told, there were about a dozen places that had my credit card info for regular or semi-regular automatic billing. This took about two hours last night, and a phone call or two this morning. I experienced everything from smooth, quick web sites, to god-awful confusion and phone calls to customer service, to asbolutely clueless customer service reps.
Anyway, all this got me thinking: Why do credit cards have expiration dates? It's not like they're actually used as expiration dates, since the credit card company invariably sends you a new one right before the old one is set to expire. And it's not like credit card issuers wait around for the expiration date to take action on a delinquent account, or deal with a stolen card by "just waiting for it to expire." And they'll send you a new card if the old one physically wears out. So what purpose do expiration dates serve, beyond effectively adding another four digits to your credit card number? In fact, I treat my expiration date just like that--I follow the 16 digits of the card with the four digit expiration. (And that three-digit "security code" on the back is swiftly becoming de rigueur as well.)
The only explanation I can think of is that it's a crude (very, very crude) antifraud measure to protect all eleven of the merchants out there who still don't have dial-in verification that your card is valid--you know, the kind that uses the hand-slid carbon-paper physical impression device. But all the expiration date accomplishes in this case is preventing a would-be fraudulent user from using the card after its expired; of course, there's nothing to stop our hypothetical miscreant from using the card this way in the three years before it expires (by getting the card, cancelling the account, and using the card at merchants that don't dial-in).
So for this astonishing lack of benefits (am I missing something?) from the use of expiration dates, we get in exchange enormous hassles when the date changes. This is only going to get worse as more and more accounts bill auomatically to credit cards, since the internet makes that so easy to set up.
What gives? Why can't I have an expiration-less credit card?
|
Security Lapse
Some of you may have seen in recent days that Condi Rice has been warning of terrorist "chatter" regarding the upcoming presidential election. In light of this, the Secret Service has provided John Kerry with a full detail of agents.
However, John Kerry is only the presumptive democratic candidate. Has everyone forgotten about Dennis Kucinich?? Folks, as you'll see on his official campaign website, he recently won (not second, not third, not sixth) Saturday's caucuses in Orange, Buncombe, and Watauga counties, North Carolina.
Because of his national prominence, Kucinich is a prime target for Al Queda. He needs more security. . . now. (The Secret Service could not be reached for comment.)
|
However, John Kerry is only the presumptive democratic candidate. Has everyone forgotten about Dennis Kucinich?? Folks, as you'll see on his official campaign website, he recently won (not second, not third, not sixth) Saturday's caucuses in Orange, Buncombe, and Watauga counties, North Carolina.
Because of his national prominence, Kucinich is a prime target for Al Queda. He needs more security. . . now. (The Secret Service could not be reached for comment.)
|
Monday, April 19, 2004
For-Profit Soldiers
Is anybody else alarmed by the number of "for hire" security forces operating in Iraq? Estimates put the number of private security forces at about 20,000, in addition to the 130,000 American troops already there. Today's NY Times devotes a lengthy article to the growing number of non-military security personnel (such as the four men employed by Blackwater, U.S.A. who were killed and mutilated a few weeks ago).
The dependence by the U.S. on this new brand of mercenary naturally raises a number of issues. Here are a few alarming quotes from the article, and some comments:
-- "Far more than in any other conflict in United States history, the Pentagon is relying on private security companies to perform crucial jobs once entrusted to the military." The private security guards even provide security for Paul Bremer! If that's not a P.R. mistake, I don't know what is. Are our troops so overstretched, so overwhelmed, they can't provide a security detail for the U.S.'s top official in Iraq? And if they are, then that's a conversation that Bush needs to have with the American people.
--"By some recent government estimates, security costs could claim up to 25 percent of the $18 billion budgeted for reconstruction, a huge and mostly unanticipated expense that could delay or force the cancellation of billions of dollars worth of projects to rebuild schools, water treatment plants, electric lines and oil refineries." The security companies charge the U.S. military about $500- $1,500 per day for each "skilled operator." One of the big mistakes being made by the Administration in Iraq (and in Afghanistan, for that matter) is the lack of investment in infrastructure and institutions necessary for Iraq to be self-sustaining once American troops leave (a date that is omninously close). That security forces are compensated from the same finite pot of money as is budgeted for public works projects shows the importance of holding the Administration accountable for its unprecedented use of non-military personnel.
--"There is no central oversight of the companies, no uniform rules of engagement, no consistent standards for vetting or training new hires. Some security guards complain bitterly of being thrust into combat without adequate firepower, training or equipment." Wow, talk about sending people out to slaughter. No rules of engagement, no standards for training new hires?! These are people armed with heavy artillery, for Pete's sake.
--"[S]ome military leaders are openly grumbling that the lure of $500 to $1,500 a day is siphoning away some of their most experienced Special Operations people at the very time their services are most in demand." This is very troubling. Does this mean that people on whom the U.S. military has spent untold amounts of money and resources training to become highly specialized soldiers are opting not to fight under the banner of the U.S. military, but are instead opting for the sweeter rewards of more money and fewer rules? The incentives are perverse.
-- "Government contracting officials and company executives concede that private guards have every right to abandon their posts if they deem the situation too unsafe. They are not subject to the Uniform Code of Military Justice, nor can they be prosecuted under civil laws or declared AWOL." Well, I hope Bremer feels safe with his private guards...considering they can run away as soon as the situation becomes ugly.
There are so many more passages in the article that are worth quoting, but I am trying to keep this short. The point is not to doubt the courage of all the men and women who are over there right now, but it is to call into question a policy that allows the Bush Administration to downplay how overwhelmed our troops are in Iraq, to outsource some of the "crucial" functions that our country spends an exorbitant amount of tax dollars training personnel to do, and to hide the true costs of the war by siphoning money from public works projects into the kind of expenditure that should be disclosed in military budgets. Not to mention the lack of oversight in a situation that is fraught with potential for abuse, including human rights abuse.
Anyway, that's my two cents.
|
The dependence by the U.S. on this new brand of mercenary naturally raises a number of issues. Here are a few alarming quotes from the article, and some comments:
-- "Far more than in any other conflict in United States history, the Pentagon is relying on private security companies to perform crucial jobs once entrusted to the military." The private security guards even provide security for Paul Bremer! If that's not a P.R. mistake, I don't know what is. Are our troops so overstretched, so overwhelmed, they can't provide a security detail for the U.S.'s top official in Iraq? And if they are, then that's a conversation that Bush needs to have with the American people.
--"By some recent government estimates, security costs could claim up to 25 percent of the $18 billion budgeted for reconstruction, a huge and mostly unanticipated expense that could delay or force the cancellation of billions of dollars worth of projects to rebuild schools, water treatment plants, electric lines and oil refineries." The security companies charge the U.S. military about $500- $1,500 per day for each "skilled operator." One of the big mistakes being made by the Administration in Iraq (and in Afghanistan, for that matter) is the lack of investment in infrastructure and institutions necessary for Iraq to be self-sustaining once American troops leave (a date that is omninously close). That security forces are compensated from the same finite pot of money as is budgeted for public works projects shows the importance of holding the Administration accountable for its unprecedented use of non-military personnel.
--"There is no central oversight of the companies, no uniform rules of engagement, no consistent standards for vetting or training new hires. Some security guards complain bitterly of being thrust into combat without adequate firepower, training or equipment." Wow, talk about sending people out to slaughter. No rules of engagement, no standards for training new hires?! These are people armed with heavy artillery, for Pete's sake.
--"[S]ome military leaders are openly grumbling that the lure of $500 to $1,500 a day is siphoning away some of their most experienced Special Operations people at the very time their services are most in demand." This is very troubling. Does this mean that people on whom the U.S. military has spent untold amounts of money and resources training to become highly specialized soldiers are opting not to fight under the banner of the U.S. military, but are instead opting for the sweeter rewards of more money and fewer rules? The incentives are perverse.
-- "Government contracting officials and company executives concede that private guards have every right to abandon their posts if they deem the situation too unsafe. They are not subject to the Uniform Code of Military Justice, nor can they be prosecuted under civil laws or declared AWOL." Well, I hope Bremer feels safe with his private guards...considering they can run away as soon as the situation becomes ugly.
There are so many more passages in the article that are worth quoting, but I am trying to keep this short. The point is not to doubt the courage of all the men and women who are over there right now, but it is to call into question a policy that allows the Bush Administration to downplay how overwhelmed our troops are in Iraq, to outsource some of the "crucial" functions that our country spends an exorbitant amount of tax dollars training personnel to do, and to hide the true costs of the war by siphoning money from public works projects into the kind of expenditure that should be disclosed in military budgets. Not to mention the lack of oversight in a situation that is fraught with potential for abuse, including human rights abuse.
Anyway, that's my two cents.
|
Sunday, April 18, 2004
Surprising Field Trip
I recently visited a federal prison for women in Danbury, Conn. It was eye-opening, and I wanted to get a few observations down.
The warden (also a woman) told us that she would much rather run a men's maximum security prison than a women's prison (which is basically minimum security). Though there's more violence involved, she said that the men are more compliant than the women. That is, they're more likely to follow the rules without "backtalk" (my word). The warden speculated that this was because men are raised playing team sports and often serve in the military, and so are less likely to question rules or bristle at being treated the same as everyone else. A female inmate is more likely to ask why such-and-such rule has to apply to her, i.e., why an exception can't be made.
The warden also said that there's very little violence in the women's prison. She says that once the women are taken away from the negative influences in the outside world, they cause few problems (or at least violent problems). Unsurprisingly, these influences are often men, such as husbands, boyfriends, fathers, etc. There are no gangs in the prison, though the women did create "families."
We also had the opportunity to meet three inmates. All three were in for drug offenses, which was unremarkable. What was remarkable was their sentences. The three were all serving over twenty years. One had pleaded guilty to thirty years. I don't think I need to say that that's a LOT of time to plead guilty to. They described their lawyers, state practitioners trying some federal work, as largely incompetent. One woman described her attorney handing her her presentence report and asking her if it looked right because he didn't know what to make of it. They were not explained the rights they were waiving by pleading guilty. At their Rule 11 allocution (where, before pleading guilty, the judge asks the defendant a series of questions to ensure that s/he understands the rights s/he is waiving), the women simply kept saying "yes," regardless of whether they understood or not. One of the questions at the allocution is whether the defendant has been promised a sentence (because no one is supposed to promise the defendant a sentence because no one but the judge has the power to sentence). One woman's lawyer told her that she wouldn't get more than ten years, but she still told the judge that she had not been promised a sentence. She got over twenty years.
Another's lawyer told her not to plead guilty because he loved trying cases. For those of you reading that aren't lawyers, that's an ethical breach worthy of disbarment, and it's a travesty. I don't have words strong enough to condemn these attorneys. I asked the women for the reputation of the federal defenders. One said that an attorney seeking to be retained (i.e., get paid) told her, as she chose whether to receive appointed counsel or collect the money to pay him, that "you get what you pay for," which is comlete nonsense because the federal defenders are, on average, the best attorneys I have seen--including the prosecutors and attorneys from "big firms." More on this in a later post.
To end on a happy note, we were all truly struck by how caring the prison staff was. One especially poignant moment came in a section of the prison where inmates with mental problems (be it depression, suicidal tendencies, etc.) were housed as a stepping stone before being reintegrated with the general prison population. The prison had various programs and support groups for these inmates which the inmates could eventually "graduate" from and rejoin the population at large. So we're standing in that area on the tour, and an inmate comes up to one of the staff leading the tour, and tells him that she graduated last week. He responds that he knows, he saw her at the ceremony. She asks if he'll come see her diploma and he promises he will after the guests (us) leave. It was a touching moment, because she was so happy and proud of what she'd accomplished, and that she had such a relationship with the staff that she wanted to share it with them.
Finally, we saw the law library. They had a pretty full collection of F.2d and F.3d, but I found that to be pretty meaningless. How is a full set of F.3ds going to help anyone? They had no online capability (at least not in the law library), and they also had very few treatises. I figure that's what they need. A bunch of habeas manuals, some guides on drafting pleadings, and maybe some books on § 1983. So maybe if any chambers out there have any old habeas or 1983 treatises, donate them to your local prison.
|
The warden (also a woman) told us that she would much rather run a men's maximum security prison than a women's prison (which is basically minimum security). Though there's more violence involved, she said that the men are more compliant than the women. That is, they're more likely to follow the rules without "backtalk" (my word). The warden speculated that this was because men are raised playing team sports and often serve in the military, and so are less likely to question rules or bristle at being treated the same as everyone else. A female inmate is more likely to ask why such-and-such rule has to apply to her, i.e., why an exception can't be made.
The warden also said that there's very little violence in the women's prison. She says that once the women are taken away from the negative influences in the outside world, they cause few problems (or at least violent problems). Unsurprisingly, these influences are often men, such as husbands, boyfriends, fathers, etc. There are no gangs in the prison, though the women did create "families."
We also had the opportunity to meet three inmates. All three were in for drug offenses, which was unremarkable. What was remarkable was their sentences. The three were all serving over twenty years. One had pleaded guilty to thirty years. I don't think I need to say that that's a LOT of time to plead guilty to. They described their lawyers, state practitioners trying some federal work, as largely incompetent. One woman described her attorney handing her her presentence report and asking her if it looked right because he didn't know what to make of it. They were not explained the rights they were waiving by pleading guilty. At their Rule 11 allocution (where, before pleading guilty, the judge asks the defendant a series of questions to ensure that s/he understands the rights s/he is waiving), the women simply kept saying "yes," regardless of whether they understood or not. One of the questions at the allocution is whether the defendant has been promised a sentence (because no one is supposed to promise the defendant a sentence because no one but the judge has the power to sentence). One woman's lawyer told her that she wouldn't get more than ten years, but she still told the judge that she had not been promised a sentence. She got over twenty years.
Another's lawyer told her not to plead guilty because he loved trying cases. For those of you reading that aren't lawyers, that's an ethical breach worthy of disbarment, and it's a travesty. I don't have words strong enough to condemn these attorneys. I asked the women for the reputation of the federal defenders. One said that an attorney seeking to be retained (i.e., get paid) told her, as she chose whether to receive appointed counsel or collect the money to pay him, that "you get what you pay for," which is comlete nonsense because the federal defenders are, on average, the best attorneys I have seen--including the prosecutors and attorneys from "big firms." More on this in a later post.
To end on a happy note, we were all truly struck by how caring the prison staff was. One especially poignant moment came in a section of the prison where inmates with mental problems (be it depression, suicidal tendencies, etc.) were housed as a stepping stone before being reintegrated with the general prison population. The prison had various programs and support groups for these inmates which the inmates could eventually "graduate" from and rejoin the population at large. So we're standing in that area on the tour, and an inmate comes up to one of the staff leading the tour, and tells him that she graduated last week. He responds that he knows, he saw her at the ceremony. She asks if he'll come see her diploma and he promises he will after the guests (us) leave. It was a touching moment, because she was so happy and proud of what she'd accomplished, and that she had such a relationship with the staff that she wanted to share it with them.
Finally, we saw the law library. They had a pretty full collection of F.2d and F.3d, but I found that to be pretty meaningless. How is a full set of F.3ds going to help anyone? They had no online capability (at least not in the law library), and they also had very few treatises. I figure that's what they need. A bunch of habeas manuals, some guides on drafting pleadings, and maybe some books on § 1983. So maybe if any chambers out there have any old habeas or 1983 treatises, donate them to your local prison.
|
Eulogy
A friend of mine (named "Katja," americanized to "Kathy"), sent the following article from the NY Post around, prefacing it by writing, "You know, if the Post were to write this about me in 60 years, I would have had a happy life." The text of the article reads:
April 10, 2004 -- Kathy, a beloved 34-year-old beluga whale at the New York Aquarium in Coney Island, was euthanized yesterday because of complications from old age and a bacterial disease. The adorable mammal survived years beyond her cousins in the wild, who rarely make it to 30.
Kathy had been under special care by veterinarians and trainers after being diagnosed with a severe bacterial infection.
"She was one of the most beloved animals here," said Martha Hiatt, senior trainer at the aquarium.
"She had such a great face. She looked like she was always smiling. She was so great with the public. The kids would just squeal when they saw her face because she was always so expressive."
Kathy, believed to have been the longest-living whale in captivity, arrived at the aquarium in 1975 after being captured in the Churchill River in Manitoba, Canada, just 600 miles from the North Pole.
With her fun-loving demeanor, Kathy immediately became one of the most popular attractions at the aquarium.
Aquarium director Dr. Paul Boyle said officials and visitors "are deeply saddened by the loss of our beloved beluga, Kathy . . . a truly amazing animal and an ambassador for her species."
Veterinary staff had worked tirelessly to save Kathy, who had two offspring.
But her advanced age and the severity of her disease proved too much for the mammal to bear.
|
April 10, 2004 -- Kathy, a beloved 34-year-old beluga whale at the New York Aquarium in Coney Island, was euthanized yesterday because of complications from old age and a bacterial disease. The adorable mammal survived years beyond her cousins in the wild, who rarely make it to 30.
Kathy had been under special care by veterinarians and trainers after being diagnosed with a severe bacterial infection.
"She was one of the most beloved animals here," said Martha Hiatt, senior trainer at the aquarium.
"She had such a great face. She looked like she was always smiling. She was so great with the public. The kids would just squeal when they saw her face because she was always so expressive."
Kathy, believed to have been the longest-living whale in captivity, arrived at the aquarium in 1975 after being captured in the Churchill River in Manitoba, Canada, just 600 miles from the North Pole.
With her fun-loving demeanor, Kathy immediately became one of the most popular attractions at the aquarium.
Aquarium director Dr. Paul Boyle said officials and visitors "are deeply saddened by the loss of our beloved beluga, Kathy . . . a truly amazing animal and an ambassador for her species."
Veterinary staff had worked tirelessly to save Kathy, who had two offspring.
But her advanced age and the severity of her disease proved too much for the mammal to bear.
|
Thursday, April 15, 2004
Sheer Brilliance
A few random observations on our commander-in-chief's performance Tuesday night:
1. He was much more impressive than I had expected. I suppose that has much more to do with how low my expectations are (down to the level of "parent at the Special Olympics"), than how great his performance was.
2. Did anyone else notice the eloquence gap between the reporters and Bush? Reporters would shoot out sharp, well-phrased questions quickly. In response, Bush offered short sentences filled uh . . .um . . . with monosyllabic words and riddled with er . . . I mean . . . stammering.
3. I'm beginning to see some strong parallels between Bush and The Dude from The Big Lebowski. Just as The Dude seized upon words and phrases he heard from other characters in the movie ("to use the parlance of our times," "you mean coitus?," "this aggression, uh, man, like, won't stand") and repeated them like a small child, Bush seemed intent on repeating whatever catch phrases his speech writers and advisers had cooked up for him ("changing the world," "I understand the consequences," "no inkling of the attacks", "oceans won't protect us"). Maybe Donald Rumsfeld will eventually turn into Lebowski's "Donny."
4. If "Freedom is the Almighty's gift to every man and woman in this world," as Bush stated, why did we shut down al-Sadr's newspaper? Taking away the Almighty's gift seems pretty antithetical to our purpose in Iraq, no?
5. It seemed that the vast majority of his comments fell into one of two categories. First were the comments that were so blatantly obvious that no one could disagree with them (e.g., "an important part of the 9/11 commission's job is to analyze what went on and what could have perhaps been done differently so that we can better secure America for the future", ). Then, there were the comments that required extensive justification to demonstrate their validity (e.g., "He [Hussein] was a danger"). Bush, however, offered both sorts of statements in the same cocky, matter of fact tone--a rhetorically brilliant move on his part, I think, because it makes it so easy for listeners to forget that the latter sorts of statements require any justification. Unreflective as he may be, he's got a Copperfield-esque ability to trick people.
|
1. He was much more impressive than I had expected. I suppose that has much more to do with how low my expectations are (down to the level of "parent at the Special Olympics"), than how great his performance was.
2. Did anyone else notice the eloquence gap between the reporters and Bush? Reporters would shoot out sharp, well-phrased questions quickly. In response, Bush offered short sentences filled uh . . .um . . . with monosyllabic words and riddled with er . . . I mean . . . stammering.
3. I'm beginning to see some strong parallels between Bush and The Dude from The Big Lebowski. Just as The Dude seized upon words and phrases he heard from other characters in the movie ("to use the parlance of our times," "you mean coitus?," "this aggression, uh, man, like, won't stand") and repeated them like a small child, Bush seemed intent on repeating whatever catch phrases his speech writers and advisers had cooked up for him ("changing the world," "I understand the consequences," "no inkling of the attacks", "oceans won't protect us"). Maybe Donald Rumsfeld will eventually turn into Lebowski's "Donny."
4. If "Freedom is the Almighty's gift to every man and woman in this world," as Bush stated, why did we shut down al-Sadr's newspaper? Taking away the Almighty's gift seems pretty antithetical to our purpose in Iraq, no?
5. It seemed that the vast majority of his comments fell into one of two categories. First were the comments that were so blatantly obvious that no one could disagree with them (e.g., "an important part of the 9/11 commission's job is to analyze what went on and what could have perhaps been done differently so that we can better secure America for the future", ). Then, there were the comments that required extensive justification to demonstrate their validity (e.g., "He [Hussein] was a danger"). Bush, however, offered both sorts of statements in the same cocky, matter of fact tone--a rhetorically brilliant move on his part, I think, because it makes it so easy for listeners to forget that the latter sorts of statements require any justification. Unreflective as he may be, he's got a Copperfield-esque ability to trick people.
|
Wednesday, April 14, 2004
Lyin' Sonsabitches
I can't believe what an incredible disregard for the truth drug companies have. Abbott Laboratories is coming under fire for QUINTUPLING the cost of an AIDS drug. Of course, Abbott offers the standard pharmaceutical company explanation: "We need to increase our revenue because our R&D costs are so enormous."
I had long been sympathetic to that defense. After all, for each successful drug, the pharmaceutical companies finance scores of projects that flop and thereby generate zero revenue. Once I looked at some pharmaceutical companies' annual reports, however, that sympathy disappeared.
Abbott's R&D costs are big, no doubt about it. But their expenditures on advertising and other forms of "marketing" trumped the R&D costs by 266% in 2002 (see Abbott's 2002 Annual Report) and by 291% in 2003 (see Abbott's 2003 Annual Report).
Abbott's practices in this regard are far from an anomaly in that industry. In 2002, Merck spent $2.667 billion on R&D. The same year, it spent $6.187 billion on marketing and administrative expenses. Along similar lines, in 2002, Pfizer spent $5.176 billion (16% of revenues) on R&D. It also spent $10.846 billion (33.5% of revenues) on "sales incentives and advertising."
So rather than screw the patients (and, for that matter, insurance companies), why not cut down on the "wine & dine" dinners with doctors? Why not kill some of the TV advertising budget? Why has the media not begun asking these questions??
|
I had long been sympathetic to that defense. After all, for each successful drug, the pharmaceutical companies finance scores of projects that flop and thereby generate zero revenue. Once I looked at some pharmaceutical companies' annual reports, however, that sympathy disappeared.
Abbott's R&D costs are big, no doubt about it. But their expenditures on advertising and other forms of "marketing" trumped the R&D costs by 266% in 2002 (see Abbott's 2002 Annual Report) and by 291% in 2003 (see Abbott's 2003 Annual Report).
Abbott's practices in this regard are far from an anomaly in that industry. In 2002, Merck spent $2.667 billion on R&D. The same year, it spent $6.187 billion on marketing and administrative expenses. Along similar lines, in 2002, Pfizer spent $5.176 billion (16% of revenues) on R&D. It also spent $10.846 billion (33.5% of revenues) on "sales incentives and advertising."
So rather than screw the patients (and, for that matter, insurance companies), why not cut down on the "wine & dine" dinners with doctors? Why not kill some of the TV advertising budget? Why has the media not begun asking these questions??
|
Thursday, April 08, 2004
More on Law School Rankings
In a previous post, I wrote a bit about why law school rankings are such nonsense. It was mostly some disconnected jabs at this site run by Prof. Brian Leiter. But my criticism really extends to all rankings that follow the syllogistic reasoning that schools with a better ranking (whether determined "objectively," by survey, whatever) in some category will provide a proportionately "better" law education. This, of course, includes the eagerly anticipated U.S. News & World Report rankings. (By the way, does anyone else think that these seem to appear more often than annually? Maybe it's just that colleges and graduate schools are published separately. Or maybe it's a sinister plot to milk the franchise.)
Anyway, I actually have a constructive view as well, and I want to write about that in this post. First off, let's set aside (for the time being at least) the problem of defining what a "good law school experience" means; diff'rent strokes for diff'rent folks. That's an irreducibly subjective debate, I think--maybe you want good constitutional law classes, maybe you want good clinics, maybe you want to be indoctrinated by the [liberal / conservative] elite, maybe you want to gawk at hottie undergrads. Suit yourself.
My view harks back to the original concept of the university, and I mean the way back version. I mean the version you learned about in your high school western civilization class. I mean the founding of the University of Paris (the Sorbonne) in the 13th century; I mean the founding of Oxford University in the 12th century; I mean the 11th-century founding of the University of Bologna. If you follow these links, you'll see that all these great universities grew up as intellectual centers. The point was vivere socialiter et collegialiter et moraliter et scholariter ("to live in good company, collegially, morally and studiously") (apparently Robert de Sorbon's motto for his college). The point of the university is the people there.
To use modern economic terminology, the original university existed to exploit the network effect of having scholars, teachers, students, resources all in the same physical location. Unless you're Immanuel Kant sitting on your own, cogitating away, things are going to go much, much better if you spend your time at a great center of learning. And, reciprocally, the university will be more attractive to the next scholar/teacher/student/thinker if you're there too.
What does this have to do with law schools? Like the original universities (and modern-day universities), law schools are where we congregate to learn. The rise of the modern American law school has, over a century or more, displaced the tradition of reading law, and the benefits of learning in a network-effect environment probably oughtweigh those of learning in an apprenticeship environment, as reading law essentially was. What does this have to do with rankings? Well, many of the categories in which law schools are ranked are categories that measure how successful a law school is at delivering network-effect benefits. Think about it:
Then there are a bunch of categories that are more about how much a prospective student should value a degree from the institution
This second group is undoubtedly susceptible to the causal reasoning I identify at the beginning of the post. For example, if School A has a 90% employment rate and School B has an 80% employment rate, then, well, it's more likely that a School A graduate will be employed after graduation than will a School B graduate. But notice also that none of these criteria are really about the relative educational quality of schools; they're instrumental measures of what a degree is worth. (Measures of institutional resources--such as student/faculty ratios--are an exception, I think; they're probably not network-effect measures, but they do probably go to the educational quality at an institution.)
In a fairly roundabout way, I've come to this: Measures of educational quality are generally measures of the strength of an institution's network effect. "So what?" you say. Here's the last piece (and I'd be glad for some clear theoretical justification for this): A network-effect organization either works or it doesn't. There's not much in-between. There's eBay, and then there's a bunch of auction sites that don't amount to much (if they even exist anymore). There are a half dozen instant messaging systems; there were many others, but they failed. There's Microsoft Word, there's WordPerfect hanging on for dear life, and there are a bunch of largely irrelevant other word processing programs.
I posit that the same thing basically happens with law schools: Either they work, or they don't. Leiter says not to make much of differences of 0.1 in his rankings (on a 1-5 scale). I think differences of 0.5 or maybe more don't matter. If a school gets a high-ish ranking, it's because it's got a critical mass, it's got a network of scholars, teachers, thinkers, students that works. If a school gets a low-ish ranking, it's just going through the motions. (Note: I don't mean "going through the motions" pejoratively; there are lots of vocational-school style law schools out there that train people to be truly excellent practitioners. They probably get high rankings in a number of the non-network-effect instrumental categories. The difference between the Yales of the world and these other schools is for another post.)
Of course, the law school world is enough in flux that there are always schools on the cusp between having a just-too-loose network to having a vibrant intellectual life. Schools are always moving up and down the U.S. News list. Northwestern University Law School comes to mind--I think it's gone from the mid-to-high teens to #9 in under a decade. (Of course, all this motion may be shuffling the formula to generate controversy, and hence sales.)
For the prospective law student, I think this is the message: You want a place that looks like its alive. You want to be somewhere where the students are smarter than you. You want somewhere that there are multiple faculty in each subject driving strong sub-networks within the school--even at the expense of being "weak" in some other subject areas. (Yale's sheer mass of faculty is probably partly responsible for its strong network effect success, since it can be strong in many, many areas.) And you want a place that has a network that you'll fit into, since you'll benefit more from a place that has a pretty good network that you fit into than a place with a fantastic network that you won't.
Would I have been happier at Harvard or Yale than at Stanford? I'm pretty sure I wouldn't have been, since I'm more of a "Stanford person" than I am "Yalish" or "a Harvard guy." This is all a long-winded and theoretical way of saying believe the stereotypes because, even if they aren't "true" in some Platonic sense, if everyone follows them, you'll wind up at school with a bunch of people attracted to the same place you were, for the same reasons--everyone can get "a good legal education" this way, regardless of what they think it is. And that, after all, was why people originally came to Bologna, Oxford, and the Sorbonne.
|
Anyway, I actually have a constructive view as well, and I want to write about that in this post. First off, let's set aside (for the time being at least) the problem of defining what a "good law school experience" means; diff'rent strokes for diff'rent folks. That's an irreducibly subjective debate, I think--maybe you want good constitutional law classes, maybe you want good clinics, maybe you want to be indoctrinated by the [liberal / conservative] elite, maybe you want to gawk at hottie undergrads. Suit yourself.
My view harks back to the original concept of the university, and I mean the way back version. I mean the version you learned about in your high school western civilization class. I mean the founding of the University of Paris (the Sorbonne) in the 13th century; I mean the founding of Oxford University in the 12th century; I mean the 11th-century founding of the University of Bologna. If you follow these links, you'll see that all these great universities grew up as intellectual centers. The point was vivere socialiter et collegialiter et moraliter et scholariter ("to live in good company, collegially, morally and studiously") (apparently Robert de Sorbon's motto for his college). The point of the university is the people there.
To use modern economic terminology, the original university existed to exploit the network effect of having scholars, teachers, students, resources all in the same physical location. Unless you're Immanuel Kant sitting on your own, cogitating away, things are going to go much, much better if you spend your time at a great center of learning. And, reciprocally, the university will be more attractive to the next scholar/teacher/student/thinker if you're there too.
What does this have to do with law schools? Like the original universities (and modern-day universities), law schools are where we congregate to learn. The rise of the modern American law school has, over a century or more, displaced the tradition of reading law, and the benefits of learning in a network-effect environment probably oughtweigh those of learning in an apprenticeship environment, as reading law essentially was. What does this have to do with rankings? Well, many of the categories in which law schools are ranked are categories that measure how successful a law school is at delivering network-effect benefits. Think about it:
- Scholarly reputation (ranked by other scholars) tells you how attractive a school is to other scholars, which is a measure of the strength of the school's network effect
- Selectivity, LSAT scores, and GPAs are all measures of how "good" the students at the school will be; presumably you want to be at the school with the better
Then there are a bunch of categories that are more about how much a prospective student should value a degree from the institution
- Reputation among law firms, judges
- Bar passage rate
- Percent employed following graduation
This second group is undoubtedly susceptible to the causal reasoning I identify at the beginning of the post. For example, if School A has a 90% employment rate and School B has an 80% employment rate, then, well, it's more likely that a School A graduate will be employed after graduation than will a School B graduate. But notice also that none of these criteria are really about the relative educational quality of schools; they're instrumental measures of what a degree is worth. (Measures of institutional resources--such as student/faculty ratios--are an exception, I think; they're probably not network-effect measures, but they do probably go to the educational quality at an institution.)
In a fairly roundabout way, I've come to this: Measures of educational quality are generally measures of the strength of an institution's network effect. "So what?" you say. Here's the last piece (and I'd be glad for some clear theoretical justification for this): A network-effect organization either works or it doesn't. There's not much in-between. There's eBay, and then there's a bunch of auction sites that don't amount to much (if they even exist anymore). There are a half dozen instant messaging systems; there were many others, but they failed. There's Microsoft Word, there's WordPerfect hanging on for dear life, and there are a bunch of largely irrelevant other word processing programs.
I posit that the same thing basically happens with law schools: Either they work, or they don't. Leiter says not to make much of differences of 0.1 in his rankings (on a 1-5 scale). I think differences of 0.5 or maybe more don't matter. If a school gets a high-ish ranking, it's because it's got a critical mass, it's got a network of scholars, teachers, thinkers, students that works. If a school gets a low-ish ranking, it's just going through the motions. (Note: I don't mean "going through the motions" pejoratively; there are lots of vocational-school style law schools out there that train people to be truly excellent practitioners. They probably get high rankings in a number of the non-network-effect instrumental categories. The difference between the Yales of the world and these other schools is for another post.)
Of course, the law school world is enough in flux that there are always schools on the cusp between having a just-too-loose network to having a vibrant intellectual life. Schools are always moving up and down the U.S. News list. Northwestern University Law School comes to mind--I think it's gone from the mid-to-high teens to #9 in under a decade. (Of course, all this motion may be shuffling the formula to generate controversy, and hence sales.)
For the prospective law student, I think this is the message: You want a place that looks like its alive. You want to be somewhere where the students are smarter than you. You want somewhere that there are multiple faculty in each subject driving strong sub-networks within the school--even at the expense of being "weak" in some other subject areas. (Yale's sheer mass of faculty is probably partly responsible for its strong network effect success, since it can be strong in many, many areas.) And you want a place that has a network that you'll fit into, since you'll benefit more from a place that has a pretty good network that you fit into than a place with a fantastic network that you won't.
Would I have been happier at Harvard or Yale than at Stanford? I'm pretty sure I wouldn't have been, since I'm more of a "Stanford person" than I am "Yalish" or "a Harvard guy." This is all a long-winded and theoretical way of saying believe the stereotypes because, even if they aren't "true" in some Platonic sense, if everyone follows them, you'll wind up at school with a bunch of people attracted to the same place you were, for the same reasons--everyone can get "a good legal education" this way, regardless of what they think it is. And that, after all, was why people originally came to Bologna, Oxford, and the Sorbonne.
|
LCD on FCC
I recently attended a Sage Francis concert--one of the shows on the Fuck Clear Channel (FCC) Tour. Given the bruhaha that's erupted over Clear Channel's increasing monopolization of radio stations and concert venues, plus their close friendship with a certain political party, I thought that moniker was kind of clever. Now that they're taking away half my entertainment on my morning commute (the other half, ironically, is NPR), I wish I had bought the T-shirt.
The New York Times reports today that Clear Channel dumped the Howard Stern Show. For the past two months, Stern has indicated that the end was near. According to his account, Clear Channel had no problem with him at all until he encouraged his listeners to dump Bush this coming November. To Stern, the controversy about Janet Jackson's breast exposure was overdone, and the FCC was becoming overzealous in cracking down on indecency violations. Then, Clear Channel suspended him from six stations, which Stern took as a reaction to his anti-Bush statements. Today, CC gave him the axe.
If Stern is correct about the motivations for Clear Channel's actions, that's pretty scary. Scary almost to the level of conspiracy theory scary . . . "we allow you to control more of 'the public's air waves,' which you will then use to silence our critics." Or maybe it was "you give us favorable coverage when we go to war, then we allow you to control a greater share of each market's radio stations, and then you disseminate our propaganda and silence our critics."
Alternatively, maybe we've come to the conclusion that we really don't need discussions on queefing, sex with midgets, and all the rest of the Stern show's favorites, broadcast over airwaves that are readily accessible to high school kids on their way to school. Maybe the decision to drop him was motivated by more noble aspirations.
The timing of all of this still seems rather curious to me--especially because the FCC has offered no indication that it would fine Oprah for her show's discussion of "tossing salad" and "rainbow parties." Maybe the principle that emerges from all this is that discussing nasty sex is okay if you're a 35-55 housewife (because the odds that you'll act on what you hear are way slim), but not if you're an 18-35 single male (because you might actually try to perform a Dirty Sanchez on an unsuspecting companion).
Whatever. In the end, Stern should just be thankful that his penalty is rather light compared to the death sentence the FCC meted out upon co-host Artie Lange.
|
The New York Times reports today that Clear Channel dumped the Howard Stern Show. For the past two months, Stern has indicated that the end was near. According to his account, Clear Channel had no problem with him at all until he encouraged his listeners to dump Bush this coming November. To Stern, the controversy about Janet Jackson's breast exposure was overdone, and the FCC was becoming overzealous in cracking down on indecency violations. Then, Clear Channel suspended him from six stations, which Stern took as a reaction to his anti-Bush statements. Today, CC gave him the axe.
If Stern is correct about the motivations for Clear Channel's actions, that's pretty scary. Scary almost to the level of conspiracy theory scary . . . "we allow you to control more of 'the public's air waves,' which you will then use to silence our critics." Or maybe it was "you give us favorable coverage when we go to war, then we allow you to control a greater share of each market's radio stations, and then you disseminate our propaganda and silence our critics."
Alternatively, maybe we've come to the conclusion that we really don't need discussions on queefing, sex with midgets, and all the rest of the Stern show's favorites, broadcast over airwaves that are readily accessible to high school kids on their way to school. Maybe the decision to drop him was motivated by more noble aspirations.
The timing of all of this still seems rather curious to me--especially because the FCC has offered no indication that it would fine Oprah for her show's discussion of "tossing salad" and "rainbow parties." Maybe the principle that emerges from all this is that discussing nasty sex is okay if you're a 35-55 housewife (because the odds that you'll act on what you hear are way slim), but not if you're an 18-35 single male (because you might actually try to perform a Dirty Sanchez on an unsuspecting companion).
Whatever. In the end, Stern should just be thankful that his penalty is rather light compared to the death sentence the FCC meted out upon co-host Artie Lange.
|
Rankings nonsense
Somehow I once again find myself playing the straight man to Mike's Jonathan Swift. I took a look at his link to Brian Leiter's so-called Educational Quality Rankings. The site is an impressive compilation of numbers, which I guess are supposed to help students select law schools, or provide material for academic onanism and envy. (I suspect it's the latter, because sections like this one about major faculty moves aren't likely to mean anything to a college senior or third-year i-banker considering his or her choices. Heck, I'm a law school graduate and was the President of the Stanford Law Review and I'm barely familiar with a quarter of the names on the list for each school.)
Anyway, I recommend anyone to go to the site and poke around a bit, because there are some real whoppers. My favorite is the following (the emphasis is Leiter's):
Only a legal academic could write this with a straight face. I think it means that if you don't think your professors' scholarly output will define the quality of your law school experience, then you aren't really interested in getting a legal education. Huh? Ability to produce good scholarship may be correlated with ability to deliver a quality legal education, but I don't think it's a causal relationship. Maybe Leiter means to invoke something broader than scholarly output by his reference to "scholarly quality," but that borders on the tautological--you can get a good legal education if you get taught by people who can deliver a good legal education? Huh? The same mistake is made in the name of the site--Educational Quality Rankings. These aren't rankings about educational quality; they're about scholarship quality. Only a legal academic would think that "scholarly quality" magically gives you superhero powers to teach well, be a good litigator, and solve the world's problems. Sadly, many do.
In fairness, there are a great many more sensible statements on Leiter's site than there are goofy comments like the one above--he recognizes that no survey is perfect, that his methodological choices are quite debateable, and so on. The point I hope to make in a future post is that many numerical surveys ask you to interpret them using the following inference:
The fallacy, I think, lies in making a causal inference (the second step). I think we can infer something from the first step, but in a somewhat different way. More on that later.
|
Anyway, I recommend anyone to go to the site and poke around a bit, because there are some real whoppers. My favorite is the following (the emphasis is Leiter's):
"The scholarly quality of the faculty is obviously only one factor for prospective students to consider. It is certainly a very important factor for anyone who takes the education part of “legal education” at all seriously, and it may be the decisive factor for those interested in pursuing careers in law teaching. "
Only a legal academic could write this with a straight face. I think it means that if you don't think your professors' scholarly output will define the quality of your law school experience, then you aren't really interested in getting a legal education. Huh? Ability to produce good scholarship may be correlated with ability to deliver a quality legal education, but I don't think it's a causal relationship. Maybe Leiter means to invoke something broader than scholarly output by his reference to "scholarly quality," but that borders on the tautological--you can get a good legal education if you get taught by people who can deliver a good legal education? Huh? The same mistake is made in the name of the site--Educational Quality Rankings. These aren't rankings about educational quality; they're about scholarship quality. Only a legal academic would think that "scholarly quality" magically gives you superhero powers to teach well, be a good litigator, and solve the world's problems. Sadly, many do.
In fairness, there are a great many more sensible statements on Leiter's site than there are goofy comments like the one above--he recognizes that no survey is perfect, that his methodological choices are quite debateable, and so on. The point I hope to make in a future post is that many numerical surveys ask you to interpret them using the following inference:
- School X rates a 4.5 on property A, while School Y rates a 4.1 on property A
- Property A makes for a better education
- Therefore, School X delivers a better education
The fallacy, I think, lies in making a causal inference (the second step). I think we can infer something from the first step, but in a somewhat different way. More on that later.
|
Wednesday, April 07, 2004
A Modest Proposal
As many of you might know, Harvard has recently surpassed Stanford for the #2 spot in the U.S. News & World Report rankings. Surprisingly, this event has not been posted on SLS's current events website. Initially, I thought it was posted under the title How I Lost the Big One, but, as it turns out, that's a story by Larry Lessig about Eldred v. Ashcroft (and an excellent story at that), not a post by Kathleen Sullivan about conceding the #2 spot. Worse, SLS is currently at #4 on the Educational Quality Rankings, behind Yale, Harvard, and the Univ. of Chicago.
This is unacceptable.
Some, including (according to grossly unsubstantiated rumors) Dean Sullivan, are calling for an inquiry into how Harvard tabulates its faculty. Could Harvard be counting Legal Research & Writing instructors as faculty? Dear lord. Why don't we just put some dolphins in a fish tank and call them faculty? While an inquiry is a good idea, it doesn't go far enough. Some are suggesting that SLS too should count various staff as faculty, including Kathy from the Law Cafe, the president of Law Review (less of a stretch, right, Ben?), and the tech guy who's constantly helping Grundfest with the overheads. But this is just a quick-fix. We need a solution that gets to the heart of the problem.
That's why I'm proposing a logical, albeit radical, solution: Expel the stupid kids. Look, there's no perfect indicator for law school performance. College grades and LSAT scores have proven to be woefully inadequate. Even a kid who got a 4.0 at Stanford undergrad and a 175 LSAT could come in and get a lousy 3.5 or 3.6 in his or her first semester--and that's with the inflated 3.4 mean.
No, the only sure indicator of law school success is law school success. That's why I propose making the first semester probationary. Any student who doesn't earn a 3.7 or higher at the end of the first semester would be given the choice of leaving or sticking around to help out with moot court. Under this plan, professors would be encouraged to focus on the students with promise, which would be clear from in-class comments and office-hour conversations. No longer could stupid kids weigh down SLS by taking Negotiations, Advanced Negotiations, and Mediation in the same semester, 3King their entire courseload, "excelling" in a "clinic," or sucking up to professional-responsibility professors.
Aside from graduating smarter students, my proposal would have concrete benefits for SLS's rank. First, practitioners and peers would be more impressed with SLS grads, thereby improving those two key assessments. Second, while our acceptance rate would remain the same, our graduation rate would plummet. Though the ranking doesn't take that into account now, I trust that that factor would have to be added; and while other schools would rush to begin failing students, we would be sitting pretty at #1. At worst, the low graduation rate would represent a sort of "x factor" in the ranking, bringing us at least past Harvard, which is really all we care about, because everyone thinks Yale grads are a little goofy anyway.
There are other ideas floating around, such as requiring that grads not waste their educations (and lives) doing something outside the law, expelling all the students on the Law & Policy Review, and trying "really, really extra hard this time" to get Akhil Amar.
I look forward to a dialogue.
|
This is unacceptable.
Some, including (according to grossly unsubstantiated rumors) Dean Sullivan, are calling for an inquiry into how Harvard tabulates its faculty. Could Harvard be counting Legal Research & Writing instructors as faculty? Dear lord. Why don't we just put some dolphins in a fish tank and call them faculty? While an inquiry is a good idea, it doesn't go far enough. Some are suggesting that SLS too should count various staff as faculty, including Kathy from the Law Cafe, the president of Law Review (less of a stretch, right, Ben?), and the tech guy who's constantly helping Grundfest with the overheads. But this is just a quick-fix. We need a solution that gets to the heart of the problem.
That's why I'm proposing a logical, albeit radical, solution: Expel the stupid kids. Look, there's no perfect indicator for law school performance. College grades and LSAT scores have proven to be woefully inadequate. Even a kid who got a 4.0 at Stanford undergrad and a 175 LSAT could come in and get a lousy 3.5 or 3.6 in his or her first semester--and that's with the inflated 3.4 mean.
No, the only sure indicator of law school success is law school success. That's why I propose making the first semester probationary. Any student who doesn't earn a 3.7 or higher at the end of the first semester would be given the choice of leaving or sticking around to help out with moot court. Under this plan, professors would be encouraged to focus on the students with promise, which would be clear from in-class comments and office-hour conversations. No longer could stupid kids weigh down SLS by taking Negotiations, Advanced Negotiations, and Mediation in the same semester, 3King their entire courseload, "excelling" in a "clinic," or sucking up to professional-responsibility professors.
Aside from graduating smarter students, my proposal would have concrete benefits for SLS's rank. First, practitioners and peers would be more impressed with SLS grads, thereby improving those two key assessments. Second, while our acceptance rate would remain the same, our graduation rate would plummet. Though the ranking doesn't take that into account now, I trust that that factor would have to be added; and while other schools would rush to begin failing students, we would be sitting pretty at #1. At worst, the low graduation rate would represent a sort of "x factor" in the ranking, bringing us at least past Harvard, which is really all we care about, because everyone thinks Yale grads are a little goofy anyway.
There are other ideas floating around, such as requiring that grads not waste their educations (and lives) doing something outside the law, expelling all the students on the Law & Policy Review, and trying "really, really extra hard this time" to get Akhil Amar.
I look forward to a dialogue.
|
Tuesday, April 06, 2004
Krugman
Okay, here's the question of the night: What is Paul Krugman's job description at the NY Times? Paul Krugman is a former Enron advisor, current professor of econ. and international affairs at Princeton, and a top-flight economist (I'm told; that's not meant to be sarcastic, it's just that I'm not good enough at econ. to judge, and he doesn't write on econ. enough to be judged, as I discuss below). On April 2, 2004, the front-page news was that the economy added 308,000 jobs in March. Krugman's April 2 column was about how the media tried to hush-hush some "bored boy" video shown on David Letterman. I'm not going to criticize him for that, because he may not have known about the 308,000 jobs before that piece was already slotted to run, though that's unlikely. Anyway, I was ready for a piece on the jobs today, especially because Krugman has been leading the charge against Bush's economic policy (rightly or wrongly). So I was interested to read his take on the job creation. I was disappointed. His column today is about mercury poisoning (of course blaming Bush).
Now, I don't have a big problem with people criticizing Bush. But what is Krugman doing? His "thing" is economics, he's been bashing Bush's economic policies and the "jobless" recovery for months, and yet he fails to address the 308,000 jobs the economy added in March? I'm blown away.
|
Now, I don't have a big problem with people criticizing Bush. But what is Krugman doing? His "thing" is economics, he's been bashing Bush's economic policies and the "jobless" recovery for months, and yet he fails to address the 308,000 jobs the economy added in March? I'm blown away.
|
"A High Tech Tuskegee Experiment" and thoughts thereon
I got a call at work today from a guy who wanted to talk to the judge I work for. The judge was at lunch, but the guy seemed to think I was good enough to talk to, and launched into his spiel about being the victim of all sorts of U.S. government plots. Specifically, his complaint centered around him getting zapped by ultrasonic electroshocks or something like that. And his web site had been repeatedly hacked by the feds starting in '99. (Note 1: There ain't no such thing as "ultrasonic electroshocks." Note 2: This is not exactly what the guy described the torture as; I just can't remember his exact words. Note 3: Sir, if you're reading this blog, which is not exactly likely, I apologize for not taking better notes during our conversation.)
Anyway, he sounds like a nut, no? And he goes on and on for about five minutes--like something from Adam Sandler's "Excited Southerner"--and eventually I ask him, "Yes, sir, but what do you expect us to do for you?" (Note 1: I've learned from other eccentric callers not to be sympathetic. It only prolongs things. Note 2: I thought about giving him a mini-lecture in American Constitutional Law and civil procedure to convince him that phoning up a federal court was not likely to cure him of his ills. I decided against it.)
He explains that he wants to get the word out, to tell people of position and importance in government about his plight, in the hopes that they will discuss it. He feels that, if only people knew about this "high tech Tuskegee Experiment," they would act. I closed the conversation by suggesting that he send us some written material, and I gave him the address.
I thought that three things about this conversation are worth thinking about. First, the Tuskegee Experiment (or Tuskegee Study) belongs to that interesting category of anticanonical moments--the things in history that are so uniformly reviled and regretted that nothing good can be said of them, things so outside the canon of the approved parts of our collective past that they belong to the anticanon. (Other examples, from the grave to the whimsical: the Dred Scott v. Sanford decision of the Supreme Court, Adolf Hitler, and the Edsel.) Things in the anticanon are like the elusive "true black" of photography and video screens, they are a reference point, the ne plus ultra (or really the ne plus infra, I guess). Relativist modern society may hold that there's nothing 100% good, but it has yet to tell us that there's nothing 100% bad, and the Tuskegee Experiment is one of those things.
Second observation about my conversation: The guy sounded crazy, right? But he had one thing dead-on, although he was a bit of a conspiracy theorist about it. It is true that the elites in government do all talk, do lunch, do call one another up and chat on the phone, etc. To be overdramatic about it, there really is a cabal of a few thousand people running the show. So he wasn't too far off in thinking that by planting the seed in their lunch conversation, he might get some attention for his plight. I'm offering this as a deeper comment on "how things get done"; I'm not a total cynic, but I do believe that someone in this man's position is likely to get much more attention (and if need be, relief) using the approach he's using, than by filling out forms, sending letters to low-level bureaucrats, etc.
Third observation: The guy sounds crazy, right? But how do we know that? Everyone thought the patients in the Tuskegee Experiment were crazy (well, they were, but that was because they weren't receiving treatment for their syphilis), and nobody at the time believed that government could do such an inhuman thing. But now we know the truth. How do we know that the same isn't true about ultrasonic electroshocks (or whatever)? This raises some epistemological questions that I'm hopelessly unqualified to comment on--like, how do you come to decide something is true? And is that different from knowing something to be true? Here, I've ruled out the truth of what this guy was saying on (1) grounds that we might call the presumption of regularity--basically, governments don't do this sort of thing, so he must be wrong, and (2) the basis that his story sounded nuts. Reason (1) isn't so great, as the Tuskegee Experiment shows. Reason (2) isn't really a reason, but just another way of stating the problem--what does it mean to "sound nuts" and why do we come to that conclusion about some stories and not others?
A lot of unanswered questions. Very un blognoscentic for my first post.
|
Anyway, he sounds like a nut, no? And he goes on and on for about five minutes--like something from Adam Sandler's "Excited Southerner"--and eventually I ask him, "Yes, sir, but what do you expect us to do for you?" (Note 1: I've learned from other eccentric callers not to be sympathetic. It only prolongs things. Note 2: I thought about giving him a mini-lecture in American Constitutional Law and civil procedure to convince him that phoning up a federal court was not likely to cure him of his ills. I decided against it.)
He explains that he wants to get the word out, to tell people of position and importance in government about his plight, in the hopes that they will discuss it. He feels that, if only people knew about this "high tech Tuskegee Experiment," they would act. I closed the conversation by suggesting that he send us some written material, and I gave him the address.
I thought that three things about this conversation are worth thinking about. First, the Tuskegee Experiment (or Tuskegee Study) belongs to that interesting category of anticanonical moments--the things in history that are so uniformly reviled and regretted that nothing good can be said of them, things so outside the canon of the approved parts of our collective past that they belong to the anticanon. (Other examples, from the grave to the whimsical: the Dred Scott v. Sanford decision of the Supreme Court, Adolf Hitler, and the Edsel.) Things in the anticanon are like the elusive "true black" of photography and video screens, they are a reference point, the ne plus ultra (or really the ne plus infra, I guess). Relativist modern society may hold that there's nothing 100% good, but it has yet to tell us that there's nothing 100% bad, and the Tuskegee Experiment is one of those things.
Second observation about my conversation: The guy sounded crazy, right? But he had one thing dead-on, although he was a bit of a conspiracy theorist about it. It is true that the elites in government do all talk, do lunch, do call one another up and chat on the phone, etc. To be overdramatic about it, there really is a cabal of a few thousand people running the show. So he wasn't too far off in thinking that by planting the seed in their lunch conversation, he might get some attention for his plight. I'm offering this as a deeper comment on "how things get done"; I'm not a total cynic, but I do believe that someone in this man's position is likely to get much more attention (and if need be, relief) using the approach he's using, than by filling out forms, sending letters to low-level bureaucrats, etc.
Third observation: The guy sounds crazy, right? But how do we know that? Everyone thought the patients in the Tuskegee Experiment were crazy (well, they were, but that was because they weren't receiving treatment for their syphilis), and nobody at the time believed that government could do such an inhuman thing. But now we know the truth. How do we know that the same isn't true about ultrasonic electroshocks (or whatever)? This raises some epistemological questions that I'm hopelessly unqualified to comment on--like, how do you come to decide something is true? And is that different from knowing something to be true? Here, I've ruled out the truth of what this guy was saying on (1) grounds that we might call the presumption of regularity--basically, governments don't do this sort of thing, so he must be wrong, and (2) the basis that his story sounded nuts. Reason (1) isn't so great, as the Tuskegee Experiment shows. Reason (2) isn't really a reason, but just another way of stating the problem--what does it mean to "sound nuts" and why do we come to that conclusion about some stories and not others?
A lot of unanswered questions. Very un blognoscentic for my first post.
|
Monday, April 05, 2004
So the recent events in Iraq, specifically Sunday's uprising which was exhorted by the Shiite cleric Moktada al-Sadr, got me musing on the following question: What's a more valuable quality, questioning yourself, or questioning authority? I've long believed that there's no greater quality than the understanding that one might be wrong. More than "might be," more like "very likely is." But now I'm thinking that that view is short-sighted. That is, self-doubt (as I'll call it, though "self-awareness" might be better) without the ability, or even the tendency, to question authority, leaves one open to being preyed upon by anyone with the will and the means. The minions of tyrants might be excellent at doubting themselves, indeed too good at it.
I have no clue where I'm going with this. Take me, for example. I'm great at doubting authority, but terrible at doubting myself. Doubting authority comes quite naturally to me, but I have to consciously take a sort of "time out" and turn the light inward before I can really question myself, my choices, and my beliefs. I know I'd be a better person if it came more naturally, because in heated moments, without the benefit of that time out, I can't see myself and my mistakes.
All right, fine, since I'm only a step away, might as well end this post with some Zen:
"Sometimes I go about in pity for myself,
and all the while
A great wind is bearing me across the sky."
-- Ojibwa saying
And you can't end a quasi-Zen post without Basho:
"We gaze
even at horses
this morn of snow."
|
I have no clue where I'm going with this. Take me, for example. I'm great at doubting authority, but terrible at doubting myself. Doubting authority comes quite naturally to me, but I have to consciously take a sort of "time out" and turn the light inward before I can really question myself, my choices, and my beliefs. I know I'd be a better person if it came more naturally, because in heated moments, without the benefit of that time out, I can't see myself and my mistakes.
All right, fine, since I'm only a step away, might as well end this post with some Zen:
"Sometimes I go about in pity for myself,
and all the while
A great wind is bearing me across the sky."
-- Ojibwa saying
And you can't end a quasi-Zen post without Basho:
"We gaze
even at horses
this morn of snow."
|
Arsenal 0--1 Man. Utd.
My condolences to John and Ian. I just saw the game. Pires killed you with that header over the bar. There's still the Champions League.
|
|
Pretty gruesome article in the NY Times today about baby-seal clubbing. I was too young to be "aware" of this practice when it was last making headlines twenty years ago. For me, this was something you brought up to poke fun at someone for being a hardass, e.g., "Why don't you go club some baby seals while you're at it." Little did I know that there's a whole industry of baby-seal clubbers. Is there a politically correct job title for these people? Are they okay with "baby-seal clubbers"? They didn't seem to have much of a problem letting the Times photographers get up-close-and-personal. If you link to the article, there's one shot from about twenty feet away where the baby-seal clubber is in mid-swing and this baby seal is just laying there waiting for it. They don't seem to put up too much of a fight. In fact, according to the article, they're physically incapable of putting up a fight. Isn't the nature kingdom supposed to have a contingency plan for all baby animals? Isn't the mother supposed to be around to protect the baby seal? (Obviously it's not going to be the father; it's not just homo sapiens that perpetuates dead-beat dads, the nature kingdom's full of them.) Cicadas have a contingency: They make sure there are enough of them(selves) to satiate the appetites of their predators. The beauty is in the simplicity, no? "How many of us can a million birds eat before we can reproduce? 500 million? Well then, we'll send a billion." (Here's that article.)
I digress. Anyway, twenty years ago there was a huge outcry against baby-seal clubbing (sorry, I can't stop writing it out, I just can't believe people actually club baby seals, though I'm unsure why I'm so surprised) which virtually shut down the industry (am I using "industry" properly here?). Now it's back, thanks to a booming trade in Russia and other Asian countries. But the outrage isn't there this time. Why? Well, in part because new laws prohibit baby-seal clubbers from clubbing baby seals younger than twelve days. How does that help? Can't the baby-seal clubbers just wait a few extra days? That's a rhetorical question, as I know for a fact that they can. Apparently their fur is less white after twelve days, but while that may make the fur slightly less valuable, it certainly doesn't shore up the market in any significant way. Is it because twelve-day-old seals are mature for seals? I think that's also wrong, because the article referred to the current clubbers as "baby-seal clubbers," even though they're clubbing twelve-day-old seals. Is it because twelve-day-old seals have developed some defense mechanism that eleven-day-old seals have not? The point? There's always a way to justify your boredom with an issue? Mike doesn't know enough about the differences between eleven-day-old seals and twelve-day-old seals to make an informed judgment? You be the judge.
|
I digress. Anyway, twenty years ago there was a huge outcry against baby-seal clubbing (sorry, I can't stop writing it out, I just can't believe people actually club baby seals, though I'm unsure why I'm so surprised) which virtually shut down the industry (am I using "industry" properly here?). Now it's back, thanks to a booming trade in Russia and other Asian countries. But the outrage isn't there this time. Why? Well, in part because new laws prohibit baby-seal clubbers from clubbing baby seals younger than twelve days. How does that help? Can't the baby-seal clubbers just wait a few extra days? That's a rhetorical question, as I know for a fact that they can. Apparently their fur is less white after twelve days, but while that may make the fur slightly less valuable, it certainly doesn't shore up the market in any significant way. Is it because twelve-day-old seals are mature for seals? I think that's also wrong, because the article referred to the current clubbers as "baby-seal clubbers," even though they're clubbing twelve-day-old seals. Is it because twelve-day-old seals have developed some defense mechanism that eleven-day-old seals have not? The point? There's always a way to justify your boredom with an issue? Mike doesn't know enough about the differences between eleven-day-old seals and twelve-day-old seals to make an informed judgment? You be the judge.
|
Sunday, April 04, 2004
I find Larry King funny. According to his official CNN CV, his show is consistently one of CNN's highest-rated. Before joining CNN, King was a radio commentator, and won all sorts of awards for excellence. This site describes his interview style as "characteristically frank and no-nonsense." What am I missing? Yes, King gets some great guests (why??). He's interviewed a host of presidents, high-ranking government officials, dignitaries, Washington-insiders, celebs, etc. He's also regularly tapped to moderate presidential debates. But left to his own devices, he seems to relish the "sensational" story more than any other. How many episodes in the past six months have been devoted to Laci Peterson? Furthermore, whenever he does get a guest from whom I'd really like to get some answers, he asks softball questions that leave me shaking my head, having learned nothing. If he asks a follow-up (a big "if"), it's equally toothless; his favorite seems to be, "How did that feel?"
I had to stop watching Dennis Miller's show on CNBC after the first episode for the same reason. Actually, I shouldn't say "the same" reason, as Miller, from whom I was really hoping for some nonpartisan, hardball, probing questions, basically pandered to Arnold Schwarzenegger (whom he helped elect governor of California) for the first half-hour of his first episode. And this after one of his little "rants" about how he was going to put every guest on the spot, force straight-talk, etc. etc. Then it's a 30-min. lovefest. If anyone bothered to watch, the first ten minutes of the "interview" was Miller telling Schwarzenegger how good a governor he was going to be, and Schwarzenegger telling Miller that he couldn't have been elected without him. It was pathetic.
I guess my question is, in an election year, where am I supposed to get my news from? Normally, when I want to figure out where the "truth" is, I read the NY Times editorial, then I read the WSJ editorial, and I know the truth (still in quotes) is somewhere in the middle. But lately, the middle has become vaster and vaster. If anyone saw 60 Mins. tonight, another administration official has come out (he says he's a whistleblower, and he very well might be, but who knows) with a Bush coverup. This time, Bush is accused of covering up a toxic coal-slurry spill. The whistleblower, Jack Spadaro, calls it (and CBS news bills it) as "one of the worst environmental disasters in U.S. history." That's a heavy charge. Is it true? Does CBS have an agenda? Is that an incredibly naive question? Am I naive to even hope that there's someone out there this year without an agenda?
As my experience is grossly insufficient to make any comparisons, I've been speaking to my parents about this. They were young adults during the Vietnam era, and yet they say they've never seen the country this polarized. And obviously there are all sorts of costs associated with such extreme polarization, but I guess the one that frustrates me the most (though I really haven't thought through all the others) is how hard it's become to find the truth. Yet for some reason I'm expecting a post from Ben telling me that another plausible effect of such polarization is more truth, as each side tries to shed light on the misdeeds of its adversaries. But I think that that "light shedding" is more spin than anything else.
|
I had to stop watching Dennis Miller's show on CNBC after the first episode for the same reason. Actually, I shouldn't say "the same" reason, as Miller, from whom I was really hoping for some nonpartisan, hardball, probing questions, basically pandered to Arnold Schwarzenegger (whom he helped elect governor of California) for the first half-hour of his first episode. And this after one of his little "rants" about how he was going to put every guest on the spot, force straight-talk, etc. etc. Then it's a 30-min. lovefest. If anyone bothered to watch, the first ten minutes of the "interview" was Miller telling Schwarzenegger how good a governor he was going to be, and Schwarzenegger telling Miller that he couldn't have been elected without him. It was pathetic.
I guess my question is, in an election year, where am I supposed to get my news from? Normally, when I want to figure out where the "truth" is, I read the NY Times editorial, then I read the WSJ editorial, and I know the truth (still in quotes) is somewhere in the middle. But lately, the middle has become vaster and vaster. If anyone saw 60 Mins. tonight, another administration official has come out (he says he's a whistleblower, and he very well might be, but who knows) with a Bush coverup. This time, Bush is accused of covering up a toxic coal-slurry spill. The whistleblower, Jack Spadaro, calls it (and CBS news bills it) as "one of the worst environmental disasters in U.S. history." That's a heavy charge. Is it true? Does CBS have an agenda? Is that an incredibly naive question? Am I naive to even hope that there's someone out there this year without an agenda?
As my experience is grossly insufficient to make any comparisons, I've been speaking to my parents about this. They were young adults during the Vietnam era, and yet they say they've never seen the country this polarized. And obviously there are all sorts of costs associated with such extreme polarization, but I guess the one that frustrates me the most (though I really haven't thought through all the others) is how hard it's become to find the truth. Yet for some reason I'm expecting a post from Ben telling me that another plausible effect of such polarization is more truth, as each side tries to shed light on the misdeeds of its adversaries. But I think that that "light shedding" is more spin than anything else.
|
Virgin Blog Post
Michael, while it may be true that you are in constant need of affirmation (a topic which your mother and I have spent many an evening discussing over too many glasses of wine), I think your idea to create a blog was a very thoughtful one indeed. Nicely done. Just finished one of my typical Sunday afternoon rituals: reading Safire's "On Language" when I should be billing (note -- I am actually at the library -- sad and true). In today's discussion Safire asks "which is more precise: close friends with or a close friend of? Apparently, "friend of" refers to an established relationship while "friends with" is used to describe the attitude, meaning "friendly toward." Anyway, little nuances like these fascinate me -- well that and the fact that I would much prefer spending my Sunday reading the Times rather than clicking away on Westlaw.
|
|
Saturday, April 03, 2004
First post
I find this paralyzingly frightening. For anyone who stumbles across this weblog and wastes time reading it, my hope in creating it was to keep in touch with my friends, all across the country. I'll be inviting them to post, and hope they choose to. I thought it was an excellent idea until I actually created the blog and "realized" that it was "out there." When I created the blog last night, what I found particularly horrifying was that blogger has a list on its homepage of the ten (or so) most recently published blogs. I can only hope that's not quite as literal as it sounds. I'm horrified to think that this site might have attention called to it.
Although, I think I'm (1) being too egocentric, and (2) giving too much credit to the content on the internet. That is, (1) no one out there cares about me or this blog (whew!), and (2) there's so much godawful crap on the net, how much worse can our content be? (And by "our" I mean myself and any of my friends who choose to get involved. I only add this parenthetical because god forbid anyone thinks that there's some sort of "team" working on this. I have a sense that that would really be pathetic, though I'll admit I'm unsure why.)
So anyway, friends (certainly the only people reading by this point), what should we do with this little piece of virtual real estate? As I've told you all one-on-one, I really see big things for this blog. Not in the sense that we're going to have the daily hits of How Appealing, the passion of Andrew Sullivan, or the discourse of Volokh or Legal Theory (how sweet is that, I just did the "linked text" thing), but just in that we can really keep in touch, know what each other is up to and thinking about. That's what I'm hoping for. Just to get a conversation going. I am so ignorant. I'm often so frustrated by my inability to look at things from another's point of view. Which is why I feel so lucky to know so many insightful people. But as I said in my email, there aren't enough opportunities to really hear where you're all coming from. So even if everyone posted even once a month, that would be more than I hear from many of you, and it would add a new perspective to my little close-minded existence.
I'm pretty sure that this post it "too long" at this point. I wanted to make sure to have something up before I start inviting everyone to get involved. (Also, feel free to compliment me on the clever name of the site, as most (all) of you know how I need constant affirmation.)
|
Although, I think I'm (1) being too egocentric, and (2) giving too much credit to the content on the internet. That is, (1) no one out there cares about me or this blog (whew!), and (2) there's so much godawful crap on the net, how much worse can our content be? (And by "our" I mean myself and any of my friends who choose to get involved. I only add this parenthetical because god forbid anyone thinks that there's some sort of "team" working on this. I have a sense that that would really be pathetic, though I'll admit I'm unsure why.)
So anyway, friends (certainly the only people reading by this point), what should we do with this little piece of virtual real estate? As I've told you all one-on-one, I really see big things for this blog. Not in the sense that we're going to have the daily hits of How Appealing, the passion of Andrew Sullivan, or the discourse of Volokh or Legal Theory (how sweet is that, I just did the "linked text" thing), but just in that we can really keep in touch, know what each other is up to and thinking about. That's what I'm hoping for. Just to get a conversation going. I am so ignorant. I'm often so frustrated by my inability to look at things from another's point of view. Which is why I feel so lucky to know so many insightful people. But as I said in my email, there aren't enough opportunities to really hear where you're all coming from. So even if everyone posted even once a month, that would be more than I hear from many of you, and it would add a new perspective to my little close-minded existence.
I'm pretty sure that this post it "too long" at this point. I wanted to make sure to have something up before I start inviting everyone to get involved. (Also, feel free to compliment me on the clever name of the site, as most (all) of you know how I need constant affirmation.)
|
