Economist Rap Battle

by Christopher Harbin

Peter Steele . . . Rest in Slack

By J. DeVoy

Peter Steele, singer/bassist for Type O Negative, is dead from heart failure at age 48.  His musical openness about death, lust, suicide, love and loss, was inimitable.

Trust and Impaired Driving

by Charles Platt

I’d like to extend my previous post on drunk driving to examine the relationship of trust between driver and passengers.

If I am a passenger in a car, and the driver knows that I don’t want him to drink, we might argue that a relationship of trust exists, and if the driver is secretly violating that trust, he’s not being ethical. If the passenger is an infant who cannot assess the condition of the driver, the relationship of trust becomes especially clear.

What about other people–pedestrians and drivers–sharing the highway? Do they have an implicit relationship of trust with a possibly drunk driver?

I don’t think so. I think all of us should operate on the assumption that the roads are richly populated with people who are not entirely competent, for a wide variety of reasons, alcohol being only one. We know that drivers routinely do dumb things, and laws don’t stop them. They will drive while dialling cell phone numbers, eating dinner, sorting through music CDs, or trying to control an animal that isn’t in a carrier. This is the way the world is. I think you have to accept that when you venture out in your car.

To me, the relationship between driver and passengers is the ethical issue, because the passengers are forced to take a passive role. But whether the heavy hand of criminal law should punish a driver for failing to make full disclosure to his passengers about possible impairments, regardless of whether an accident occurred, is another matter.

I note that many state laws criminalize a driver who allows passengers not to wear seat belts, regardless of whether there was an accident. Personally I feel that such laws should only apply where the passengers are children.

PSA: It’s “website”

By J. DeVoy

The Associated Press Stylebook hath spoken.

SEC sues Goldman Sachs [alternative title- :( ]

By J. DeVoy

The Securities and Exchange Commission has filed a civil suit against Goldman Sachs and one of its employees, Fabrice Tourre, for securities fraud.  The complaint revolves around Goldman’s alleged misrepresentations about the quality of loans underlying a collateralized debt obligation (CDO).  Paragraph five summarizes the consequences neatly:

The deal closed on April 26, 2007. Paulson paid GS&Co approximately $15 million for structuring and marketing ABACUS 2007-AC1.  By October 24, 2007, 83% of the RMBS in the ABACUS 2007-AC1 portfolio had been downgraded and 17% were on negative watch. By January 29, 2008, 99% of the portfolio had been downgraded.  As a result, investors in the ABACUS 2007-AC1 CDO lost over $1 billion.  Paulson’s opposite CDS positions yielded a profit of approximately $1 billion for Paulson. 

Despite this, though, Moody’s and Standard & Poors rated the class A-1 and A-2 notes for this deal near the top of the reliability spectrum.  This is described in paragraph 58.

ABACUS 2007-AC1 closed on or about April 26, 2007. IKB bought $50 million worth of Class A-1 notes at face value.  The Class A-1 Notes paid a variable interest rate equal to LIBOR plus 85 basis points and were rated Aaa by Moody’s Investors Services, Inc. (“Moody’s”) and AAA by Standard & Poor’s Ratings & Services (“S&P”).  IKB bought $100 million worth of Class A-2 Notes at face value.  The Class A-2 Notes paid a variable interest rate equal to LIBOR plus 110 basis points and were rated Aaa by Moody’s and AAA by S&P. 

Shortly thereafter, the notes became worthless.

Going back to the transaction that instigated this suit, Goldman created and marketed the CDO for $15 million.  A substantial sum of money to be sure, but something that could have easily been foregone by the banking titan.  In the halcyon days of the housing bubble, Goldman’s bonuses to top producers were factors of that sum.

It’s unlikely that Goldman Sachs would have walked into litigation where the SEC seeks disgorgement of profits, fines and an injunction over a relatively measly $15 million.  The sale of shares in the CDO could have resulted in greater upside for Goldman, but this is just one of dozens, if not hundreds, of similar deals being made on Wall Street at the time.

A number of reasons for this action come to mind.  First, collateral estoppel.  If the SEC can get favorable rulings or a fat settlement out of Goldman, it can use them as leverage in future suits against the bank and other financial entities.  The specter of a potential lawsuit will chasten other banks and potentially even bring them to the table to avoid future litigation, especially as this mornings news has already sunk Goldman’s stock price (ticker symbol GS) 10%.  For executives and employees with much of their compensation tied up in stock options, as was the case at Bear Stearns, the fallout from this event poses a significant risk.  There is the rage of populism, which spilled over at yesterday’s nationwide Tea Parties.  Though these people cannot quite articulate what Wall Street and, specifically, Goldman Sachs do, they’re mad as hell to see the financial sector enriched as the traditional economy crumbles.  Though the SEC has more independence than other agencies, the Commission’s actions are ultimately imputed back to the President, and it’s good press to go after The Great Satan of high finance.

National Day of Prayer Unconstitutional

U.S. District Judge Barbara B. Crabb of the Western District of Wisconsin ruled that the National Day of Prayer is a violation of the Establishment Clause. (source). The case was a no-brainer. I haven’t seen the decision yet, but if it followed any precedent at all, I am sure that I can predict its content.

Under Lemon v. Kurtzman, a government action is a violation if it fails the following test:

1. The government’s action must have a secular legislative purpose;
2. The government’s action must not have the primary effect of either advancing or inhibiting religion;
3. The government’s action must not result in an “excessive government entanglement” with religion.

If any of these three conditions are violated, then the action is an Establishment Clause violation. Additionally, in Lynch v. Donnelly, Sandra Day O’Connor wrote (in a concurrence):

The Establishment Clause prohibits government from making adherence to a religion relevant in any way to a person’s standing in the political community. Government can run afoul of that prohibition in two principal ways. One is excessive entanglement with religious institutions …The second and more direct infringement is government endorsement or disapproval of religion. Endorsement sends a message to nonadherents that they are outsiders, not full members of the political community, and an accompanying message to adherents that they are insiders, favored members of the political community. (source)

I can’t see how the National Day of Prayer doesn’t scream out that it is an Establishment Clause violation. And the judge agreed. In her ruling she seemed to fully understand that the uneducated and unwashed would find this to be an objectionable ruling:

I understand that many may disagree with that conclusion and some may even view it as a criticism of prayer or those who pray. That is unfortunate. A determination that the government may not endorse a religious message is not a determination that the message itself is harmful, unimportant or undeserving of dissemination. Rather, it is part of the effort to “carry out the Founders’ plan of preserving religious liberty to the fullest extent possible in a pluralistic society.” McCreary County, 545 U.S. at 882 (O’Connor, J., concurring). The same law that prohibits the government from declaring a National Day of Prayer also prohibits it from declaring a National Day of Blasphemy.

It is important to clarify what this decision does not prohibit. Of course, “[n]o law prevents a [citizen] who is so inclined from praying” at any time. Wallace, 472 U.S. at 83-84 (O’Connor, J., concurring in the judgment). And religious groups remain free to “organize a privately sponsored [prayer event] if they desire the company of “likeminded” citizens. Lee, 505 U.S. at 629 (Souter, J., concurring). The President too remains free to discuss his own views on prayer. Van Orden, 545 U.S. at 723 (Stevens, J., dissenting). The only issue decided in this case is that the federal government may not endorse prayer in a statute as it has in § 119. (Op. at 65-66)

On a side note, I would like to give a shout-out to Rev. Dr. Janis J. Kinens of Advent Lutheran Church in Cedarburg., WI. When he was asked about how he felt about the decision, he said:

“I find it both troubling and dangerous that so many zealous believers in any religion want to legislate their particular understanding of faith and God for everyone else.” (source).

I have only met a few clergy members that I truly respected. There was an old Catholic Priest, Father Licata, whose “parish” was a maximum security prison – and he spent a lot of time with death row inmates. I asked him how he could deal with “those people,” and he explained that it is very easy to love children and nice people — but the true proof of the strength of his faith was that even those on Death Row were entitled to the same degree of love. You don’t have to believe in magic space zombies to say “right on” to that kind of thing.

Another is a Lutheran pastor who blesses my family’s wine every year. She and Father Licata would probably be good friends. Talk about an awesome woman. She’s the only clergy member who says “let us pray,” and I respectfully, and proudly, bow my head and pray along with her.

Naturally, there are a couple of others… but lets add Rev. Kinens to that very short list.

Does anyone know this chick’s number?

Laura Hall, 20, has been banned from buying or drinking alcohol anywhere in England or Wales.

Police applied to magistrates for the order because of the number of drink-related offences that Hall had been involved in.

She had already been banned from pubs and clubs in her home town of Bromsgrove, Worcestershire, under the PubWatch scheme. (source)

The Legal Satyricon will gladly sponsor her for a drinking binge in the USA when she turns 21. We’ll let DeVoy chaperone her. (conditions apply)

I’m getting to the point that I may go back to using PCs instead of Macs

If Apple keeps it up with this kind of crap. First, Steve Jobs channels Andrea Dworkin by deciding that he doesn’t want us to view porn on our iPhones, and now the App Store rejected a cartoonist’s app because political cartoons mock public figures, and are thus against Apple’s policies. Yeah really.

Hell Freezes Over — Glenn Beck Makes Sense!

This is going to be one bizarre day… I watched a segment from Glenn Beck and not only did it not make me want to puke, but I agreed with him.

The Bare Breasted Truth

Satyriconista, Tatiana von Tauber

By Tatiana von Tauber   

Envision spending a nice sunny Saturday downtown when suddenly a crowd of women come at you – topless! Do you gasp? Quickly grab your children and cover their eyes? Do you think, WTF, laugh or grab your camera? Portland, Maine had plenty of diversified reactions to just such an event.   

About two dozen women participated in a march on Congress Street to bring attention to breast equality: women can go topless too and in Maine it’s legal.  Of course this half-naked public and free event sparked a lot of onlookers and unsurprisingly, amateur photographers yet the coordinator of the march, Ty MacDowell, 20, was upset about its progression:   

“I’m amazed,” she said, and “enraged (at) the fact that there’s a wall of men watching…”   

“A lot of people were taking pictures without even asking,” she said. “Even if you’re somewhere where people are fully clothed, you should ask.”   

Hold on a minute here.  Ask for permission?  In a public place there is no privacy and besides, what exactly is the point of a partial nude protest march?   

Attention, right? Bare breasts make people look but according to MacDowell,   

“The point of the march was that a topless woman out in public should attract no more attention than a man walking around without a shirt on”.   

That’s rather an ambitious “should” but youth is drenched in potential.  Here’s a lesson from science:  There are very distinct biological differences between the male and female brain. For example, according to Dr. Louann Brizendine, author of The Female Brain*:   

1. Women use about 20,000 words per day versus men’s 7,000.   

2. Men think about sex once a minute and women once every couple of days! (yeah, that is depressing for both sides)   

3. Men have 2.5 times more brain area for sexual thoughts than women.   

4. Women need their amygdala – the brain’s worrying and critical thinking system - “turned off” to ironically become turned on or sex will either be faked or a raincheck.   

There are just some things that are too difficult to change when they are deeply etched into social perception or nature’s biology. The results of the bare breasted protest barely registered on the feminist Richter scale. A 24-woman march just isn’t good enough breast coverage.   

I agree with MacDowell’s idealistic intent. Topless women should attract no more attention than men. However, in reality this courageous 20-something just learned one of women’s hard lessons: when there are bare breasts, there will be a wall of men, paparazzi picture taking and objectification; therefore, what should be isn’t.   

One step to change such realities is to simply expand our views of the opposite sex while we come to deeper understandings of our own. Brizendine’s books The Female Brain and The Male Brain are a good beginning towards understanding why men and women do what they do and hence what’s possible to change and what seems enslaved to hardwiring.  In the process maybe bare breasts in public might become less taboo.  I don’t exactly recommend topless outside seating but it would be nice if America could ease up on the stigma associated to public display of those dangerous female nipples.

*The Male Brain is Brizendine’s newest release I’ll comment on in the future

Now you can wash your ass anywhere you go!

With this.

Sometimes things are not as they seem…. or are they?

Guess what this is. Click the image to see the full picture.

heh heh… heh.

Should the Academy Require Public Service Experience?

by Christopher Harbin

A White House administrator recently spoke to a seminar that I’m in and floated by an interesting idea.  Her idea was that universities should require candidates for the academy to have some public service experience in order to be considered.  Personally, I think it’s a great idea — especially for law profs — who would most likely have to get a license to practice prior to entering the ivory tower.  Hear that sound?  That’s the sound of the professoriate screaming in terror.  Even a year of experience in the real world could bring a much needed practical focus to law school curriculum.  Perhaps hiring would stop centering on “what have you published?” to “what have you done.”   Maybe it would funnel bright minds into public service where perhaps some would stay and innovate.    Exciting idea.

Time to Rethink the Libel Process

by Charles Platt

I don’t much care for libel laws.

If someone seriously defames me, my classical recourse is to engage in a lengthy and expensive court battle which is a huge waste of resources. When a writer I know pursued such a battle, more than five years elapsed before he finally made it into court, and even with an attorney who took the case on a contingency basis, the value of the time that my friend spent on depositions, the process of discovery, and other legal maneuverings was greater than the damages than he won.

Because posting to online forums has become a widespread recreational activity, everyday people are now more likely to find themselves being defamed. All you have to do is piss off a particular kind of net.kook, and the abuse will begin. Example: On the old cypherpunks Usenet discussion list, I made a mild suggestion that someone might be wrong in one of his statements. He responded with a full-scale jihad, crossposted over dozens of news groups, stating variously that I was a child molester and an alcoholic. I wasn’t even sure of this person’s real name and location. And he had some kind of automated posting system that sustained the abuse for a whole year without any further effort on his part.

Orthodox net wisdom holds that we are all equal, now. I was equally empowered to make my own response to this abuse. But this ignores two factors. First, as any politician knows, mud sticks, while denials are easily ignored. It’s easy to create doubt about someone’s integrity; much harder for the victim to convince readers that the allegations were utterly groundless. And secondly, it’s very hard to track all the different places where allegations have appeared.

Here’s one suggestion. An attacker should be compelled to provide a full list of forums where the abuse has been posted, and the content of the posts. This would give the victim at least some chance to put out some of the fires.

Are there other options?

According to poll, Teabaggers are not poor white trash

Despite the fact that Teabaggers seem like an unwashed mass of poor white trash to me, it seems that the data conflicts with my anecdotal perspective.