Keep Your Eye on the Prize

Financing: France and Germany Join U.S. in Effort to Reduce Iraq’s Debt

Despite the US snub to exclude France and Germany from reconstruction bids, both EU countries have agreed to excuse a substantial portion of Iraqi debt. Thankfully, France and Germany have Iraq's welfare in mind and not political vendettas as the Bush administration does.

On another note, an NYT op-ed from a terrorist expert at the RAND corporation notes that, "In the end, Qaeda's real interest in Iraq has been to exploit the occupation as a propaganda and recruitment tool for the global jihadist cause." With great footage of American soliders firing at Iraqi civilians and destroying homes, Al-Qaeda won't have to do much to get others riled up. The US certainly cannot leave Iraq in its current condition of political and social instability but Bush isn't helping by banning bids from Europe's top economies.

Dildolicious

If I ever became a legislator, my first priority would be get rid of the stupid laws that came from our more paternalistic past. I don't care if they're not enforced anymore. 1) They make it more confusing for your average joe to know what the law is if he has to look up court history. 2) Simply having the laws on the books gives an opportunity for wacko bored enforcement officers to harass people.

Case in point: Texas' criminal law on selling vibrators. Police in Cleburne, Texas arrested a Texas woman for the horrible offense of the intent to promote the use of "obscene articles."

Here's an excerpt from a court opinion on this statute:

CURTISS BROWN, Justice, concurring.
Here we go raising the price of dildos again. Since this appears to be the law in Texas I must concur.

Regalado v. State, 872 S.W.2d 7 (1994).

Via The Volokh Conspiracy and Instapundit.

Washout

My law school has a shuttle to take you to Union Station, a long 5-minute walk away. I always thought it was ridiculous.
Perhaps not.

Washington DC has the 5th highest violent crime rate in the country (Detroit was first).

In theory, DC has home rule but any of the city's legislation can be rejected by Congress. This past summer Congress vetoed DC's commuter tax which would have given the city at least $500 million in revenue. About 70% of DC's workforce is from the suburbs. Congress can even pass laws for the city, for example the school voucher bill that the Senate will vote on in January. How is the federal government going to increase national security when it can't even help get rid of the average mugger?

On another note: New York was the nation's safest big city.

Get That Man a TV

Give the homeless a posh pad and they'll want a job.

At least that's what the Doe Fund thinks.

The non-profit fund responsible for the "Ready, Willing and Able" work program for homeless men will be running the new 400-bed shelter in Brooklyn. The shelter will cost the city about $8 million dollars a year to run, or about $20,000 per bed. But with the Doe Fund buying 36-inch flat screen TVs, I would seriously question its ability to spend the money wisely.

Hard Up for Endorsements?

Part of the reason why I want a third party is to have more provocative debates about policy. The other reason is because most presidential campaigns are downright boring. At least with local mayoral campaigns, for example Baltimore's in 2001, you get the ex-felon, the councilman with twenty unpaid traffic tickets...etc.

But this year, Kucinich has very kindly filled in the kooky candidate spot.

Please witness for the first time ever, an endorsement for the next president of 2004 by Grandfather Twilight and the "creatures of the forest."

Via Joanne McNeill.

Steel This Album...

No more.

Bush has actually ended steel tariffs.

Wow.

Although before we give him too much credit, Europe had threatened sanctions against citrus products if Bush didn't budge. And a certain key election state would have been very unhappy about that.

Steel tariffs were an abominable dole out to the American steel industry by all of us, who were denied the option to buy cheaper foreign steel because of US-imposed tariffs.

Via Lawrence Lessig's blog.

Did He Say the M-word?

An Oklamhoma congressman wants to punish the DC Metro for allowing an ad that read, "Enjoy Better Sex. Legalize and Tax Marijuana." Rep. Ernest Isotook Jr. (R-OK) would like to knock off about $92,000 from Metro funding next year for Metro's promotion of "illegal activity."

Hmm, I didn't know legalization or taxation was illegal.

Snide comments aside, Metro, a government entity, cannot censor or reject a message simply because it's controversial. In this case, Metro didn't charge anything for the ad because of its policy of providing free space to nonprofit groups for public service announcements. Perhaps that policy should be changed. But if Isotook gets his way, Metro's removal of the ad could cost thousands of dollars in litigation once the ACLU rightfully charges Metro with a violation of the First Amendment. No taxpayer should have to subsidize the frivolous sensitivities of a congressman or anyone for that matter. While the government doesn't need to give space away, it absolutely cannot prohibit free speech --even if it's to promote better sex.

"No Way to Make Friends"

Criticism of Bush's ineptitude in foreign diplomacy often gets brushed aside as just a stylistic difference or sometimes even flipped around as a good thing: that his bumbling is the sign of a genuine guy. But there's really more to Bush's ignorance of foreign issues than just a slip of "the nation of Africa."

Newsweek editor, Fareed Zakaria, compares Bush's appearances abroad to Chinese president Hu Jintao's. In Australia, the two made back to back visits. Between the leader of a totalitarian communist country and the leader of a country that stands for freedom and capitalism, who got the standing ovation from the Australian Parliament? Not us.

At the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation meeting in Thailand, Hu was similarly loved and Bush hated. Zakaria quotes one Malaysian writer, who explains it best: "Bush came to an economic group [APEC] and talked obsessively about terror. He sees all of us through that one prism. Yes, we worry about terror, but frankly that's not the sum of our lives. We have many other problems...We're trying to address health, social and environmental problems. Hu talked about all this; he talked about our agenda, not just his agenda."

If Bush is so obsessed with making the US look strong, he certainly doesn't accomplish that goal with confronting each country as a possible terrorist haven. In fact, the US looks paranoid. The true sign of a nation's strength is its ability to concern itself with more than just survival.

Bush's Department of Peace?

The Pentagon is considering setting up a permanent division of peacekeeping forces,an exciting prospect except that no plan calls for more than 30,000 troops. Iraq currently has 130,000 US troops, who are barely able to maintain order.

Find a husband with marketing tools from Harvard Business School

An amusing ditty on how women over 35 should construct their personal brand to find a spouse.

Via Arts and Letters

Back to the Future

The terror futures market is scheduled to open on March 2004.

The Policy Analysis Market (PAM) was the brain child of former admiral John Poindexter, head of the military's Total Information Awareness Office, who resigned last August because of popular outrage (mostly from legislators) at the plan. PAM is a market where traders place their bets on future political and terrorist events. The government hoped to use the market to predict attacks and assasinations based on the cumulative insight reflected in prices.

Your legal obligation not to act

Funny that Scalia should bring up a hypothetical on libertarians not wanting to save someone....In Torts class, we have arrived at the sticky area of affirmative duty: what the law will require you to do for others. That may seem like nothing new. Laws always seem to be requiring us to do things like wearing seat belts and paying taxes. However, most laws require you NOT to do things to others, i.e. not to hit them, not to crash your car into them, not to trespass on their property...etc.

But should the law require you to rescue someone? Consider this hypothetical: you walk by a stranger who's passed out and lying face-down in a shallow pool of water. You could save him from suffocating if you just turn him over.

Traditional tort law would say you have no obligation to turn him. Libertarians would strongly agree; individual autonomy is of the utmost importance.

This rationale seems cold-hearted and even selfish that someone should die because a damn libertarian didn't want affirmative duties imposed on him.

But individual liberty has social worth. Once the state requires good acts, "it becomes impossible to tell where liberty ends and obligation begins." Add to that obligation the threat of imprisonment and the obligation starts sound less and less like good law.

The quotation above comes from the author of my Torts case book, a self-proclaimed libertarian, Richard Epstein, professor of law at the University of Chicago.

30 Libertarians and One Suicidal Man...

In an oral argument before the Supreme Court yesterday, Justice Antonin Scalia was questioning an attorney on duty. The justice proposes a hypothetical to him: Suppose a man jumps into the sea and intends to committ suicide. Thirty people each with a life preserver at their feet stand on the dock. They refuse to do anything. "I don't know," Scalia explains, "Maybe they're 30 libertarians."

Get This Man a Candidate!

George Soros is on a mission to oust Bush. One of the wealthiest men in the world, Soros has spent about $15 million to unseat W. And he's willing to spend more:

"Asked whether he would trade his $7 billion fortune to unseat Bush, Soros opened his mouth. Then he closed it. The proposal hung in the air: Would he become poor to beat Bush?

He said, 'If someone guaranteed it.'"

Why Not to Vote

Every election year, my economist friend tries to dissuade me from voting. Beyond the cost-benefit analysis of time spent versus the effect of my vote, this friend says our election system (of choosing one candidate and the one with the most votes wins) is horrible at electing individuals we want.

Here's an article from Science News that explains why.

Former Iraq Captive Jessica Lynch: 'I'm No Hero'

Jessica Lynch refutes Army reports of her heroic combat against Iraqis. In her interview with Diane Sawyer, Lynch responds, "I'm not about to take credit for something that I didn't do... It hurt in a way that people would make up stories that they had no truth about. Only I would have been able to know that because the other four people on my vehicle aren't here to tell that story."

The Canadian and British media were the first to reveal that government reports about Private Jessica Lynch were beefed up. Although her soon-to-be-released biography written by NY Times Rick Bragg quotes a medical report that Lynch was raped, she has no memory of the event. Shoshanna Johnson, a black army private also taken captive in the war and was injured in combat, will receive less than half the percentage of disability benefits of Lynch.

And Now For This Public Service Announcement....

If I ever run for office, I would want to be a mayor.

Last spring, Bogota's mayor established a Friday night curfew for men to combat the city's crime rate. Men weren't allowed out unless they had a special pass but most stayed home with the kids while their wives partied. Violence was down 40% that night.

Antanas Mockus, the mayor of Bogota Colombia, is a mathematician and semiotician who three months before he was elected got kicked out of his university because he mooned some unruly students. Besides Women's Night Out, he has gone on TV in his boxers to show people how to save water when they shower; he dressed up as a carrot and passed out stuffed versions to promote his 1am closing ("Carrot Hour") for bars and restaurants (a carrot is a geek in Colombian slang). People who participated in his gun-exchange program got flowers and a certificate of thanks.

This quirky form of governance seems a bit out of place in a country most known for the war on drugs and where terrorism is a part of daily life. But Mockus' "theatre politics" have worked. Since he became mayor, Bogota's murder rate has been halved, an accomplishment which Mary Roldan,who's working on a book about Colombian violence, says is largely attributable to Mockus. Being a pedestrian in Bogota used to be a risky affair but now there are well-maintained sidewalks and bike lanes. Even the taxi drivers stay clear of street crossings (for which they are awarded stickers that say "gentlemen of the zebra," slang for crosswalk).

In a fascinating article from the Atlantic Monthly, Mockus explained how his background in semiotics influenced his approach to governance. He drew three boxes labeled, "legal power," "moral power" and "cultural power." The latter two he defined as "power derived from one's own standards and power derived from the shared values of the citizenry":

        At first," Mockus told [the reporter], "I had the illusion that if I
        wrote new laws, those words would become reality. But it soon
        became clear that if you want to change society's habits, law is
        only one of the means. Most people prefer internal mechanisms
        for determining for themselves what is right and what is wrong,
        but perceive other people as needing to be regulated by laws.
        The question I asked was how to reduce the difference
        between the laws and cultural and moral means of self-
        regulation." A governing style that could fairly be summed up as
        theater-as-politics was the result.

Perhaps I should have gone to grad school for semiotics instead of law school.

Mock-Us continued

If you don't want to read the Atlantic Monthly article, listen to an interview with Mary Roldan, who's working on a book about violence in Colombia, on what she thinks of Antanas Mockus' administration.

Also on this same show, The Next Big Thing, produced by PRI, there's a great retrospective on public service announcements.

E-COLI, just as meddlesome

Blogger Joanne McNeil asked why Alaska's cost of living was so high according to the seemingly accurate source of the Missouri Economics Research and Information Center. My classmate Brian Simmonds found the answer. (Caveat: he was also trying to defend the honor of his home state of Oregon.)

"The Missouri propaganda you cite is based upon an average of ACCRA data for each city surveyed in a given state. Because the cities are self-selecting, the number of cities participating in a given state varies widely. Furthermore, the number of cities surveyed does not even necessarily correlate with the number of metropolitan areas in a state. For example, the index only tracks three Oregon cities: Portland, Corvallis, and Lincoln Co., leaving out most of the state’s less expensive population centers.

In addition, it’s impossible to talk meaningfully about a state’s cost of living. If San Diego is cheap, it doesn’t make San Francisco any cheaper."

ACCRA (not an acronym), "producer of the nationally renowned Cost of Living Index (COLI)," is a non-profit based out of George Mason University.

The Truth Comes Out!

Since day one of contract law, our professor has told us that the rules of contracts are meant to establish the law, because law is better than justice. Then we learn an exception, and then another exception and another until finally the rule doesn't mean much anymore.

For instance, the parol evidence rule limits a court to the written agreement to determine what's included in a contract. So if Big Company tells the little guy, "Hey, sign this lease and I'll throw in a car too," and then doesn't provide the car, the little guy can't go sue Big Company for not giving him the car because it wasn't in the written agreement. In the written agreement, little guy promised to pay $10K a month to rent a closet in Big Company's building. The court could say that the closet was worth $10K a month to the little guy because that's what's in the agreement and both parties have equal power to contract. Simple, right?

Ah, but not so fast. The car was part of the incentive to sign. Moreover the little guy's not very sophisticated compared to Big Company lawyer. He didn't know an oral promise didn't count as much as what's on paper. He didn't even know what was on the paper. He just signed that 100 page agreement. No one would really pay $10K a month to rent a closet.

Now enter the rule of unjust enrichment (Big Co. gets thousands of dollars for basically nothing), non-disclosure (Big Co. purposefully did not tell little guy that car promise would not be enforced), unconscionability (inequality in bargaining power) and other exceptions that will help the little guy get out of the contract or get the car, depending on what he'd prefer.

Really the whole rule of law thing has been a front. The numerous exceptions "bring justice out of the closet," as my contract text says.

But do they? The malleability of the laws make them easy to manipulate for whatever purpose, just or not. And the person more likely to win the word game is usually the one with the bigger legal fund. Maybe the rule of law really is better.