All I Really Need To Know...

Many thanks to Concurring Opinions for the invitation to blog this month, even if my creating this “electronic paper trail” could significantly complicate the process of completing an application for a job in the Obama administration! I look forward to the opportunity to offer thoughts on a variety of current topics, particularly those with international implications. Today, I thought I’d start on the lighter side and closer to home, with a post inspired by Robert Fulghum’s 1988 blockbuster, All I Really Need To Know I Learned In Kindergarten. As the parent of a toddler, I’ve noticed that fundamental advocacy and negotiation skills seem to develop even earlier. So, courtesy of our three-year-old, here is a quick refresher on negotiations for those who find themselves making deals in the new year, followed by some reflections on law and governance...

Never accept the other side’s opening bid. Our son’s negotiating behavior epitomizes the idiom “nothing ventured, nothing gained.” Without missing a beat, he inevitably counters our “one story and then bed” with an emphatic “no, two,” holding up two fingers for emphasis. In the worst case, he will end up with only one bedtime story. And if he’s lucky, he’ll get more.

Preempt criticism that your offer is unreasonable by highlighting your own self-restraint. Our son routinely frames his requests in terms of what he is not asking. So a typical request for five more minutes of playing trains before bedtime goes something like this: “Not 10 minutes. Only 5 minutes. OK?”

Demonstrate your willingness to accommodate the other side’s agenda, without abandoning your own. This technique requires walking a fine line between persistence and intransigence in order to keep the discussion going while moving the outcome in your preferred direction. Instead of flatly refusing a proposed sequence, such as “let’s go to the gym, then have lunch, then have a quiet time, then go to the birthday party,” our son will propose, “no, I have an idea. First play trains, then go to the gym, then go shopping, then have lunch, then go to the birthday party.” The ball is then back in our court to show whether we’re equally capable of being accommodating, or whether we’re really just dictators in disguise.

And, once an agreement has been reached:

Be prepared to enforce the agreement, if necessary through appeals to reputation and fairness. Before a recent trip into downtown San Francisco, we promised our son a ride on the BART (Bay Area Rapid Transit) train. As it turns out, it was more convenient for us to take him for a quick trip on a MUNI (Municipal Railway) train. He enjoyed the trip, but reminded us when we disembarked that we still owed him a ride on the BART train: “Remember we talked about it at home. You said we could go on the BART train. I want to go on the BART train.” Lest readers conclude that we are hopeless pushovers as parents, we did not in fact follow up with a ride on the BART train that day. But we know we owe him one.

Our combined collection of advanced degrees is no match for our toddler’s tactics as we strive to create rules with some legitimacy and compliance pull based on collective deliberation among stakeholders rather than blind authoritarianism. At the end of the day, our word is law, regardless of its jurisprudential origin. But we remain committed, as much as possible, to governing by the power of reason rather than the force of arms. Will our attempts to cultivate buy-in have any effect in forestalling popular uprising and demands for regime change? We hope so, at least for now—but we recognize all bets are off once our toddler becomes a teenager!

Posted by Chimène_Keitner at 01:14 PM | Comments (4) | TrackBack

When No Dog Poop is an Island

I've twice heard co-blogger Dan Solove talk about the Korean "dog poop girl," a woman hounded by internet shamers when she refused to clean up after her dog on a Seoul subway. The first time I heard the story I just found it funny, but at a conference earlier this year the tone of the audience was different. I felt bad about laughing at some internet satires of the woman that Dan had put on powerpoint slides. Part of it may have been the theme of the conference (legal responses to cyberharassment), but perhaps a larger cultural turning point is in the works.

Surveillance has now advanced to the point that a city in Israel is starting "dog poop DNA banks," enabling enforcers to (potentially) identify the source of any offending rubbish:

[V]eterinarian Tika Bar-On . . . says she hopes to make DNA banking mandatory for all dog owners. At that point, instead of a practice of positive reinforcement, she imagines a system involving sidewalk poop patrols and penalties for nonscoopers. For Bar-On, this is about more than waste elimination: “We can use this DNA database for important things like genetic research on dog diseases,” she says. “We could also use DNA to identify strays and return them to their parents.” But until then, she’s focusing on feces because, as she says, “when you go to the park with your kids and they meet dog poop, it’s not very pleasant.”

My guess is that most Americans would resist the central planning implicit in this solution. But if the alternative to statism is vigilantism, it may start looking more attractive. Like trademark in the commercial realm, DNA here may be the best way to identify source in an orderly way.

Posted by Frank_Pasquale at 02:10 PM | Comments (2) | TrackBack

W Presidential Library

The following letter is making rounds in philanthropic circles. Some hyperbole is evident. But, hey, times are tough.

Dear Fellow Constituent:

The George W. Bush Presidential Library is now in the planning stages and accepting donations. The Library will include:

1. The Hurricane Katrina Room, still under construction.

2. The Alberto Gonzales Room, where you forget everything.

3. The Texas Air National Guard Room, where you don't even have to show up.

4. The Walter Reed Hospital Room, where they don't let you in.

5. The Guantanamo Bay Room, where they don't let you out.

6. The Weapons of Mass Destruction Room, though no one has been able to find it.

7. The National Debt Room, which is huge and has no ceiling.

8. The Tax Cut Room (only the super rich, if any are left, can enter this one).

9. The Economy Room, which is in the toilet.

10. The Iraq War Room. (After you complete your first visit, the stern librarians make you go back for a second, third, fourth, and sometimes fifth visit.)

11. The Dick Cheney Room, in an undisclosed location, but complete with shooting gallery.

12. The Environmental Conservation Room, still empty, though full of promise.

13. The Supreme Gift Shop, where elections may be on sale.

14. The Airport Men's Room, where some Senators have been observed hanging about.

15. The Decider Room, complete with dart board, magic 8-ball, Ouija board, dice, coins and straws.

The library will include many famous Quotes by George W. Bush, including the following:

1. 'The vast majority of our imports come from outside the country.'

2. 'If we don't succeed, we run the risk of failure.'

3. 'Republicans understand the importance of bondage between a mother and child.'

4. 'No senior citizen should ever have to choose betweenprescription drugs and medicine.'

5. 'I believe we are on an irreversible trend toward more freedom and democracy - but that could change.'

6. 'One word sums up probably the responsibility of any Governor, and that one word is 'to be prepared'.'

7. 'Verbosity leads to unclear, inarticulate things.'

8. 'I have made good judgments in the past. I have made good judgments in the future.'

9. 'The future will be better tomorrow.'

10. 'We're going to have the best educated American people in the world..'

11. 'One of the great things about books is sometimes there are some fantastic pictures.' (during an education photo-op)

12. 'Illegitimacy is something we should talk about in terms of not having it.'

13. 'We are ready for any unforeseen event that may or may not occur.'

14. 'It isn't pollution that's harming the environment. It's the impurities in our air and water that are doing it.'

15. 'I stand by all the misstatements that I've made.'...George W. Bush to Sam Donaldson

PLEASE GIVE GENEROUSLY!

Sincerely,

Jack Abramoff, Co-Chair

G.W. Bush Library Board of Directors

Hat tip: Lynn Turner [as provided with slight modification]

Posted by Lawrence_Cunningham at 12:12 AM | Comments (4) | TrackBack

The Specialness of the Season

In the spirit of the season, this old post -- once more making the rounds -- on the worst Christmas specials ever is not to be missed. In keeping with the serious, policy-focused, meta-level discussions that you hace come to expect from Co-Op, here are my two favorites:

A Muppet Christmas with Zbigniew Brzezinski (1978)

A year before their rather more successful Christmas pairing with John Denver, the Muppets joined Carter Administration National Security Advisor Brezezinski for an evening of fun, song, and anticommunist rhetoric. While those who remember the show recall the pairing of Brzezinki and Miss Piggy for a duet of “Winter Wonderland” as winsomely enchanting, the scenes where the NSA head explains the true meaning of Christmas to an assemblage of Muppets dressed as Afghan mujahideen was incongruous and disturbing even then. Washington rumor, unsupported by any Carter administration member, suggests that President Carter had this Christmas special on a repeating loop while he drafted his infamous “Malaise” speech.

And:

Noam Chomsky: Deconstructing Christmas (1998)

This PBS/WGBH special featured linguist and social commentator Chomsky sitting at a desk, explaining how the development of the commercial Christmas season directly relates to the loss of individual freedoms in the United States and the subjugation of indigenous people in southeast Asia. Despite a rave review by Z magazine, musical guest Zach de la Rocha and the concession by Chomsky to wear a seasonal hat for a younger demographic appeal, this is known to be the least requested Christmas special ever made.

(ht Russell Arben Fox)

Posted by oman at 01:25 PM | Comments (1) | TrackBack

The Fancy Dining Barometer

During the early 2000s, capital flourished, Wall Street prospered and it was hard to get reservations at top New York restaurants, except months in advance; today, as capital flows contract, and finance is paralyzed, you can get reservations at some of the best New York restaurants with a mere one week’s notice—or less.

In that earlier period, you could get reservations at any restaurant in Washington DC less than a month in advance, and at many on shorter notice. Today, top DC restaurants are booked solid, no tables available—at least not until late January, after President-elect Obama is inaugurated.

What gives? Probably some version of C + I + G, part of the famous Keynes/Samuelson formula defining aggregate economic demand as the sum of consumption, investment, and government spending. In a simplified picture of the US today, I happens in New York; G happens in Washington; and C happens nationwide.

Earlier this decade, I was the biggest factor in the formula and you had to wait months for a reservation at Manhattan’s revered Gramercy Tavern. Now, with the New York Stock Exchange reeling while Congress lets the US Treasury dole out nearly a trillion dollars—and Congress discusses handing out more—G is the big factor in the formula, and you have to call months in advance for a table at West End’s Blue Duck Tavern.

Between Wall Street’s I and K Street’s G, of course, is C, the consumption component of the formula, the ultimate reality measure, capturing what’s going on in America, beyond New York and Washington. Today, the answer is not much. In all but a few big cities, Americans can get a reservation anywhere, today for tonight. But, alas, outside the Beltway and the Apple, many are eating tuna fish sandwiches at home.

An old quip says a recession occurs when your neighbor is out of work; a depression occurs when you are out of work. Hundreds of millions of people—including those in Manhattan—know that the United States is in a serious economic vise. But you would never know that here in Washington DC (at least not in the northwest quadrant of this city), where restaurants catering to the lobbying crowd are packed, and money flows freely.

Posted by Lawrence_Cunningham at 10:28 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Playing Capture the Flag?

The acrimony of the current election season has created rifts between family members, friends, and strangers alike. Finger pointing between Obama and McCain supporters has become knee-jerk habit; neither side has qualms about assuming the worst with respect to the other. Yesterday, my local rag featured a small-scale example of this in its Letters to the Editor (here):

Letter A:
As I drove around my neighborhood recently, I was happy to see signs for both political candidates. I thought how lucky we are to live in a free country where we can have different beliefs but still get along.
Imagine my shock, then, when I got up recently to find the McCain signs gone from our yard and our neighbors’ yards. The Obama signs were not taken. But then I thought that this is a typical thing for liberals to do. They do not really want to have us all living in harmony (like they’re always saying), but have always and still do want to force us to believe the way they believe.
I guess they don’t realize that if we are not allowed to keep signs up in our yard that are different from theirs, then this is no longer a free country.

Letter B:
To the folks who are going around town stealing Obama campaign signs from yards: Friends, you are doing the right thing. Desperate times demand desperate measures, and you are clearly desperate. Of course, your childish vandalism will have no effect on the outcome of the election, which your candidate is on the way to losing.
In fact, having a campaign sign in your yard probably won’t have much effect on the outcome, but folks have a right to free expression, of which our yard signs are a form.
So what your thefts say about you is that you cannot stand free expression and that you apparently believe you have a right to interfere with others’ political speech. Why am I not surprised?

***

I’ve heard it said that the bond of shared experiences can help folks on opposite sides of an issue find common ground. Maybe that’s where we should be putting our campaign signs.

Posted by Susan_Kuo at 10:46 AM | Comments (2) | TrackBack

Statutory Poetry

Those who are subscribers to the AALS listserve will not be surprised to see another example of Sid Delong's (Seattle) razor-sharp wit, but it was still a surprising amount of fun to see him take on the topic of “statutory poetry” in a short essay appearing in the Journal of Legal Education.
I had no idea that anyone could find poetry in the Model Rules of Professional Responsibility, 1.17, comment 13, yet Sid apparently has:

This Rule applies ot the sale of a law practice by representatives of a deceased, disabled, or disappeared lawyer.

Sid comments: “[D]isappeared lawyer.’ What poignancy lies in that phrase! The image triggers a flood of allusion: Judge Crater, the Chesire cat. And consider the prosodic significance of the alliterative series ‘deceased, disabled, or disappeared.’ One cannot help but wonder what additional alternatives the poet considered and rejected: dissipated, diseased, demented, despondent, depressed, degenerate, dejected, defunct.”
In the rest of the essay Sid has fun with the UCC and the bankruptcy code, noting that some of his poetry analysis “confirms what many have long suspected: Revised Article 9 was drafted not by human beings at all, but by non-English speaking robots[.]” The whole Essay is highly recommended (apparently not online except for the table of contents, but free in a faculty mailbox near you) especially if you are feeling in a mood that is either curmudgeonly or poetic (or both).

[cross-posted at ContractsProf]

Posted by Miriam_Cherry at 04:49 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Sarah Palin Debate Flow Chart

Apologies for the partisan political posting, but I couldn't resist this hilarious Sarah Palin debate flow chart. It was created by Aden Nak at the blog ph33r and loathing.

Posted by Daniel Solove at 01:42 PM | Comments (4) | TrackBack

Eamus Catuli 100!

My thanks to Dan, Deven, Frank and everyone else at CoOp for the invitation to spend the month here. There should be a lot to talk about, what with the election, a new Supreme Court term, and, on a personal level, my participation on an amicus brief. Most important, of course, is the beginning of baseball's post-season this evening. And, as the introductory post indicates, I have one team that I would like to see win for the first time since the end of the (Theodore) Roosevelt administration.

Deven kindly agreed not to rescind the guesting offer, despite his commitment to the Dodgers. Perhaps a friendly wager is in order?

Posted by Howard_Wasserman at 02:40 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Barack Obama, meet . . . Barack Obama

After two weeks of watching our economy implode, taking your retirement plan, your bonus, and the value of your home down the toilet, you people need a little comic relief. That's what I'm here for. For those who haven't been listening closely to their NPR, it turns out that there are at least eight Barack Obamas running for election in Brazil this year. Yes, you heard that right. Under Brazilian law, it turns out, candidates are allowed to run for office under any name, as long as it's not offensive. So eight aspiring politicos, including a former air conditioner salesman and a man claiming a resemblance to Obama (but not actually bearing one), have officially changed their names in hope that it will bring them victory in October's municipal elections. According to a very fun but very unscientific poll by The Economist, Brazilian voters would hand victory to Obama over McCain, and one re-named candidate saw his popularity rise (from third place to a tie for first) after changing his name. What's that you were saying about lipstick on a pig?

Posted by Jaya_Ramji-Nogales at 04:43 PM | Comments (3) | TrackBack

Saturday Night Live Parody of Palin and Clinton

Here's a clip of last night's Saturday Night Live parody of Sarah Balin and Hillary Clinton. It's quite funny. Tina Fey does a terrific Palin impression.

Perhaps Obama could switch from Joe Biden to Tiny Fey as his running mate, and then we could focus again on Obama vs. McCain.

Posted by Daniel Solove at 03:35 PM | Comments (2) | TrackBack

KFC, Trade Secrets, and Conspiracy

Trade secrets play an important and growing role in American business. Legends about Coca-Cola’s secret formula and the protection of it include the claim that only two people know half of it at one time which Snopes says is false. Instead the two people know the entire formula. As Snopes notes the confusion may be with KFC which does separate knowledge and keeps the names of the people with access secret. KFC is moving the formula, and the details are just too much fun.

According to AP the recipe is locked away in KC’s main office. The locking system (file cabinet with two combination locks) can only be reached by gong through a vault and three more doors. Which reminds me of:

To move the recipe, the company used the old put the document in a locked case and handcuff it to someone’s arm trick. That one appears in many spy films but reminds me more of Trading Places and Clarence Beeks, the security guy the Dukes use to get access to the secret crop report.

Now in all seriousness when a secret like this one is possibly stolen a fair amount is at stake. The Coke and Pepsi incident a few years ago was a nice moment. Some people contacted Pepsi saying they had access to a new Coke drink and would sell it. Pepsi turned them in.

I am a huge fan of Coca-Cola, the drink. I don’t drink it as often as I used to, but listen to me pop a cold can and drink it, and as my brother said “Dude, you need help.” KFC’s recipe may be even more powerful:

Posted by Deven_Desai at 03:21 PM | Comments (9) | TrackBack

Tales of the Anti-Wedding and A Story For Fun: AKA Forays Into Negotiation

The Washington Post has rather funny story about the anti-wedding. As someone who has been best man three times, in a few more wedding parties, and officiated a wedding, the idea that these two women sought the task of planning the anti-wedding amuses me. Of course the attorney within loved the negotiations with food stores, parks, and more as they strove to find a place to hold the event (a consult with the ACLU was needed as they sorted the location issue). A protest about death and taxes helped the cause.

On a different, yet oddly related, note, John Scalzi (for whom I was best man) has a free story up on Subterranean Press. John’s post about the writing and payment is a curious example of just how fast digital media companies can move. The story is called Denise Jones, Super Booker. It is a tale of the woman who books super heroes for their, well, their gigs. She is “the Super Hero Booking Coordinator for the International Society of Super Beings, formerly the National League of Super Beings, formerly The Liberty Friends.” Let’s just say that the law yet again appears. Enjoy. Laugh. Share.

Last, check out Subterranean in general. It is a "specialty publisher[] in the horror, suspense, and dark mystery genres" and a fine example of how a smaller publisher can be successful despite the consolidation of much of the book publishing world.

Posted by Deven_Desai at 02:24 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

When Art Imitates Life . . . or Vice Versa

Fans of the TV show Battlestar Galactica have long ago noted some uncanny resemblances between John McCain and Saul Tigh. But there's a much broader connection. It seems as though just about everybody associated with McCain resembles a Battlestar character.

Hat tip: BoingBoing

Posted by Daniel Solove at 03:24 PM | Comments (2) | TrackBack

Taking Inequality Personally, Take 2

Frank's post yesterday on the sources of intellectuals' hostility to capitalism reminded me of Robert Nozick's essay, published ten years ago, "Why Do Intellectuals Oppose Capitalism." Here is the money passage:

Intellectuals now expect to be the most highly valued people in a society, those with the most prestige and power, those with the greatest rewards. Intellectuals feel entitled to this. But, by and large, a capitalist society does not honor its intellectuals. Ludwig von Mises explains the special resentment of intellectuals, in contrast to workers, by saying they mix socially with successful capitalists and so have them as a salient comparison group and are humiliated by their lesser status. However, even those intellectuals who do not mix socially are similarly resentful, while merely mixing is not enough--the sports and dancing instructors who cater to the rich and have affairs with them are not noticeably anti-capitalist.

Why then do contemporary intellectuals feel entitled to the highest rewards their society has to offer and resentful when they do not receive this? Intellectuals feel they are the most valuable people, the ones with the highest merit, and that society should reward people in accordance with their value and merit. But a capitalist society does not satisfy the principle of distribution "to each according to his merit or value." Apart from the gifts, inheritances, and gambling winnings that occur in a free society, the market distributes to those who satisfy the perceived market-expressed demands of others, and how much it so distributes depends on how much is demanded and how great the alternative supply is. Unsuccessful businessmen and workers do not have the same animus against the capitalist system as do the wordsmith intellectuals. Only the sense of unrecognized superiority, of entitlement betrayed, produces that animus.

I can't help but read a sense of slighted merit in the lament of the Harvard University instructor. To have one's salary cut by a callow youth who clearly doesn't recognize the value of what one is doing! There must be something deeply wrong with such a system.

It goes without saying, of course, that I deserve a higher salary as well.

Posted by oman at 02:37 PM | Comments (20) | TrackBack

Wait, What? Oh. Never Mind.

Helpful law school tip! If you have a class that is taught using the Socratic method, you're in luck! No need to prepare! You should be able to handle class using only the following phrases (all from Jowett's translations of The Republic and Meno):

You are quite right.
Certainly not.
To be sure.
That is true.
Precisely.
Clearly.
Certainly.
That is the inference.
Assuredly not.
I think that what you say is quite true.
It cannot be otherwise.

And, my personal favorite--

I agree, as far as I am able to understand you.

Posted by Sarah_Lawsky at 10:07 AM | Comments (14) | TrackBack

The Times They Are a Changin' Back

Lots of commentators are amused by the Chief Justice's citation of Bob Dylan in a recent dissent in a telecom case. But didn't somebody warn us that there might be a bit of Bob Roberts in John Roberts?

To our conservative readers, I assure you I refer only to their penchant for folk song. Can't wait to see some subterranean homesick subprime cases float up to the court.

Posted by Frank_Pasquale at 01:38 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

You Know For Kids – The Hula Hoop Turns Fifty

The Hula Hoop, possibly the greatest fad in American history, turns fifty this week. According the AP, Soviet Russia banned the toy “as a symbol of the ‘emptiness of American culture.’” I love the Hula Hoop because of the Coen Brother’s film The Hudsucker Proxy. If you have not seen it, buy or rent it. The acting from Robbins as the bright-eyed corporate dupe to Newman’s grizzled corporate leader to Leigh’s smart, tough writer to all the great supporting roles combine with the great attention to set detail and offer one of my favorite Coen films. The gore and darkness is not present but the fun and fantastic is. Corporate law folks may find the ideas of the proxy and how it works troublesome, but then again this one is not about legal or historic accuracy; it is fiction pure and simple. Nonetheless, the film captures the feel of black white news reels and fads so well that one might think it is the real stuff. If you need further convincing, just check the clip below the fold. It captures the ridiculousness of fads and the way we may wish the past was rather well.

Posted by Deven_Desai at 03:24 PM | Comments (2) | TrackBack

Law Profs on Colbert

Mike Madison points out that Jonathan Zittrain was on Colbert last night. But so was Neal Katyal. Is this the making of an unofficial showdown? Will academic stature be determined by who can roll with the Colbert? Who offers truthiness? Probably not on both counts.

Given my tech bent, I lean towards Zittrain. Nonetheless, I honestly think both did rather well and enjoyed seeing them navigate the oddity of a comedy interview. The clips are below. As always, draw your own conclusions. Enjoy.

Katyal:

Zittrain:

Posted by Deven_Desai at 06:49 PM | Comments (5) | TrackBack

Fist Bump in Perspective

For those who recall the odd insuation or claim that a fist jab or bump is somehow a terrorist symbol, check out Scalzi's post on Chuck E. Cheese, Al-Qaeda, and fist jabs. It seems that Mr. Cheese is slowly perverting our children through that evil medium the television. But fear not, John has a plan. I'll leave you to read what it is.

Posted by Deven_Desai at 10:29 AM | Comments (1) | TrackBack

Facebook in Real Life

Here's a hilarious video imagining what a social network website encounter would be like in real life.

One of the difficulties with social network websites is that they present a very simplified picture of human relationships. A person's social world cannot readily be divided up into friends and not-friends. Human relationships are much more complicated and diverse. The simplified matrix of relationships available on social network websites can result in some awkwardness, and it can also result in too much information disclosure. We might want to disclose a lot of information to certain close friends, but much less information to acquaintances or to friends in a more professional context. There is no easy solution for this problem, because a social network website with hundreds of categories for relationships might be rather complicated and oppressive to use. And people might not be pleased to know precisely where on one's relationship matrix they stand. Jack might think he's good friends with Jill, but Jill might classify him as merely a distant acquaintance whom she merely wants to associate with for the purpose of climbing hills.

Hat tip: Sivacracy

Posted by Daniel Solove at 08:00 PM | Comments (3) | TrackBack

Strong Like Bull: Testosterone, Trading, and The Market Mentality

The New York Times reports that “Movements in financial markets are correlated to the levels of hormones in the bodies of male traders, according to a study by two researchers from the University of Cambridge.”

Here are some of the results. “According to the researchers’ analysis, the men who began their workdays with high levels of testosterone did better than those who did not.” But “Excessive testosterone levels can lead a trader to make irrational decisions.” Traders also released large amounts of coritsol which “can help people make more rational decisions during volatile trading periods, too much of it can lead to serious health problems like heart disease and arthritis, and, over time, diminish brain functions like memory.” As to what seemed to matter most: those who started the day with high testosterone had better trading results than those with lower or normal levels: "One trader went on a six-day winning streak, making twice as much money each day as the previous one. Over that period, his testosterone levels rose steadily, some 74 per cent."

Apparently traders resemble football players: high energy, high success, and high, early burn out potential both physically and mentally just with less of the head-butting (at least as far as I know).

Furthermore it seems that male traders may be bulls and literally foster bull markets such that the events are not related to informed rational choices but rather are in fact “irrational exuberance.” (definition) As one of the authors, John Coates put it in the New Scientist article about the study, “The popular view is that experienced traders can control their emotions, … but in fact their endocrine systems are on fire.” Coates further suggested "Maybe bubbles and crashes are coming from these steroids," and "maybe if more women and older men were trading, the markets would be more stable."

Here are some odd possibilities. Traders, like football players and other athletes, will start to take steroids because they think it will enhance their trading wins. In response, all trading will be shifted to individual trading via E-Trade and the like because it would be better for a stable market. Individuals in turn will take steroids because they will want an edge and will believe that higher testosterone will help them pay for that flat screen or their kids’ education. In the end the market will continue as before and no one will really know why.

Oh in case you are wondering, as Susan Daicoff notes yes some attorneys (trial attorneys) tend to have high levels of testosterone according to one study. In addition "Testosterone levels are associated with energy, dominance, persistence, combativeness, focused attention, antisocial behavior, drug and alcohol use, marital discord, violent crime, competition, higher spatial ability and lower verbal ability, fewer smiles, actors, and tattooed people. Dabbs, Alford, and Fielden, 1998." and "A 1979 study found female lawyers to be higher in testosterone than nonlawyers."

Draw your own conclusions.

image: WikiCommons
author: Rex
License: Creative Commons Attribution ShareAlike 2.5 License

Posted by Deven_Desai at 04:28 PM | Comments (1) | TrackBack

The Case Against Delaware

The state of Delaware has just won a major dispute with New Jersey in the Supreme Court, over a vigorous dissent by Justice Scalia. The dispute concerned New Jersey's plan to build a "huge gas-processing plant on the Jersey side of the Delaware River." As the NYT reports,

New Jersey has threatened to pull state pension funds from Delaware banks. Delaware officials, meanwhile, talked about calling up its National Guard to guard its border. . . . [A] New Jersey legislator wondered aloud about recommissioning the battleship New Jersey, now a museum on the Camden waterfront, just in case.

The majority agreed . . . that New Jersey could not authorize activities “beyond the exercise of ordinary and usual riparian rights in the face of contrary regulation by Delaware.” Justice Antonin Scalia . . . professed to be flabbergasted by the majority’s reasoning. What was so “extraordinary” about a wharf to unload liquefied natural gas, he asked. “Would a pink wharf, or a zig-zagged wharf qualify? How about one for the transfer of “tofu and bean sprouts”?

It all reminds me of a classic 2002 article by Jon Chait charging Delaware with persistent disregard for other states' interests. . . .

The practice of charging road tolls is an archaic holdover blighting much of the Northeast. But Delaware has taken it to a grotesque extreme. Whereas the I-95 tolls amount to less than five cents per mile in New Jersey and four cents per mile in Maryland, in Delaware they cost an exorbitant 18 cents per mile. Which isn't surprising because, in a deeper sense, Delaware's tolls epitomize the state's entire ethos. The organizing principle of Delaware government is to subsidize its people at the rest of the country's expense.

[But not] all the instruments of Delaware's rapacity take the form of meddlesome, high-handed government exacting inflated costs on out-of-state visitors. When need be, the state's avarice can also be fed by the exact opposite. An example of this latter technique is Delaware's enticement of much of the banking industry to relocate within its borders. It did so in 1981 not only by offering special tax breaks--the standard formula that states and localities use to woo industry--but by eviscerating its usury laws, which limit the interest a bank can charge for loans or credit cards.

[S]till, perhaps the prime example of what Louis D. Brandeis called the regulatory "race to the bottom" is Delaware's biggest scam: incorporation fees. It so happens that in excess of 300,000 corporations--including half of the Fortune 500-- incorporate in wee Delaware. . . . Delaware propaganda suggests it is primarily a function of the state's efficient bureaucracy and legal system, which includes a chancery court (a chamber specializing in business disputes). This is partly true, but it ignores the overriding factor:. . . its laws are specifically crafted to appeal to the interests of corporate executives.

All of this is deliberate state policy. A hundred years ago, in fact, the great trusts preferred to incorporate in New Jersey, not Delaware. It was only when New Jersey, under the progressive-era governorship of Woodrow Wilson, altered its laws to take account of interests (other than management) that corporations began to flee across the Delaware River.

Jon Chait's laments will be no surprise to those who run the "race to the bottom" blog. (As Tim Glynn notes, "Delaware’s jurists are willing to go beyond the traditional norms of judicial behavior to advance Delaware’s interests.") Nevertheless, I may just end up on Delaware's side in this particular dispute. New Jersey's proposal doesn't exactly sound enviro-friendly--and as one who commutes through the chemical tanks of Kearny, NJ on a daily basis, I'm not exactly confident in the state's environmental record.

Posted by Frank_Pasquale at 06:21 PM | Comments (2) | TrackBack

Charlie Stross on Presidential Politics and Dungeons and Dragons

Just a quick note: Charlie Stross has a fun post, Politics as she is Played with 3d6, about the way D&D might represent the current Presidential candidates. Enjoy. (I know many of you indulged in D&D if not other role-playing games at some point so revel in it. And even if you didn't the joke still works).

Teaser: Apparently being a law professor is an alignment (for the uninitiated alignment addresses the moral/ethical aspects of a character in the game). Take a look to see who was given what I think in Stross's view dubious mark.

Hat Tip: John Scalzi, The Whatever

Image: D&D Web Site Check it out for the stroll down amnesia lane

Posted by Deven_Desai at 05:00 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

The Official Leaked US News Law School Rankings, Plus Ranking Secrets Revealed!

I've got the scoop of the year! An anonymous source from US News & World Report leaked this memo to me. It is a memo written by the magazine’s “law school ranking executive” describing how the magazine arrived at this year’s official rankings.

See below for a sneak peak at this year's rankings as well as some amazing secrets about how US News ranks law schools.

UPDATE: I was contacted by Bob Morse at US News & World Report. He reports that although he realizes it was a joke, some people have been emailing US News, thinking that this is really a leaked memo. News flash to the very gullible: The memo is fake. After all, could the real ranking process possibly be as rational as the memo?

Posted by Daniel Solove at 12:54 AM | TrackBack

Economist Humor

The Standup Economist, Yoram Bauman, just presented a humorous take on Gregory Mankiw's Ten Principles of Economics. Mankiw is a professor at Harvard. His textbooks on economics are apparently widely used. Bauman presented this take to the American Association for the Advancement of Science meeting. In addition it seems Mankiw either liked the take or wanted the publicity enough that he posted the video to his blog. Enjoy the silliness on a Sunday.

Hat tip: Crooked Timber

Cross-posted at Madisonian

Posted by Deven_Desai at 12:51 PM | Comments (1) | TrackBack

Life Imitates Art

This:

Starbucks Takes a 3-Hour Coffee Break

seems wayyyy too close for comfort to this:

Starbucks To Begin Sinister 'Phase Two' Of Operation

Posted by Bruce_Boyden at 06:14 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

The Spies Who Love You

Snuggly, the security bear, is back to tell us about the Protect America Act, FISA, and immunity for telecomm companies. I linked to an earlier video here. Check out the new video, The Spies Who Love You. It's hilarious!

Hat tip: Chronicles of Dissent

Posted by Daniel Solove at 12:02 AM | Comments (1) | TrackBack

Network News Gives Up

With the Daily Show's writers on strike, you might think it difficult to get entertaining parodies of the poor state of network newscasts -- where "in-depth reports" mean the story is 2 whole minutes long -- but that's not necessarily true. The weekend evening newscasts are becoming a pretty good parody of themselves.

Take this example from last night's ABC World News Sunday, reporting on disabled sprinter Oscar Pistorius's efforts to be allowed to compete in the 2008 Olympics. One key question is whether Pistorius's artificial legs give him an "unfair" advantage over able-bodied runners -- "unfair" defined plausibly as due to the use of technology during the race. Certainly Pistorius is using technology, but does that actually give him any advantage? When the New York Times looked at that issue 8 months ago, it actually did a step-by-step analysis of how Pistorius's artificial lower legs compare to having muscles and feet, concluding that Pistorius has to work harder to achieve the same speed in the same amount of time:

Here's how ABC News does it.

First, "some fear" that sprinters like Pistorius are catching up to able-bodied sprinters, and might "pass them." (Check out this video at about the 1:15 mark.) How do we know that might happen? Because this PowerPoint graphic shows Pistorius moving ahead of another runner:

Second, allowing Pistorius to compete might mean that eventually we have to allow Steve Austin -- the Bionic Man -- to compete too. I kid you not:

Did ABC hire Kent Brockman while I wasn't looking?

Posted by Bruce_Boyden at 04:39 PM | Comments (2) | TrackBack

Seinfeld, Language, and Law

Years ago law prof Jedediah Purdy warned us of Seinfeld's charms. Here's a reviewer's account:

The ironic man, whom Mr. Purdy personifies as the sitcom character Jerry Seinfeld . . . is an outright menace. With his ''style of speech and behavior that avoids all appearance of naivete -- of naive devotion, belief, or hope,'' the individual armored in the irony . . . has withdrawn from the political arena just when it needs him most.

But he's certainly outfront with lawsuit PR. Now courts may have to wrestle with the polysemic potential of his irony (and humor generally).

Seinfeld was on Letterman last year, and his comments on the woman now suing his wife for plagiarism were not exactly conciliatory. Now he's being sued for defamation. Here's the video, which gets interesting 40 seconds in:

Jonathan Turley gives excellent background and analysis; he has the following comment

Seinfeld called Lapine . . . “hysterical.” He said: “Now you know, having a career in show business, one of the fun facts of celebrity life is wackos will wait in the woodwork to pop out at certain moments of your life to inject a little adrenaline into your life experience.” He further noted that Lapine could be dangerous, joking “if you read history, many of the three-name people do become assassins . . . Mark David Chapman. And you know, James Earl Ray. So that’s my concern.”

The Seinfelds are clearly going to defend on the basis that his statements were opinion and not factual representations covered by defamation rules.

A few thoughts below the fold. . .

As James Grimmelmann notes, there are a few exceptions to the immunity for opinions:

The relationship of subjective opinion to objective fact . . . is not simple. Thus, for example, Milkovich v. Lorain Journal Co., while stating the rule that the Constitution shields opinions, leaves in place two significant exceptions. A statement of opinion may imply an underlying fact (the Court’s example: “In my opinion John Jones is a liar.”), and even a statement of opinion may be false if not honestly held (the Court’s example: “I think Jones lied,” where the speaker thought nothing of the sort).

In this context, is the "assassin" joke only funny if there is some objective implication of imbalance or impropriety regarding the person whom it's aimed at? I find the case a bit difficult because Jerry Seinfeld (the person) has sometimes glided effortlessly between being a certain persona and playing one. For example, consider this video of him on Larry King Live:

Is Seinfeld here seamlessly sliding into "playing an obnoxious character" or is he being an obnoxious character? Is this the "true self" speaking, or spinning out some subtle humor (that the miffed King appears not to be in on)?

Having listened to his talk at the NY Academy of Sciences, I'm reminded of Stephen Pinker's takes on the slipperiness of language, here related by reviewer William Saletan:

Language is a social medium with social purposes. Sometimes, we use it not to communicate facts about the world but to filter them. We euphemize bribes as “contributions” to preserve the dignity of lobbyists and legislators. We phrase treaties vaguely because if they were clear, nobody would sign them. . . . . We complain about doublespeak but rely on double meanings.

Turley has the following take on Seinfeld's double meanings:

While he appears to be joking, he is also clearly portraying Lapine –at a minimum — as unbalanced. . . . Terms like wacko can be claimed to have a more innocent meaning. Under the principle of Mitior sensus, “when words have two meanings, lenient and severe, they will always be construed in the more lenient sense.” Yet, this is generally a jury decision and the Seinfelds and their publisher will first be subject to discovery — a potentially risky business.

Having read a few cases in this area, I've been worried by some judges' willingness to take every potentially defamatory statement piecemeal, characterize them individually as opinions or "obvious hyperbole," and dismiss the underlying defamation case. A series of innuendoes, jokes, dismissals, and jibes can probably undermine a reputation far more effectively than one false fact.

On the other hand, Seinfeld himself has satirized the lengths he would have to go to in order to avoid any unwanted overtones--not that there's anything wrong with that!

Posted by Frank_Pasquale at 11:01 PM | Comments (10) | TrackBack

Moderating a Panel: A Nightmare

Over at Prawfsblawg, Liz Glazer has a post about the transition new professors experience from anxiety dreams about being a student (the math class you haven't attended all semester) to anxiety dreams about teaching. Although I have been teaching for several years now in various capacities, I so far have not had an anxiety dream about teaching. (Knock on wood.) But I have had an anxiety dream about moderating a panel. It went like this:

In the dream, I show up at a conference panel I'm supposed to moderate, only to realize I don't recognize any of the speakers and I don't have any information on me about who they are or what the panel is about. It's five minutes before the panel is supposed to start. I need to figure out a discreet way of finding out the names and bios of each panelist. Someone engages me in conversation before I can get to the podium. Not wanting to give away my panic, I talk nonchalantly. Three minutes. I extract myself from the conversation. Maybe if I just engage the panelists in conversation I'll see their nametags. But they are busy talking to other people. Two minutes. I manage to get the attention of the first panelist. I ask the panelist to spell his/her name and confirm his/her bio. Time's up. People are settling in their seats and looking at me. I'm standing at the podium. Boy, I hadn't realized how well-attended this session would be. I flip through my papers once more, trying to find our panel description, but I'm having trouble focusing on the words. It seems awfully quiet.

Then I wake up.

Posted by Bruce_Boyden at 03:27 PM | Comments (1) | TrackBack

President Bush on Art. II, Sec. 2

I remember being quite amused at the following New York Times quote, by our President and Commander-in-Chief. It was more than a month ago (11/8), but I don't recall it eliciting much comment either in the media or the blogosphere. Maybe it's just me...

"[A]ppearing at George Washington's mansion in Mount Vernon, Va., with President Nicolas Sarkozy of France[, Mr. Bush said,] 'You can't be the president and the head of the military at the same time.'''

OK. Um, but see U.S. Const., art. II sec. 2.

To be fair, full context of both:

''My message was that we believe strongly in elections, and that you ought to have elections soon, and you need to take off your uniform,'' Mr. Bush said later, appearing at George Washington's mansion in Mount Vernon, Va., with President Nicolas Sarkozy of France. ''You can't be the president and the head of the military at the same time.''

**********

The President shall be commander in chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the militia of the several states, when called into the actual service of the United States....

But I was still amused.

Posted by Jeremy_Blumenthal at 09:23 PM | Comments (6) | TrackBack

The Brutal Attack Ads Begin