Even after watching it twice, we are honestly not quite sure whether the Tavis Smiley video below completely counters or perfectly proves the points we recently attempted to make in our article 'What is Poverty?'. Therefore we will let our readers decide (apologies for the ads; lunch is not free today).
7.27.2011
Government to Banks: We Will Not Default
It would come as shocking to none but the most naive of political observers if White House officials were singing a different tune about the possibility of default depending on whether they were situated behind the glare of television cameras or in the relative comfort of their offices. Apparently they are doing just that, signalling to banking executives that default is not imminent even as the President himself continues to excoriate lawmakers for not getting on with it.
Such as scenario leads this observer to one main conclusion; the current posturing over a debt deal is even more useless than we thought. And for any new readers out there, our opinions of congressional puffing were never high to begin with. If banks and members of the press are aware that the White House will force a deal through in order to avoid default, then lawmakers certainly are as well. And if lawmakers are aware of this they have no reason not to jam through a bill on their terms, knowing full well that, even if it takes all eleven hours, a deal will be agreed.
Meanwhile average Americans are constantly inundated with warnings from politicians and talking heads suggesting that their country is the next Brady Bond era Argentina. The truth of the matter is that the most likely scenario sees a deal being made, likely on terms closer to what Republicans deem favorable that those the left would be comfortable with, default being avoided, and mainstream reporters being able to transition back to stories they understand, like Lady Gaga's latest award show dress. In contrast to the current sky is falling stories now being dished out daily, such a change could hardly ever be more welcome.
Such as scenario leads this observer to one main conclusion; the current posturing over a debt deal is even more useless than we thought. And for any new readers out there, our opinions of congressional puffing were never high to begin with. If banks and members of the press are aware that the White House will force a deal through in order to avoid default, then lawmakers certainly are as well. And if lawmakers are aware of this they have no reason not to jam through a bill on their terms, knowing full well that, even if it takes all eleven hours, a deal will be agreed.
Meanwhile average Americans are constantly inundated with warnings from politicians and talking heads suggesting that their country is the next Brady Bond era Argentina. The truth of the matter is that the most likely scenario sees a deal being made, likely on terms closer to what Republicans deem favorable that those the left would be comfortable with, default being avoided, and mainstream reporters being able to transition back to stories they understand, like Lady Gaga's latest award show dress. In contrast to the current sky is falling stories now being dished out daily, such a change could hardly ever be more welcome.
7.25.2011
What is Poverty?
Many law students, particularly those whose sole source of income during their studies is a loan check delivered around the beginning of each new semester, consider themselves to be 'poor.' It is often the case that things don't get much better for them following graduation as much of the earned income they work so hard for goes toward paying back the loans they took out to pay for school in the first place. However, these students are hardly ever living in poverty in what we would consider to be a traditional sense of the word. They have roofs over their heads, food, clothing and even something left over for the odd Thirsty Thursday or Bar Review event.
Though the example of law students is a bit light and facetious, it does help us dive into the main topic of post with a bit of perspective and a baseline. That said, and if we are right that law students aren't truly poor, how then should poverty be defined in modern America? Should it be defined by income? Standard of living? How should geography play into the equation? Should should ownership of what most people consider to be luxuries play into the analysis? Such questions can very rapidly transition into a new line of queries which can get to the core of an even more elemental debate; what material and social dignity rights should individuals in a society have versus what responsibilities the members of a society have to provide for their fellow citizens.
While we will leave the social justice questions for another day, another commentator or another forum (no shortage of those with campaign season coming into stride), we will spend a few minutes on the main question of what poverty really means. To us, a very basic definition of poverty would be living in an environment lacking in basic needs (food, clothing and shelter). This is why law students who have what they need don't qualify as poor in our reckoning.
Though the example of law students is a bit light and facetious, it does help us dive into the main topic of post with a bit of perspective and a baseline. That said, and if we are right that law students aren't truly poor, how then should poverty be defined in modern America? Should it be defined by income? Standard of living? How should geography play into the equation? Should should ownership of what most people consider to be luxuries play into the analysis? Such questions can very rapidly transition into a new line of queries which can get to the core of an even more elemental debate; what material and social dignity rights should individuals in a society have versus what responsibilities the members of a society have to provide for their fellow citizens.
While we will leave the social justice questions for another day, another commentator or another forum (no shortage of those with campaign season coming into stride), we will spend a few minutes on the main question of what poverty really means. To us, a very basic definition of poverty would be living in an environment lacking in basic needs (food, clothing and shelter). This is why law students who have what they need don't qualify as poor in our reckoning.
7.22.2011
What Will Happen if the US Defaults?
First off, we would like to start this post with a confident prediction that the US will not default. We believe that the posturing will cool down at some point, that common sense will prevail, that budgets will be tightened, ratings cuts will be avoided and that our lawmakers and leaders won't allow today's political issues to become tomorrow's economics class case study. However, what would happen if no compromise is reached and the US went into technical default?
Part of the problem is that so much uncertainty surrounds such a potential event, with negative impacts predicted, but not assured, both domestically and abroad. How would ratings agencies react? What would debt holders such as the Chinese and the oil exporters do? Would commodities markets linked to the dollar be impacted? How would borrowing costs be effected? Despite all of these questions there is some certainty about what technical issues could occur. Some of these are highlighted in this quick Wall St. Journal piece from earlier today.
UPDATE: Based on the large number of hits we have had to this post, it is clear that people are looking for a clear answer to this question. If anyone is qualified to give one it is probably Tim Geithner. Around the 1:15 mark of the Meet the Press video below he explains what could happen in the event of default (while echoing our statement above that this scenario will most likely not come to pass).
UPDATE 2: For more on this topic, including some indications the White House has given the business community that default is not as imminent as the media would have use believe, visit our new post here.
Part of the problem is that so much uncertainty surrounds such a potential event, with negative impacts predicted, but not assured, both domestically and abroad. How would ratings agencies react? What would debt holders such as the Chinese and the oil exporters do? Would commodities markets linked to the dollar be impacted? How would borrowing costs be effected? Despite all of these questions there is some certainty about what technical issues could occur. Some of these are highlighted in this quick Wall St. Journal piece from earlier today.
UPDATE: Based on the large number of hits we have had to this post, it is clear that people are looking for a clear answer to this question. If anyone is qualified to give one it is probably Tim Geithner. Around the 1:15 mark of the Meet the Press video below he explains what could happen in the event of default (while echoing our statement above that this scenario will most likely not come to pass).
UPDATE 2: For more on this topic, including some indications the White House has given the business community that default is not as imminent as the media would have use believe, visit our new post here.
MA Plan Reawakens Freedom v. Safety Debate
Every day, the latest chapters in a domestic battle which was waged in earnest when the public was at its most vulnerable and which has burned hotly since are being written. At the core of the debate, begun in the aftermath of the horrors of 9/11, is the question, 'to what extent are Americans willing to give up personal, even constitutional, freedoms in return for public safety.' The main competing theories (among many others) are easy to identify.
The first is the idea that, if we have the technology to prevent or thwart crime, we should do so. This is most often played against the idea that increased safety is not worth the price, namely living in a country which is crawling slowly but inexorably toward being a police state. Such concerns came to the forefront with the passage of the original PATRIOT ACT and have continued, and perhaps even heated up, as increasing numbers of 'average' Americans have been impacted through changes like new TSA regulations and even publicly available tools such as Google Earth.
The average American (let's define this person as someone not suspected of any crime who has no reason to believe that he or she is under surveillance) will soon have another intrusion to fear, at least if a plan in Massachusetts is taken to fruition. The Boston Herald is reporting that the state is planning on mounting scanners on police cruisers which can record thousands of license plates per hour in an attempt to keep criminals off the road and allow law enforcement officials to react quickly in time sensitive situations. Civil libertarians are obviously concerned not only that this is being done, but that the data is, according to the plan, going to be saved indefinitely.
The first is the idea that, if we have the technology to prevent or thwart crime, we should do so. This is most often played against the idea that increased safety is not worth the price, namely living in a country which is crawling slowly but inexorably toward being a police state. Such concerns came to the forefront with the passage of the original PATRIOT ACT and have continued, and perhaps even heated up, as increasing numbers of 'average' Americans have been impacted through changes like new TSA regulations and even publicly available tools such as Google Earth.
The average American (let's define this person as someone not suspected of any crime who has no reason to believe that he or she is under surveillance) will soon have another intrusion to fear, at least if a plan in Massachusetts is taken to fruition. The Boston Herald is reporting that the state is planning on mounting scanners on police cruisers which can record thousands of license plates per hour in an attempt to keep criminals off the road and allow law enforcement officials to react quickly in time sensitive situations. Civil libertarians are obviously concerned not only that this is being done, but that the data is, according to the plan, going to be saved indefinitely.
7.20.2011
Who Will Have the Last Laugh?
President Obama recently announced former Ohio Attorney General Richard Cordray as his pick to run the fledgling Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. A man with impeccable credentials, which include clerking the Supreme Court, serving as editor-in-chief of the University of Chicago's Law Review and retiring as an undefeated five-time Jeopardy champ, the hope is that Cordray will not have many difficulties getting through the confirmation process. Indeed, it seems that the confirmation process was in the forefront of Obama's mind when introducing Cordray to the press, as the President went so far as making a joke about Jeopardy's questions as answers format and Senate questioning which fell disappointingly flat.
The assembled members of the press at the White House were not the only ones who failed to laugh upon the announcement of Cordray's nomination; presumably the interim head of the CFPB, Elizabeth Warren, also missed the joke. Warren, like Cordray impeccably credentialed, was nonetheless far less likely to get through the confirmation process successfully due to her outspoken comments about the financial industry prior to joining the Bureau. Because of these often brazen criticisms of the financial industry (she probably also didn't do herself any favors by appearing in a Michael Moore film), it was clear that Republicans were going to do their best to block her during the nomination process. As a result, Obama went with a safer pick while Warren is currently mulling a run at Ted Kennedy's old Senate seat. For those who haven't kept tabs on Massachusetts politics recently, the now-junior seat from the state has been kept warm by Scott Brown since a special election following the Liberal Lion's passing.
So who will have the last laugh? Cordray, taking over a new and growing organization with a monster mandate which has already become accustomed to Warren's guiding hand in mid-stride? That sounds more like a headache to us. Obama, with a much safer candidate for nomination making his way to Capitol Hill? He has undoubtedly moved on to other things by now. Perhaps the press corps, who, one example notwithstanding, invariably falls for all the other jokes Obama makes? I think we can dismiss their chuckles as mere pandering. Among all the others, our pick for last laugh in this story goes to Mrs. Warren. Though she is likely disappointed right now, her prospects are still incredibly bright. The Senate seat she is considering has good staying power and comes with a nice salary and benefits. She could always go back to teaching law at Harvard. And even if those options don't work out, well, there is always Legoland with the grandkids.
The assembled members of the press at the White House were not the only ones who failed to laugh upon the announcement of Cordray's nomination; presumably the interim head of the CFPB, Elizabeth Warren, also missed the joke. Warren, like Cordray impeccably credentialed, was nonetheless far less likely to get through the confirmation process successfully due to her outspoken comments about the financial industry prior to joining the Bureau. Because of these often brazen criticisms of the financial industry (she probably also didn't do herself any favors by appearing in a Michael Moore film), it was clear that Republicans were going to do their best to block her during the nomination process. As a result, Obama went with a safer pick while Warren is currently mulling a run at Ted Kennedy's old Senate seat. For those who haven't kept tabs on Massachusetts politics recently, the now-junior seat from the state has been kept warm by Scott Brown since a special election following the Liberal Lion's passing.
So who will have the last laugh? Cordray, taking over a new and growing organization with a monster mandate which has already become accustomed to Warren's guiding hand in mid-stride? That sounds more like a headache to us. Obama, with a much safer candidate for nomination making his way to Capitol Hill? He has undoubtedly moved on to other things by now. Perhaps the press corps, who, one example notwithstanding, invariably falls for all the other jokes Obama makes? I think we can dismiss their chuckles as mere pandering. Among all the others, our pick for last laugh in this story goes to Mrs. Warren. Though she is likely disappointed right now, her prospects are still incredibly bright. The Senate seat she is considering has good staying power and comes with a nice salary and benefits. She could always go back to teaching law at Harvard. And even if those options don't work out, well, there is always Legoland with the grandkids.
7.19.2011
A Tale of Two Electrics
Two stories caught Blawgconomics' eye this week for the contrasting pictures they paint of one of the more interesting areas of the green industry, electric automobiles. The first story is about the recently folded Green Vehicles Inc. and how it lost its investors' money after not being able to generate enough capital to continue as a going concern. The second story regards the still up and running Tesla Motors and the returns it has earned for its investors on the stock market recently.
Green Vehicles (whose website helpfully remains) recently folded after not being able to grow and after only selling a few units of its all-electric designs, the TRIAC 2.0 and the MOOSE. The company, despite its aspirational goals, 'To make the best clean commuter vehicles in the world; To manufacture with a radical sense of responsibility; To engage in deep transparency as an inspiration for new ways of doing business' simply did not have the capital to continue.
While Blawgconomics may appreciate the loftiness of Green's vision it is unlikely that the city of Salinas, California does. This is because it lost over half a million dollars in in grant money on an investment it made in the company upon Green's relocation there from San Jose. The city anticipated recouping that investment through tax revenues, but it is now very likely that Salinas will have to write the investment off to the detriment of its citizens.
It doesn't appear that there was any fraud or unfair dealings at Green Vehicles, there was just not enough investment or sales to move the company forward. Presumably, if the market were ready for the product that Green was producing, the company would have succeeded (pending price points, quality, availability, proper marketing, etc.). So does the Green Vehicles situation indicate that there isn't a market for pure electrics yet? A contra example from another California company would suggest that, despite the evidence to the contrary provided by Green Vehicles, perhaps the world is ready for electric cars.
Green Vehicles (whose website helpfully remains) recently folded after not being able to grow and after only selling a few units of its all-electric designs, the TRIAC 2.0 and the MOOSE. The company, despite its aspirational goals, 'To make the best clean commuter vehicles in the world; To manufacture with a radical sense of responsibility; To engage in deep transparency as an inspiration for new ways of doing business' simply did not have the capital to continue.
While Blawgconomics may appreciate the loftiness of Green's vision it is unlikely that the city of Salinas, California does. This is because it lost over half a million dollars in in grant money on an investment it made in the company upon Green's relocation there from San Jose. The city anticipated recouping that investment through tax revenues, but it is now very likely that Salinas will have to write the investment off to the detriment of its citizens.
It doesn't appear that there was any fraud or unfair dealings at Green Vehicles, there was just not enough investment or sales to move the company forward. Presumably, if the market were ready for the product that Green was producing, the company would have succeeded (pending price points, quality, availability, proper marketing, etc.). So does the Green Vehicles situation indicate that there isn't a market for pure electrics yet? A contra example from another California company would suggest that, despite the evidence to the contrary provided by Green Vehicles, perhaps the world is ready for electric cars.
Student Attitudes Toward Businesses and Banks
In our recent Snippets column we referred to a recent study about financial education and youth attitudes regarding the financial industry. Below is a video of one of the co-authors of the study, Dan Iannicola, discussing the findings on C-Span's Washington Journal program. In full disclosure, I am well acquainted with Mr. Iannicola and have done work with his organization.
7.15.2011
Snippets...
We have not been very active lately, but that doesn't mean that the world around us has stopped producing newsworthy stories. Therefore, it is probably time to play catch up with the latest version of Snippets. For new readers, Snippets is our semi-regular attempt at covering a lot of topics from the worlds of law, economics and politics in a little time. Some would call this lazy; economists prefer the term 'efficient.'
- Let's kick off this edition with a credit rating warning so we can dispense with the bad news and shift to some slightly less foreboding fare. S&P today followed up on Moody's announcement yesterday that it would be very likely to cut the credit rating of the US if lawmakers don't reach a deal on the debt ceiling soon. The problems that this could cause have been discussed ad nauseum in the financial press. Let's hope the elected representatives of the nation have been listening.
- In slightly better news (unless you subscribe the theory that everyone has merely given up...) unemployment claims have declined to the lowest level since April. While still above 400,000, the claims level is inching closer to a point where it could signal a coming decline in the unemployment rate. However, if this is all too technical Dear Reader, remember that you can also just Google it.
- Do you make over $250,000 a year? Apparently President Obama thinks that, in addition to a nice home with an attached two car garage, you also have a hangar out back. Well, at least according to The Wall St. Journal he does...
- Is the WASP an endangered species? Blawgconomics favorite Gregg Easterbrook thinks that it just may be. On the other hand, and happily for J. Crew's new private equity owners, WASP style remains firmly entrenched.
- Lest anyone has recently been kept up nights pondering why a municipality would want to increase the number of prisoners listed on its rolls, thinking about the latest census and its impact on legislative seat allocation might help grease the creative wheels a bit.
- To the extent that anyone felt bad that Christian Lopez, the Yankee fan who caught and returned Derek Jeter's historic 3,000th hit ball, would have to pay taxes on the gear and seats he received in return for his gesture, their concerns can be put to rest. Miller Light, striving to be the 'Official Beer of Fans', has offered to foot Lopez' taxes on the items. Helpful considering that many are estimating that the future tax bill from the IRS could run as high as $10,000.
- Let's kick off this edition with a credit rating warning so we can dispense with the bad news and shift to some slightly less foreboding fare. S&P today followed up on Moody's announcement yesterday that it would be very likely to cut the credit rating of the US if lawmakers don't reach a deal on the debt ceiling soon. The problems that this could cause have been discussed ad nauseum in the financial press. Let's hope the elected representatives of the nation have been listening.
- In slightly better news (unless you subscribe the theory that everyone has merely given up...) unemployment claims have declined to the lowest level since April. While still above 400,000, the claims level is inching closer to a point where it could signal a coming decline in the unemployment rate. However, if this is all too technical Dear Reader, remember that you can also just Google it.
- Do you make over $250,000 a year? Apparently President Obama thinks that, in addition to a nice home with an attached two car garage, you also have a hangar out back. Well, at least according to The Wall St. Journal he does...
- Is the WASP an endangered species? Blawgconomics favorite Gregg Easterbrook thinks that it just may be. On the other hand, and happily for J. Crew's new private equity owners, WASP style remains firmly entrenched.
- Lest anyone has recently been kept up nights pondering why a municipality would want to increase the number of prisoners listed on its rolls, thinking about the latest census and its impact on legislative seat allocation might help grease the creative wheels a bit.
- To the extent that anyone felt bad that Christian Lopez, the Yankee fan who caught and returned Derek Jeter's historic 3,000th hit ball, would have to pay taxes on the gear and seats he received in return for his gesture, their concerns can be put to rest. Miller Light, striving to be the 'Official Beer of Fans', has offered to foot Lopez' taxes on the items. Helpful considering that many are estimating that the future tax bill from the IRS could run as high as $10,000.
7.08.2011
Do You Follow Unemployment Numbers?
There have been some interesting comments out of the Obama camp on unemployment lately; it seems that the White House doesn't think that average Americans follow GDP or unemployment numbers. Press secretary Jay Carney addresses this view in the video below.
So what do readers think? Is the White House right that people act on their guts, or is the adminstration out of touch with how savvy the average American might be on the economy? As always, we would appreciate any thoughts readers might have on this idea in the comments section below.
So what do readers think? Is the White House right that people act on their guts, or is the adminstration out of touch with how savvy the average American might be on the economy? As always, we would appreciate any thoughts readers might have on this idea in the comments section below.
A Six Point Job Plan Leaves Questions Unanswered
The following is reproduced from an article posted by David Wessel at The Wall St. Journal's Real Time Economics blog earlier today:
Robert Reich, the Berkeley professor who was Labor Secretary in the Clinton administration, responded to today’s bad news on jobs with a flurry of tweets from his @RBReich twitter handle, calling on Washington to drop its fixation on deficits and turn to jobs.
“The national jobs emergency is growing worse,” he wrote in a series of tweets. “[Obama] must come up with a jobs plan, and now. The battle over how to reduce the ten-year budget deficit is a distraction from the #1 priority of jobs and wages now. Mr. President: At least come up with a jobs plan and fight for it. If R’s reject it, then campaign on it.”
His plan, as tweeted:
Jobs plan #1: Exempt first $20K of income from payroll taxes for a year. Jobs plan #2: Recreate the WPA and Civilian Conservation Corps. Better to put millions to work directly. Jobs plan #3: Fed govt should lend money to states and locales so teachers, firefighters, police, and others can be rehired. Jobs plan #4: Amend bankruptcy laws to allow distressed homeowners to declare bankruptcy on primary residence. Jobs plan #5: Enlarge and extend the Earned Income Tax Credit Jobs plan #6: Provide partial unemployment insurance to people who have lost part-time jobs.
Reich was viewed by many as a success in his public service role, mainly because the economy was chugging along very nicely during his appointment. Therefore it may be futile for a humble blogger to argue too strenuously against such a plan point by point. However, his plan does beg a few questions.
First, and despite his seeming nonchalance about the issue, with a debt ceiling fight in progress and with the debt burden at all-time highs, just where would the dollars for government spending and tax cuts come from at this point? Also, what will be done about the write-offs banks would undoubtedly have to take if primary residence mortgages could be written-off? Also, with states already drained of federal unemployment funds, where will funding for part-time unemployment insurance come from?
With all due respect, we would say that a plan with a few more points addressing some of those issues might have been more valuable. Unfortunately, it is more than likely that the questions above are simply too tough to answer with mere tweets...the economic situation has become far more complicated than that.
Robert Reich, the Berkeley professor who was Labor Secretary in the Clinton administration, responded to today’s bad news on jobs with a flurry of tweets from his @RBReich twitter handle, calling on Washington to drop its fixation on deficits and turn to jobs.
“The national jobs emergency is growing worse,” he wrote in a series of tweets. “[Obama] must come up with a jobs plan, and now. The battle over how to reduce the ten-year budget deficit is a distraction from the #1 priority of jobs and wages now. Mr. President: At least come up with a jobs plan and fight for it. If R’s reject it, then campaign on it.”
His plan, as tweeted:
Jobs plan #1: Exempt first $20K of income from payroll taxes for a year. Jobs plan #2: Recreate the WPA and Civilian Conservation Corps. Better to put millions to work directly. Jobs plan #3: Fed govt should lend money to states and locales so teachers, firefighters, police, and others can be rehired. Jobs plan #4: Amend bankruptcy laws to allow distressed homeowners to declare bankruptcy on primary residence. Jobs plan #5: Enlarge and extend the Earned Income Tax Credit Jobs plan #6: Provide partial unemployment insurance to people who have lost part-time jobs.
Reich was viewed by many as a success in his public service role, mainly because the economy was chugging along very nicely during his appointment. Therefore it may be futile for a humble blogger to argue too strenuously against such a plan point by point. However, his plan does beg a few questions.
First, and despite his seeming nonchalance about the issue, with a debt ceiling fight in progress and with the debt burden at all-time highs, just where would the dollars for government spending and tax cuts come from at this point? Also, what will be done about the write-offs banks would undoubtedly have to take if primary residence mortgages could be written-off? Also, with states already drained of federal unemployment funds, where will funding for part-time unemployment insurance come from?
With all due respect, we would say that a plan with a few more points addressing some of those issues might have been more valuable. Unfortunately, it is more than likely that the questions above are simply too tough to answer with mere tweets...the economic situation has become far more complicated than that.
The Great Firewall of China
For many, the internet serves as a venue for ultimate freedom, whether of expression, knowledge or more, ahem, interesting pursuits. However, for some around the world, the internet is merely another source of repression, yet another forum where personal freedoms can be restricted. Most notably, China has taken measures to ensure that its population is not able to express ideas freely, seek out unapproved sources of knowledge and utilize the same types of social media which have proven disruptive to regimes in the Middle East. One of the grandest and most well-known of the tools of this control is a system dubbed the 'Golden Shield' by those who wield it and 'The Great Firewall of China' to most everyone else.
For those interested in The Great Firewall there are many resources available...at least from western sources. For a comparison between two towns, one within and one directly outside the virtual barrier, see the PCMag.com article Life Behind the Great Firewall of China by Sascha Segan here. For more on an experience with the system that was a little too close for comfort for its author readers can visit a Wired piece by Oliver August here. Meanwhile, Forbes.com has an article on potential military and security uses in an Andy Greenberg piece here. For information on the fallout that Cisco has faced for its participation in the engineering of The Wall, readers can visit The Washington Times here. Finally, for some additional background as well as some of the conundrums the Firewall has caused for western companies, see the Hungry Beast video below.
For those interested in The Great Firewall there are many resources available...at least from western sources. For a comparison between two towns, one within and one directly outside the virtual barrier, see the PCMag.com article Life Behind the Great Firewall of China by Sascha Segan here. For more on an experience with the system that was a little too close for comfort for its author readers can visit a Wired piece by Oliver August here. Meanwhile, Forbes.com has an article on potential military and security uses in an Andy Greenberg piece here. For information on the fallout that Cisco has faced for its participation in the engineering of The Wall, readers can visit The Washington Times here. Finally, for some additional background as well as some of the conundrums the Firewall has caused for western companies, see the Hungry Beast video below.
7.02.2011
SCOTUS for Stats Geeks
The folks over at SCOTUSblog do some amazing work crunching various Supreme Court statistics for those curious about how justices line up, who is doing their fair share of opinion writing, and many other more mundane details of high court life. A summary memo on the latest term can be found here. Meanwhile, anyone interested in taking a deeper look at the numbers behind the summary can look at a few terms worth of statistics here. Finally, Brent Kendall at the Wall St. Journal's legal blog picked out some choice tidbits from the analysis. Among the more interesting include the following:
'This year we learn that Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg asked the first question at oral argument 27% of the time, slightly edging out Justice Antonin Scalia for the lead.
Scalia, like most of his colleagues, seems to ask more questions in tough cases than easy ones. He asked an average of 30 questions per argument in cases ultimately decided on a 5-4 vote, but only 24 per argument in cases decided unanimously. (Justice Clarence Thomas was amazingly consistent, asking no questions in either the 5-4 or 9-0 cases.)
When it comes to writing speed, Justice Sonia Sotomayor, the court’s fastest author this term, destroyed Justice Anthony Kennedy, the slowest. Her opinions were released on average 43 days sooner than his. Then again, he had more 5-4 opinions to write.
Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito were the most like-minded pair on the court, agreeing 96.2% of the time, according to SCOTUSblog. Alito and Ginsburg took the oil-and-water award by agreeing the least, just 62.5% of the time.
On weightier matters, the report notes that the court’s five-justice conservative majority banded together in 63% of the 5-4 decisions this term, a new record of conservative solidarity for the Roberts Court. Nearly 88% of the court’s 5-4 decisions fell along ideological lines, with the moderate-conservative Kennedy floating between the conservative and liberal camps.'
'This year we learn that Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg asked the first question at oral argument 27% of the time, slightly edging out Justice Antonin Scalia for the lead.
Scalia, like most of his colleagues, seems to ask more questions in tough cases than easy ones. He asked an average of 30 questions per argument in cases ultimately decided on a 5-4 vote, but only 24 per argument in cases decided unanimously. (Justice Clarence Thomas was amazingly consistent, asking no questions in either the 5-4 or 9-0 cases.)
When it comes to writing speed, Justice Sonia Sotomayor, the court’s fastest author this term, destroyed Justice Anthony Kennedy, the slowest. Her opinions were released on average 43 days sooner than his. Then again, he had more 5-4 opinions to write.
Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito were the most like-minded pair on the court, agreeing 96.2% of the time, according to SCOTUSblog. Alito and Ginsburg took the oil-and-water award by agreeing the least, just 62.5% of the time.
On weightier matters, the report notes that the court’s five-justice conservative majority banded together in 63% of the 5-4 decisions this term, a new record of conservative solidarity for the Roberts Court. Nearly 88% of the court’s 5-4 decisions fell along ideological lines, with the moderate-conservative Kennedy floating between the conservative and liberal camps.'
PSA: National Counterterrorism Strategy
(Ed. Note - On June 29, the White House released a fact sheet on America's National Counterterrorism Strategy. The official release can be found here; it is also reproduced in its entirety below. Those interested in the complete strategy can visit here (link also embedded below).)
“As a country, we will never tolerate our security being threatened, nor stand idly by when our people have been killed. We will be relentless in defense of our citizens and our friends and allies. We will be true to the values that make us who we are. And on nights like this one, we can say to those families who have lost loved ones to al Qaeda’s terror: Justice has been done.”
The National Strategy for Counterterrorism, found here, http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/counterterrorism_strategy.pdf formalizes the approach that President Obama and his Administration have been pursuing and adapting for the past two and half years to prevent terrorist attacks and to deliver devastating blows against al-Qa’ida, including the successful mission to kill Usama bin Laden.
Rather than defining our entire national security policy, this counterterrorism strategy is one part of President Obama’s larger National Security Strategy, which seeks to advance our enduring national security interests, including our security, prosperity, respect for universal values and global cooperation to meet global challenges.
This Strategy builds upon the progress we have made in the decade since 9/11, in partnership with Congress, to build our counterterrorism and homeland security capacity as a nation. It neither represents a wholesale overhaul—nor a wholesale retention—of previous policies and strategies.
“As a country, we will never tolerate our security being threatened, nor stand idly by when our people have been killed. We will be relentless in defense of our citizens and our friends and allies. We will be true to the values that make us who we are. And on nights like this one, we can say to those families who have lost loved ones to al Qaeda’s terror: Justice has been done.”
--President Barack Obama
May 1, 2011
May 1, 2011
The National Strategy for Counterterrorism, found here, http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/counterterrorism_strategy.pdf formalizes the approach that President Obama and his Administration have been pursuing and adapting for the past two and half years to prevent terrorist attacks and to deliver devastating blows against al-Qa’ida, including the successful mission to kill Usama bin Laden.
Rather than defining our entire national security policy, this counterterrorism strategy is one part of President Obama’s larger National Security Strategy, which seeks to advance our enduring national security interests, including our security, prosperity, respect for universal values and global cooperation to meet global challenges.
This Strategy builds upon the progress we have made in the decade since 9/11, in partnership with Congress, to build our counterterrorism and homeland security capacity as a nation. It neither represents a wholesale overhaul—nor a wholesale retention—of previous policies and strategies.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)