Royal Wedding Bells

Scour the world, and you'll probably never find a schmaltzier statue than the statue of the Queen of Hearts and her Dodi erected by Mohamed Al-Fayed in the basement of Harrods in London. Of all the weird things to come from Diana's death, that was no doubt the weirdest.

Well, with Prince William of Wales finally proposing to Kate, I guess the circle is unbroken, and what Diana and Dodi could find only in a statue in the Harrods basement will hopefully be found by Wills and Kate in Anglesey where the newlyweds intend to live (say what you will about Prince William of Wales, but he seems to take the "of Wales" part of his name considerably more seriously than his father ever did).

But remembering the death of Di has only fed into my rampant Nineties Nostalgia, which has lately seen me revisit the O.J. trial via Frontline and the Clinton impeachment via Dean Gormley's fascinating tome on the subject. (Sidenote: did anyone else notice that Ken Starr is now the President of Baylor? Also, remember when there was all that talk about making Baylor an evangelical equivalent of an Ivy League school and how that totally fizzled?) And of course, nothing has cheered me up of late more than revisiting Joycelyn Elders and her wacky ideas.

Anyhow, wanting to revisit Princess Di, as a crucial part of 1990s weirdness, but not wanting to revisit the funeral (too sad) or the Martin Bashir interview (too weird - and at any rate superseded by Bashir's interview with Michael Jackson the next decade).

So, I humbly submit this clip from the shortlived 1996 ABC Dana Carvey Show. (Probably an underrated show, but Carvey was sort of old hat by then. But look at the all-star cast: Steve Carell, Bill Chott, Stephen Colbert, Elon Gold, Chris McKinney, Heather Morgan, Peggy Shay, Robert Smigel, and James Stephens III. And the writers: Charlie Kaufman, Louis C.K., Jon Glaser, Dino Stamatopoulos, Spike Feresten, Stephen Colbert, Steve Carell and Robert Carlock.

Or if you want something more in bad taste.

Jones v. Clinton - Thirteen Years Later

As you know, I love John Paul Stevens and recently attended his homecoming dinner, hosted by the CBA at the beautiful Stevens Hotel, where he grew up.

Stevens authored the unanimous opinion in Clinton v. Jones. Clinton's lawyers in that case had argued that if Paula Jones (pictured being punched in the face by Tonya Harding) were allowed to proceed with her civil sexual harassment claim against Bill Clinton, then future presidents might be subject to vexatious civil litigation that would distract them from their presidencies. Stevens rejected this argument, writing that "in the more than 200 year history of the Republic, only three sitting Presidents have been subjected to suits for their private actions. . . . If the past is any indicator, it seems unlikely that a deluge of such litigation will ever engulf the Presidency. As for the case at hand, if properly managed by the District Court, it appears to us highly unlikely to occupy any substantial amount of petitioner's time."

I think the last thirteen years show that this is probably a correct assessment. As much as the left hated George W. Bush, to the best of my knowledge, he was never subjected to any vexatious civil litigation. And as much as the right hates Barack Hussein Obama, I'm not aware of any lawsuits looming that threaten to derail his presidency. The fact of the matter is that Bill Clinton had a background that, for a president, was pretty unique and pretty checkered.

Just a minute

It was not six weeks ago that Bristol Palin was saying that Levi Johnston is a "stranger to her".

Now they're getting married?

This is a little hasty, which has been the problem with their relationship all along. Will this wedding actually take place? The world (not to mention all the gay guys who subscribe to Playgirl) wait with baited breath.

Wiki-interesting

Interesting graphic, showing that if Wikipedia were printed out, it would be 1,410 volumes long and require a little over seven stacks of library space to accommodate the whole encyclopedia.

Book Recommendation

Dave Barry's History of the Millennium (So Far), a compilation of his end-of-the-year columns for 2000 to 2007. I picked it up for an airplane ride and was very glad I did. It's always so useful to reflect on recent history.

I only recently read his review of 2009 and it's really funny. You should go read it now.

Superman Musical

I suppose you saw this article in the NYT, about the revival of the Superman musical currently being staged in Dallas.

This gives me a second reason to want to visit Dallas. (The first being my desire to see the Southfork Ranch.)

So, my interest piqued, I searched on YouTube and it appears they have a made-for-TV version of the Superman musical from 1975. And, my God, that looks like it must have been one of the worst made-for-TV movies of all time (and there's a lot of competition in that category). If I had to pick just two random aspects of the production for criticism, I'd pick, oh, I don't know, the sets and the uninspired choreography.

Canada again

Everyone is starting to get tired of my pro-Canada rants, but this graph, from an article in the latest Economist points out how Canada is better positioned from a debt standpoint than any other advanced economy. Not that much better than the U.S., mind you, but given how bad things in Canada used to be, a pleasant place to be in nevertheless.

A Mies Too Far

As you know, I love Miesian architecture, but I think there are perhaps limits to the utility of Miesianism. Most famously, of course, Mies' Neue Nationalgalerie in Berlin has been criticized as being an inappropriate venue for the display of art. I've never been so I can't offer an opinion, but it seems like a plausible critique.

But as cheap Miesian knockoffs go, the Chapel of Apparitions at the Shrine of Our Lady of Fátima (pictured) seems somewhat lacking to me. I mean, contrast the Chapel of Apparitions with the main Basilica. Now, even the main basilica is a little gaudy in my opinion, especially those enormous renderings of the peasant children who received the apparition. But at least there's some attempt to make the structure other-worldly. But to actually enclose the place where they received the apparition in a Miesian structure strikes me as somewhat less than reverent. am I wrong?

Tranta

What is it about living in a multi-culti paradise that leads Torontonians to carry on so?

Tony Hayward

If I were him, I would have been wiring my money to a Swiss bank account and heading for a jurisdiction without an extradition treaty with the US or the UK.

Everyone should get off his back. He's doing his best.

Make sure to check out his side of the story.

Apropos of Nothing (besides my being joyful in light of the Blackhawks' win)

I recommend everyone go listen to the Top 10 songs from summer 1970:

1. "The Love You Save" - Jackson 5
2. "Make it with You" - Bread
3. "Close to You" - The Carpenters
4. "War" - Edwin Starr
5. "Everything is Beautiful" - Ray Stevens
6. "Which Way You Goin', Billy?" - Poppy Family
7. "Ball of Confusion" - The Temptations
8. "Band of Gold" - Freda Payne
9. "Spill the Wine" - Eric Burdon and War
10. "Signed, Sealed, Delivered" - Stevie Wonder
11. "Love on a Two Way Street" - Moments

Yes, I realize this Top 10 list has 11 songs, but there were a bunch of ties.

Prediction

There will be no hockey riot when the Blackhawks win the Stanley Cup later tonight.

Climate Debate Nuttiness

The debate over climate change has reached a new low with media - at least in the UK and in the climate change blogosphere- covering a recent debate between the third Viscount Monckton of Brenchley (left) and John Abraham (right).

Seriously?

Let's review their qualifications. Lord Monckton has been a journalist, a deputy leader of the UK Independence Party, and the creator of the Eternity Puzzle. Professor Abraham teaches mechanical engineering at the University of St. Thomas, a third-tier university in St. Paul, Minnesota.

To my mind, this epitomizes the problems with the "climate change debate". It's full of people with strong opinions, but virtually no training in climatology.

I took a grand sum total of one meteorology class my freshman year of college, and while a remember little of what I learned about adiabatic lapse rates and occluded fronts, the one thing that my B in that class taught me is that meteorology is hard. I have no trust in the ability of amateurs to dip themselves into the complexities of climate science and get it right. As Pope put it:

A little learning is a dangerous thing;
Drink deep, or taste not the Pierian spring:
There shallow draughts intoxicate the brain,
And drinking largely sobers us again.

But then again, I think we need to be skeptical of the abilities even of experts to get it right on something as complex as the climate, which does, after all, involve an interconnected system covering the entire planet.

Ignagni to the Rescue

I watched this Frontline on the health care bill the other day. An excellent recap of the politicking of the last year - highly worth the view in my opinion.

I hadn't followed the behind-the-scenes politics of the debate, so, I'm embarrassed to admit, this was the first time I'd ever heard the name of Karen Ignagni. In spite of the liberal tint of the show, Ignagni, the HMOs' chief lobbyist, really emerges as the hero of the show, at least if you take a pro-insurance industry view. Her strategy: accede reform is necessary, and work hard toward two goals: (1) mandate that everyone has to buy health insurance; (2) no public option. And in spite of the fact that Obama had campaigned against both points, at the end of the day, Ignagni got her members exactly what they wanted.

Now, the part of me that is trained in Economics tells me that this is a classic example of an industry willingly accepting regulation, in the thought that regulation can benefit the industry. (Anyone remember the idea of regulatory capture?) Almost certainly this is going to result in a lot of deadweight loss. But, I tip my hat in admiration to a job very well done to Ignagni in terms of looking after her clients' interests.

On the other hand, it might be a good idea to have an economically rational plan for planning the health care system. Just an idea.

Why I'll Never Be A Great Blogger

My last posting immediately made me think that my humanities education, by making me think in paragraphs, and not just in paragraphs, but in successions of paragraphs, fully exploring an issue (and if I were really writing not blogging, then editing until I had achieved perfection of both form and substance), are skills that are totally anathema to successful blogging.

There are some successful blogs that proceed by paragraphs - the Becker-Posner Blog comes to mind - the most successful blogs are the exact opposite of a succession of paragraphs. They're more like a series of soundbites .

Writing a term paper and writing a blog post are very different skills. I'm sure that with time and practice, I could develop a successful blog style, but blogging as I do infrequently and then mainly to indulge myself, it's unlikely that will happen.

I guess the advantage of having no audience is having no one who will complain.

Oh the humanities!

For reasons not entirely clear to me, it appears that today the New York Times decided to run a bunch of stories about picking college majors and the value of liberal education.

Thus we have David Brooks, in yet another of his seemingly unendless attempts to produce a World-Is-Flat- esque metaphor that will finally bring him the bestseller status you just know he craves, argues that the purpose of education is to become acquainted with something Brooks calls The Big Shaggy. Umm, yeah. Well put, David.

In a more sensible vein, we find Stanley Fish reviewing a trio of new books calling for a return to classical ideals of education, including a new tome (previewed here) by Martha Nussbaum, who is still smarting from being unceremoniously dumped by Cass Sunstein. Basically, Nussbaum thinks that we are "downgrading" the humanities at the expense of "science and technology" and "applied skills suited to profit making."

This sort of Chicken Little view that the death of liberal arts education is imminent strikes me as palpably absurd. In no particular order, my thoughts:

(1) A lot more degrees are awarded. As you can see here, education has been a major growth industry for over a century. In 1980, the year of my birth, under 1 million bachelor's degrees were conferred in the US per year; today it's more like 1.6 million. As the above chart shows, this means that there are more people majoring in social sciences and history (admittedly not a perfect proxy for "the humanities") than ever before. So, it's not like people with humanities degrees are an endangered species.

(2) I think that focusing solely on what students choose to major in is deceptive. Of course, people have their future careers on their mind when they are choosing their majors, but it's not like that's all they do while they're in college. Most universities do have breadth requirements that require students to take courses outside their main field of specialization. And for lots of students, the first year or two of college is mainly about trying out different fields and trying to find something that you're good at and that you like. For every student who is awakened to the republic of letters during their undergrad career, there are probably three who were bored silly throughout a mandatory English 101 and who couldn't wait to move on to classes that they were more interested in. For the most part, students who have been forced to take classes they don't want to all through primary and secondary school want to move on to classes they're interested in. And if what they're interested in is the wonders of science, or, yes, the skills needed to make money in a competitive global environment, there's nothing wrong with that in my opinion. I also think that it's worth pointing out that lots of students don't just barely fulfill their breadth requirements - lots also take a variety of classes, some far outside their major field. It's not that unusual to find some science majors in mid-level humanities classes - but those who are there are there because they want to be there, not because they're being forced.

(3) As I look at the list of what people major in above, I'm hard put to say where we ought to cut back. I guess for Brooks, Fish, Nussbaum and company, their major concern is that we have too many business majors. So maybe the real subtext is ideological hostility to business. But, having taken some business school classes in law school, and having as a lawyer got some sense (though removed one degree) of how business operates, the fact of the matter is that business is really complex, requires not just knowledge, but judgment, and is, in its own way, just as intellectually demanding and intellectually stimulating as anything I did in the humanities.

Take this ridiculous advice from Brooks:

"Studying the humanities will give you a familiarity with the language of emotion. In an information economy, many people have the ability to produce a technical innovation: a new MP3 player. Very few people have the ability to create a great brand: the iPod. Branding involves the location and arousal of affection, and you can’t do it unless you are conversant in the language of romance. "

There's an entire branch of business education dedicated to creating a great brand: it's called Marketing. What is it that Brooks thinks that Marketing classes teach? The fact of the matter is that a Marketing major will have studied "the location and arousal of affection" in order to create a great brand, but will also probably have studied successful and unsuccessful past attempts at branding, will know something about the practical constraints a company faces in attempting to create a great brand, and will have the tools he or she needs to execute on a branding strategy. I agree that having studied something besides Marketing will probably be important to thinking up fresh and new ideas, but I think this idea that studying A will make you better at B is stupid. More likely if you study A, you'll know a lot about A, and can use a little of that at B, whereas if you study B, you'll know a lot about B.

In order to demonstrate my phenomenal training in the humanities, let me offer up as Exhibit A the most famous song about someone who is educated about every topic except the business he is actually engaged in.

(4) Division of labour. Brooks is right that humanities teach reading and writing skills. Some people need these skills and always will. Others, not so much. Society benefits from having a wide variety of people with skills in a wide variety of areas. A world of nothing but humanity majors would be missing out on a lot of the benefits of modern life.

(5) Laying aside business, there are more social science and history degrees awarded than anything else. There are a ton of Psychology majors (in fact that number really surprised me). And there are more degrees awarded every year in the visual and performing arts than in computer and information science. I hardly think we need fewer educators, health care professionals, or engineers, so I find it hard to get upset about the number of degrees awarded in that field. And Biology and Biomedical Science is, to anyone who pays any attention to this sort of thing, probably the field of knowledge where human knowledge is expanding more exponentially than any other field right now, and this is going to have vast implications on our society's future. So I can hardly feel bad about that. The only plausible group of degrees that are disproportionately represented are business majors, but as I described above, I don't really take those concerns seriously.

(6) One more plug for business majors. Business is hugely important. Who do you think pays for museums and endowed chairs and whatnot?

Snoopy's First Appearance

Canada the Model

Goldman says Canada is right.

Sometimes courts get it wrong

...or do they?

"Illinois courts briefly ruled stop signs illegal in 1922 as a violation of the rights of individuals to cross streets."

Attack of the Hedgies

Today was held in the Frederick P. Rose Hall of Jazz at Lincoln Center in New York City the 15th Annual Ira Sohn Research Conference. This conference is the place for hedge fund managers to see and be seen and to give their take on the best way to make money in the upcoming year. This year's conference was not good news.

David Einhorn (upper left) of Greenlight Capital reiterated his opinion that in the great collapse of modern finance, the credit ratings agencies will be the next shoe to fall. At last year's conference, Einhorn announced that he was shorting Moody's and since that time Moody's stock has dropped 25% in value. Einhorn is still shorting the stock because he thinks it's not just going to go down a bit, but is set to totally collapse. Will in be the next big financial institution to come tumbling down? Stay tuned.

Bill Ackman (lower right) of Pershing Square Capital Management similarly repeated his view that the credit ratings agencies are broken and need massive overhaul. Anyone really believe Chris Dodd is going to accomplish that?

Daniel Arbess (lower left) of Perella Weinberg Partners helpfully informed the audience that the sun is setting on Western capitalism, and that the torch is passing to China. (Note to self: buy more Chinese stocks, consider learning Mandarin.) Granted, the West has been written off before.

Einhorn and Arbess are both making huge investments in gold. I don't totally know what this means, but it doesn't bode well.

The one positive thing from the event was David Tepper (upper right) of Appaloosa Management, predicted that Bank of America's stock, which today closed at $15.47 / share, would hit $27 / share. Maybe time to consider investing in Bank of America. That way, at least, when I get hit with their massive overdraft fees, I would have the consolation of knowing that I was really, in some way, just paying myself.

Eight other hedge fund managers also spoke, but I only had room for four in my picture, so if you want to know what the others said, you'll need to go look them up yourself.

I'm Thinking of Getting a Kickass "Free Adam Wheeler" T-shirt

It was 26 years ago when the Specials released that kickass song "Free Nelson Mandela". Given that song's success at getting Mandela freed after "twenty-one years in captivity", it's pretty obvious that the road to fame and fortune leads straight through getting somebody or other freed. So why not Adam Wheeler?

At any rate, Wheeler is not the most unlikely of posterboys for Generation Y. Of my friends who are now professors, they all have stories of catching dopey students in ham-fisted plagiarism attempts. Given the frequency of professors catching plagiarism, one has to assume that the numbers of students who aren't idiots who engage in plagiarism without getting caught is probably immense.

And then he polished his resume a bit? This is a generation that has been taught that it's only the resume that matters - not the work that goes into it. If you get the grade, what does it matter if you've actually learned anything or, you know, grown as a person through intellectual achievement, or whatever. (And if Adderoll is going to help you get that grade, might as well add it to the mix.) And I'm always shocked at the number of people who have joined a club or organization just to attend one or two meetings and then add their membership to their resumes. So Wheeler may be a little more extreme, but maybe he's really a mirror in which a troubled generation.

So, go ahead, Specials, write your song for Wheeler - I'm sure you'll have plenty of Gen Yers willing to buy it.

Dodd Springs Into Action; Nation Snoozes

Until recently, I've been aware of Sen. Chris Dodd (D-Conn.) mainly because of his presidential campaigns. Dodd is one of those senators who runs for president periodically largely on the grounds that they have been in the Senate forever, and thus, have nothing left to accomplish to round out their resumes except becoming president. Hence the moral clarity and inspirational tone of 2007's famous "Why not Dodd?" slogan. (If I ever run for president, it'll be under the slogan "Might as well vote for Ringguax.")

Most recently, I was excited by the possibility that Dodd might get defeated in his reelection campaign by WWE CEO Linda McMahon, but Dodd forestalled that by announcing his retirement. Bummer. (Though at least we got to see the power of McMahon's opposition research unleashed on Richard Blumenthal.)

But before he sails off in to the sunset, Dodd has one more trick up his sleeve: the Restoring American Financial Stability Act of 2010, now on the verge of becoming law. Here are my thoughts on the law:

The Dodd Bill purports to be a response to the financial meltdown of 2008. Now, in my humble opinion, the biggest cause of the 2008 financial crisis was the overleveraging of capital throughout the financial services sector. Firms should never have been allowed to leverage assets on a 30:1 or even 40:1 basis. Basically, there was excess debt in the American financial sector. (Now, unfortunately, rather than pursue a strategy of deleveraging the American economy, the Obama administration has simply chosen to replace irresponsible levels of private debt with equally irresponsible levels of public debt, but that's a topic for another post.) So, I do think there needs to be regulation, but I don't think that regulation needs to be anything more complex than imposing tighter capital requirements on the banking sector to prevent excess leverage.

So, what does the Dodd Bill actually do? With a nod to the Federalist Society, the bill has eight major features:

(1) Creation of a Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.
(2) Creates a Financial Stability Oversight Council.
(3) Expands the Fed's ability to regulate large banks and financial service organizations.
(4) Regulates derivatives.
(5) Expands the ability of the SEC to regulate hedge funds and the credit rating agencies.
(6) Minor Executive Compensation reform.
(7) Gives the Fed new power to monitor "systemic risk".
(8) Creates an Office of National Insurance.

I will comment on these features of the bill in follow-up posts.

BTJ is Back: Or, How the World Has Changed Since July 2008

Wow! Hard to believe that it is almost two years since my collaborator Publius and I decided that we needed to tone down the blogging amidst the final push of studying for the bar exam. By this point, I've moved from being an innocent, doe-eyed law student to being a jaded and irritable second year associate. What a difference two years makes!

But if a lot has changed for me, what about the world? Mama mia, how the world has changed. Looking back on my summer associate experiences in 2006 and 2007, all I can say is "Bliss was it in that dawn to be alive / But to be young was very heaven!" Ah yes, when starting associate salaries were raised from $115,000 to $125,000 to $135,000, to $145,000, to $160,000, all before I ever started at the firm. By comparison, check out the go that Publius's sister, a recent Brown graduate, has been having in the Greatest City in the World as we enter our second year of the Era of Obama.

Ah summer 2008, those halcyon days when the world was young. Remember the howls of outrage as the US budget deficit soared to $400 billion. It seems almost quaint, now that our budget deficits are four times that size and likely to remain so for the foreseeable future. Ah, June 2008, when the unemployment rate climbed 10%, from 5% to 5.5%, setting off waves of panic. A far cry from today, when Obamiacs tell us we should be elated that the unemployment rate is down to 9.5%. Who in 2008 would have predicted that the American economy would become permanently hobbled by a tax burden that makes relocating in the UK, Canada, or the Netherlands seem like a mighty attractive option? Who would have believed you if you had predicted that the eighth largest economy in the world was about to implode? Who would have questioned the received wisdom that the road to happiness and prosperity lay in imitating the cast and crew of Flip This House? Who would have guessed that even a party as obtuse as the United States Democratic Party would jam through a massive expansion of the welfare state against the loud and sustained opposition of a majority of the American populace? The run on Indymac Bank turned out to be the presagition for the collapse not only of larger financial institutions, but of entire economies. Yes, 2008 was truly the last age of innocence.

In short, we are cursed to live in interesting times. And now, when we must say collectively, "Midway through the journey of our life, I found myself in a dark wood, for I had strayed from the straight pathway to this tangled ground", BTJ: The Blog is back to cast light on the troubled way before us. Stay tuned...