Wednesday
You can't mean that
I haven't read any of what I'm sure is the extensive blogospheric commentary on it (NY Times Op-ed on blogging equals lots of posts), nor have I taken any course specifically on employment law. Nevertheless, as far as I can tell, Jeremy Blachman think that bloggers should have an employment status just as if they were a protected class under anti-discrimination law. Since the default employment is at-will, Blachman's argument that "employers [should have to] show actual harm, if they are firing someone because of her Weblog" basically means they should be treated as if they all actions against bloggers are suspect, giving them the kind of protection that anti-discrimination law gives to groups against which gender or racial discrimination is considered likely. That's just weird.
|
A small subset of the things I don't know
Based on my very cursory knowledge of Israeli politics, wasn't there a time (like when he was Prime Minister) that Netanyahu was thought of as being more to the left than Sharon? If my memory isn't wrong, is there an interesting story behind the relative switch between the two?
|
Good night
|
Tuesday
Look over there
There's a good post up at Coalition for Darfur which builds off the post last week on Washington Monthly about the experiences the blog commenter who goes by the alias "Shameless Hussy" had in Darfur. The picture at the end of the post isn't gory or violent, but still not for the faint of heart.
|
Back to the grindstone
I just started reading for my Intellectual Property class, and I'm pretty sure there are two grammatical errors in the Lanham Act (15 USC § 1051). Actually, it's just the same grammatical error twice, but it's a fairly bad one. Subsection (a)(3) reads, in relevant part:
The statement shall be verified by the applicant and specify that —
(A) the person making the verification believes that he or she, or the jurisitic person in whose behalf he or she makes the verification, to be the owner of the mark sought to be registered;
Is there any reason it's not a mistake to use "to be" instead of "is," when "he or she" clearly requires "is"? I've checked both my statutory supplement and lexis, and both of them include this error, and it's repeated in (b)(3). If you want to either agree or call me an idiot (for this or any other post), comment.
|
The statement shall be verified by the applicant and specify that —
(A) the person making the verification believes that he or she, or the jurisitic person in whose behalf he or she makes the verification, to be the owner of the mark sought to be registered;
Is there any reason it's not a mistake to use "to be" instead of "is," when "he or she" clearly requires "is"? I've checked both my statutory supplement and lexis, and both of them include this error, and it's repeated in (b)(3). If you want to either agree or call me an idiot (for this or any other post), comment.
Monday
Aruging with people whom I hope are kidding
I was just in the audience at an open mike at the Bowery Poetry Room, because one of my friends was hoping to get a spot to perform her comedy routine. She didn't get to go on stage (and the previous times I've seen her she was better than anyone who I did see), but I was introduced to Chris Brodeur's mayoral campaign as fifth guy in the Democratic primary. The first spot in the open mike went to him, and the sixth or seventh went to someone else who had a video in support of his campaign. I'm not going to go into my substantive disagreements with his platform (yet), because I'd like to read the online copy rather than just going by my memories of what he said. But I would like to note that his proposal that he would sign a contract guaranteeing that he'll fulfill all of his campaign promises is almost definitely unenforceable (lack of consideration, I haven't checked the case law but am fairly sure voting for someone can't constitute consideration), and it is unquestionably false that if he violated said contract he'd have to go to jail. Rather, even if it were for some reason enforceable, someone would have to argue for their expectation, reliance, or restitution damages.
More generally, he doesn't seem to have any idea what the Mayor's powers are. For instance, the New York Penal Code (which he proposed "adding the Bill of Rights to") (I lied when I said I wasn't going by my memory) isn't set by the mayor, and making violating the Bill of Rights a crime under the penal code would be quite ludicrous, if only because every prosecution would be unbelievably political and make sure that no government actor ever did much of anything (he clearly wasn't thinking about judges, prosecutors, or any other official being immune for their official acts).
|
More generally, he doesn't seem to have any idea what the Mayor's powers are. For instance, the New York Penal Code (which he proposed "adding the Bill of Rights to") (I lied when I said I wasn't going by my memory) isn't set by the mayor, and making violating the Bill of Rights a crime under the penal code would be quite ludicrous, if only because every prosecution would be unbelievably political and make sure that no government actor ever did much of anything (he clearly wasn't thinking about judges, prosecutors, or any other official being immune for their official acts).
Sunday
For those with excess liquidity
If you're really into real estate speculation, you could probably buy up a good chunk of New Orleans right now at cut-rate prices. Also, the title of this post is a pun. Noting that pun probably ruins it. If it was funny in the first place. Which it was.
Update: I hope its clear this is intended as whistling in the dark, not any kind of schadenfreude. What is apparently about to happen in New Orleans is truly horrific, and we can only hope that the death and damage is as minimal as possible.
|
Update: I hope its clear this is intended as whistling in the dark, not any kind of schadenfreude. What is apparently about to happen in New Orleans is truly horrific, and we can only hope that the death and damage is as minimal as possible.
Thursday
Intellectual Wankery (is a compliment)
DeLong has a really interesting and long post, mostly on the justifying/explaining distinction. It's acutally more of a colloquy with his old professor Jeff Weintraub (link is to his CV, scroll to bottom of the page). Do not see also the comments, except for Daniel Davies (Brad does not appear to have links enabled for individual comments, find it if you want to). If I wanted this post to be substantive, it would include my thoughts on the matter. Maybe after I've had some time to digest it, but who knows.
Update: I thought the above post on this topic was good, but I did not know what good was until I read Hilzoy on it. If all her writing is this clear, I dont know why I was never assigned any of her materials in my undergraduate philosophy education. And I'm quite certain I wasn't. Also, the one comment here appears to be copied and pasted and is cut off part way through, stupid haloscan word limit.
|
Update: I thought the above post on this topic was good, but I did not know what good was until I read Hilzoy on it. If all her writing is this clear, I dont know why I was never assigned any of her materials in my undergraduate philosophy education. And I'm quite certain I wasn't. Also, the one comment here appears to be copied and pasted and is cut off part way through, stupid haloscan word limit.
Wednesday
Housekeeping
Sorry for the lack of posting lately. Last week was crazy with Law Review orientation (which basically involved being immediately put to work) and this is Early Interview Week. I've had interviews with fifteen firms in the last three days, and I'm not even among the busiest people around the school. I know of multiple people who have had twenty four in the last three days, and that might not even be the maximum. I'll get back into it once things quiet down a little bit around here.
|
Tuesday
I'm reading about the history of risk (not the game)
A hypothetical, apropos of a conversation I had this weekend about why backing up your pass in the game of craps is such a good bet.
Let's say you are offered a bet which is (mechanically) precisely the same as a coin flip, except that one side only has a 1 in 1000 chance of coming up. You're offered a chance to bet one dollar on that side, with a $X payoff if you win. You are also guaranteed that the other person will offer you the bet as many times as you have a dollar to bet. As it happens, you currently have $1,000. If you are risk-neutral and don't value the time spent playing this game at all (your oppurtunity cost is nil), and your only goal is to walk away from the transaction with more money than you started with, what is the lowest value of $X (in whole dollars) for which you shouldexcept accept this bet? Or is there no value for which you accept? This is not a "trick question."
If you start thinking about this and think it's really simple, you're right. But the person who brought it up this weekend brought it up to prove the point opposite of what it actually shows. Also, it's possible my reasoning on this is wrong, it's happened before.
|
Let's say you are offered a bet which is (mechanically) precisely the same as a coin flip, except that one side only has a 1 in 1000 chance of coming up. You're offered a chance to bet one dollar on that side, with a $X payoff if you win. You are also guaranteed that the other person will offer you the bet as many times as you have a dollar to bet. As it happens, you currently have $1,000. If you are risk-neutral and don't value the time spent playing this game at all (your oppurtunity cost is nil), and your only goal is to walk away from the transaction with more money than you started with, what is the lowest value of $X (in whole dollars) for which you should
If you start thinking about this and think it's really simple, you're right. But the person who brought it up this weekend brought it up to prove the point opposite of what it actually shows. Also, it's possible my reasoning on this is wrong, it's happened before.
Monday
Birthday Borges blogging
It's Borges, the other one, that things happen to. I walk through the streets of Buenos Aires and I pause
I am not sure which of us it is that's writing this page. -Jorge Luis Borges, "Borges and I," Collected Fictions, Andrew Hurley tr.
I'm too out of my mind from weekend birthday celebration in Atlantic City followed immediately by the first day of Law Review orientation to do more than transcribe.
|
—mechanically now, perhaps—to gaze at the arch of an entryway hall and its inner door; news of Borges reaches me by mail or I see his name on a list of academics or in some biographical dictionary. My taste runs to hourglasses, maps, eighteenth-century typefaces, etymologies, the taste of coffee and the prose of Robert Louis Stevenson—I live, I allow myself to live, so that Borges can spin out his literature, and that literature is my justification.I willingly admit that he has written a number of sound pages, but those pages will not save me, perhaps because the good in them no longer belongs to any individual, not even to that other man, but rather to language itself, or to tradition. Beyond that, I am doomed—utterly and inevitably—to poblivion, and fleeting moments will be all of me that survives in that other man. Little by little, I have been turning everything over to him, though I know the perverse way he has of distorting and magnifying everything. Spinoza believed that all things wish to go on being what they are—stone wishes eternally to be stone and tiger, to be tiger. I shall endure in Borges, not in myself (if, indeed, I am anybody at all), but I recognize myself less in his books than in many others', or in the tedious strumming of a guitar. Years ago I tried to free myself from him and I moved on from the mythologies of the slums and outskirts of the city to games with time and infinity, but those games belong to Borges now, and I shall have to think up other things. So my life is a point-counterpoint, a kind of fugue, and a falling away—and everything winds up being lost to me, and everything falls into oblivion, or into the hands of the other man.I am not sure which of us it is that's writing this page. -Jorge Luis Borges, "Borges and I," Collected Fictions, Andrew Hurley tr.
I'm too out of my mind from weekend birthday celebration in Atlantic City followed immediately by the first day of Law Review orientation to do more than transcribe.
Friday
I will probably not be posting tomorrow
So I watch Entourage because otherwise I would have no idea what the people around me are talking about an unpleasant percentage of the time. And there are some good things about the show (the characters are interestingly crafted, etc.). But since my mind is constrained to think of half hour long non-news/non-"reality" television as "situation comedy," I'm frequently bothered by the show not really trying to be funny most of the time. I can't recall ever laughing more than say twice in one episode, and while maybe I'm low-level amused by good portions of it (which puts it above a very large portion of television), I would never describe it as a fynny show. But maybe it's just the trappings of the sit-com genre which makes me look for jokes that aren't really coming.
|
Thursday
Let me tell you what "Like a Virgin's" about...
I find Yetisports to be endlessly distracting, so it's unfortunate that I really suck at it.
Also, at first I was really sure that the NARAL ad everyone talks about is unfair, then I read the statute in question and Mark Kleiman's and Scott Lemieux's comments on the issue and was sort of persuaded that the ad was within acceptable limits. But now I'm leaning towards something like this: Roberts position in Bray led to a legal ruling which I don't think is correct (as a textual matter, it really does seem like 42 USC §1985(3) should cover trespassing to obstruct women's ability to enter an abortion clinic) but suggesting that he supports abortion clinic bombings is really over the line based on his position on the case.
This post is notable for a total absence of the reasons I hold the positions which I do.
|
Also, at first I was really sure that the NARAL ad everyone talks about is unfair, then I read the statute in question and Mark Kleiman's and Scott Lemieux's comments on the issue and was sort of persuaded that the ad was within acceptable limits. But now I'm leaning towards something like this: Roberts position in Bray led to a legal ruling which I don't think is correct (as a textual matter, it really does seem like 42 USC §1985(3) should cover trespassing to obstruct women's ability to enter an abortion clinic) but suggesting that he supports abortion clinic bombings is really over the line based on his position on the case.
This post is notable for a total absence of the reasons I hold the positions which I do.
Wednesday
Appropriate conversation
An exchange of text messages was read aloud at my office yesterday contemporaneous with the messages being sent and received. Dupe is not in my office, Funny Prick is.
Dupe: How's life since you left Company X?
Funny Prick (Knows he never worked at Company X): Pretty shitty.
D: Oh, are you thinking of leaving Company Y?
FP: Yeah.
D: Where do you want to go, Company X, Company Z, Company A?
FP: I'll work anywhere, I'm a whore.
D: If I'd known that, we could've had more fun last time we were out.
FP: I don't go that way.
D: Which way do you go?
FP (is now sure that D thinks he's talking to a female): I'm into bestiality.
D: Well some people call me a dog (Entire office cries from laughter).
FP: Well, what are you doing tonight?
D: Oh, going out with some friends.
FP: That's too bad.
D: We could get together late night.
FP: Maybe we should meet at a hotel bar, just in case.
D: Or we could drive back to New Jersey together and fool around in the car.
FP: What do you mean fool around?
FP: Say something to convince me to wait around for you.
D: You first.
FP: (I'm not actually sure what was sent at this point, because he didn't yell this one out, but I did hear a mention of an ice cream cone. I therefore assume it's something like:) I'll treat you like an ice cream cone.
D: Touch me! Please, touch me!
(No one can hear over the laughter in the office for about five minutes)
FP: I'm your dirty girl.
FP's cell phone then rings, a female person in the office answers, other end of the line hangs up.
D: I was just kidding, your nuts.
FP then calls D (who he sort of knows) to gloat, D says that the "dirty girl" line is what tipped him off. When FP asks D who D thought he was texting, D claims he thought he was texting his wife.
I work at an interesting office.
|
Dupe: How's life since you left Company X?
Funny Prick (Knows he never worked at Company X): Pretty shitty.
D: Oh, are you thinking of leaving Company Y?
FP: Yeah.
D: Where do you want to go, Company X, Company Z, Company A?
FP: I'll work anywhere, I'm a whore.
D: If I'd known that, we could've had more fun last time we were out.
FP: I don't go that way.
D: Which way do you go?
FP (is now sure that D thinks he's talking to a female): I'm into bestiality.
D: Well some people call me a dog (Entire office cries from laughter).
FP: Well, what are you doing tonight?
D: Oh, going out with some friends.
FP: That's too bad.
D: We could get together late night.
FP: Maybe we should meet at a hotel bar, just in case.
D: Or we could drive back to New Jersey together and fool around in the car.
FP: What do you mean fool around?
FP: Say something to convince me to wait around for you.
D: You first.
FP: (I'm not actually sure what was sent at this point, because he didn't yell this one out, but I did hear a mention of an ice cream cone. I therefore assume it's something like:) I'll treat you like an ice cream cone.
D: Touch me! Please, touch me!
(No one can hear over the laughter in the office for about five minutes)
FP: I'm your dirty girl.
FP's cell phone then rings, a female person in the office answers, other end of the line hangs up.
D: I was just kidding, your nuts.
FP then calls D (who he sort of knows) to gloat, D says that the "dirty girl" line is what tipped him off. When FP asks D who D thought he was texting, D claims he thought he was texting his wife.
I work at an interesting office.
Tuesday
Subtly shrill
I like a good reason to criticize the current (power-mad, prisoner-abusing, truth-negligent, nuclear-threat reckless, fiscally-undisciplined) administration as much as the next guy. But I'm not sure the President's comments in support of Rafael Palmeiro are such a good reason for criticism, and I'm pretty sure they're not a good reason (though other such reasons may well exist) to go into a brief philosophical discourse on Bush's idiosyncratic use of the concept of belief.
I've never studied it, but my understanding is that part of Bayesian probability is how to revise/discount one's level of belief in a particular statement upon subsequent disconfirming or confirming experiences. Now, lets imagine that Bush and Palmeiro really were close friends at one point, and that Palmeiro has assured him that he was vehemently opposed to use of all performance enhancing substances which baseball has now banned, and that Bush had good reasons to believe in Palmeiro's sincerity, such as many of Palmeiro's other claims being confirmed by subsequent events. So prior to the results of this drug test Bush has a very high confidence that Palmeiro wasn't using any illegal performance enhancing substance substance.
It is not that clear to me that he should have discounted his previous confidence by such a high level that he would no longer believe Palmeiro was clean. One key fact which I don't know, and which I assume Bush doesn't know, is the false positive rate for baseball's drug tests. I do know that one common testosterone test has an 8/1000 false positive rate, but then I don't know if what Palmeiro tested positive for was abnormal levels of testosterone or if MLB uses that test. If one of my close personal friends has assured me that they weren't using performance enhancing drugs and I knew that a test with such a false positive rate was being used, I might well stand by them. This might mean that I trust my friends too much, but I don't think it makes me irrational.
Also, these Palmeiro comments are really not good evidence for how crazy and blind to empirical evidence the people who frequent the Free Republic (I'm certainly not linking there) blogs/discussion groups are. Almost every other thing they say is good evidence for that proposition, but not supporting Bush on this.
I of course think that Palmeiro is using whatever he tested positive for, but I don't have access to all of the knowledge about Palmeiro that Bush may have had beforehand.
Update (8/10): Kleiman has, via e-mail, convinced me that my argument isn't as good as I thought.
|
I've never studied it, but my understanding is that part of Bayesian probability is how to revise/discount one's level of belief in a particular statement upon subsequent disconfirming or confirming experiences. Now, lets imagine that Bush and Palmeiro really were close friends at one point, and that Palmeiro has assured him that he was vehemently opposed to use of all performance enhancing substances which baseball has now banned, and that Bush had good reasons to believe in Palmeiro's sincerity, such as many of Palmeiro's other claims being confirmed by subsequent events. So prior to the results of this drug test Bush has a very high confidence that Palmeiro wasn't using any illegal performance enhancing substance substance.
It is not that clear to me that he should have discounted his previous confidence by such a high level that he would no longer believe Palmeiro was clean. One key fact which I don't know, and which I assume Bush doesn't know, is the false positive rate for baseball's drug tests. I do know that one common testosterone test has an 8/1000 false positive rate, but then I don't know if what Palmeiro tested positive for was abnormal levels of testosterone or if MLB uses that test. If one of my close personal friends has assured me that they weren't using performance enhancing drugs and I knew that a test with such a false positive rate was being used, I might well stand by them. This might mean that I trust my friends too much, but I don't think it makes me irrational.
Also, these Palmeiro comments are really not good evidence for how crazy and blind to empirical evidence the people who frequent the Free Republic (I'm certainly not linking there) blogs/discussion groups are. Almost every other thing they say is good evidence for that proposition, but not supporting Bush on this.
I of course think that Palmeiro is using whatever he tested positive for, but I don't have access to all of the knowledge about Palmeiro that Bush may have had beforehand.
Update (8/10): Kleiman has, via e-mail, convinced me that my argument isn't as good as I thought.
Monday
Souter? I barely knew her
Another very interesting Supreme Court related article (via Tapped), this time courtesy of Professor David Strauss and the Chicago Tribune (if you don't have or feel like registering for a Chicago Tribune account, I'd bet bugmenot could help you). It's main point is to debunk the theory of Justices becoming more liberal upon reaching the Court and surprising the President who appointed them. In this vein, the article notes that Presidents are essentially never surprised by the Justices views on issues the President had concerned himself with in making the appointment, but rather surprised by new issues coming before the Court which they had not considered in slecting a Justice. That part was interesting, but sort of well known.
More interesting is its discussion of how Souter, and especially Stevens, were not liberals relative to the political specturm at the time of their Supreme Court appointment, but rather have come to be among the most liberal members of the Court as the entire American political spectrum and arena of debate have shifted somewhat to the right.
The examples provided of how Stevens is not as liberal as previous liberal Justices are quite interesting. For instances:
|
More interesting is its discussion of how Souter, and especially Stevens, were not liberals relative to the political specturm at the time of their Supreme Court appointment, but rather have come to be among the most liberal members of the Court as the entire American political spectrum and arena of debate have shifted somewhat to the right.
The examples provided of how Stevens is not as liberal as previous liberal Justices are quite interesting. For instances:
-In 1974, the U.S. Supreme Court declared capital punishment, as it was then practiced in the United States, unconstitutional. The court later allowed states to amend their laws and reinstate capital punishment, but three justices--William Brennan, Thurgood Marshall, and, later in his career, Harry Blackmun--insisted that capital punishment was unconstitutional in all circumstances. Stevens and Souter have consistently rejected that view.
- In 1973, four justices--not quite enough to carry the court--concluded that it was unconstitutional to fund public education through local property taxes when the result was that rich school districts spent far more, per pupil, than poor school districts. Neither Stevens nor Souter has taken that position.
- On abortion, the issue that has attracted the most attention, Stevens and Souter--the supposed liberals--have always been significantly more conservative than Brennan, Marshall and Blackmun were. A few years after Roe vs. Wade, the court ruled that the government could refuse to allow Medicaid funds to be used for abortions. Brennan, Marshall and Blackmun bitterly dissented. Stevens did not join them; characteristically, he took an independent, moderately conservative position, saying that Medicaid funds could be denied for most abortions but not for medically necessary abortions.
The perils of pseudonymity
Since I have purposefully never written my full name, or for that matter my first or last name on this blog itself, as opposed to indicating what they are in comments, it is somewhat disturbing to find, via my referral log, that running a google search with my name in quotes and the educatioanl institution which I currently attend will quickly lead to this blog. I suppose that just gave the game away if the person who ran that search hadn't already figured things out.
|
I just found out there's no such thing as the real world
Via SCOTUSblog, a really good Stuart Taylor article (no Atlantic subscription or password required) on the lack of "real-world experience" among current Supreme Court justices. The obvious counterpoint is that law professors and circuit judges simply aren't as out of touch with the real world as Taylor thinks, but that's a difficult empirical claim to make out and Taylor's consideraton are certainly thought-provoking, especially as to why the trend towards the appointment of Justices without "real-world experience" is likely to continue absent reform to the life tenure system, which would probably require a constitutional amendment.
|
Sunday
Obligatory or permissive snitching?
Randy has an
It makes the overall question somewhat less interesting, but I just want to clarify the Ms. Klencheski's factual claim that she, "do[esn't] want to burden a local business with a heavy fine." According to The Smoke-Free Air Act, NYC Administrative Code §17-508(e) a first violation would incur a fine between $200-$400. This is certainly serious, but doesn't strike me as particularly disproportionate if one grants the propriety of laws prohibiting smoking in bars in the first place. But let's say that is disproportionate. The best thing she can do, other than Randy's advice of just talking to them and noting that smoking at the bar makes her not want to attend, is to organize other customers to do the same. This might convince the bar operators that's it in their best interest to prohibit smoking, irrespective of the law.
Randy is too quick to concede that she only needs to put off calling the police, rather than not calling them all together. There may be cases where its unethical to inform the authorities of a violation of the law, and if one is worried about this it's worth finding out what the actual penalty is. One might for instance think that informing the police of the drug posession of another is unethical under current law, even if one thinks that criminalizing drug use and imposing some lesser penalty would be proper.
I'm out of practice on these ethicist pieces, this is bizarrely rambling and I haven't given an answer. I agree with Randy, it would be fine for her to inform the proper authorities (The Department of Health and Mental Hygiene), and I don't think it's even ethically important, rather than just prudentially useful, for her to take intermediate steps before going to the authorities. Also, mental hygiene is a pretty disturbing phrase, I wonder if some political candidate can make hay out of running on abolishing the Mental Hygiene department, when they're actually planning on just renaming it.
|
It makes the overall question somewhat less interesting, but I just want to clarify the Ms. Klencheski's factual claim that she, "do[esn't] want to burden a local business with a heavy fine." According to The Smoke-Free Air Act, NYC Administrative Code §17-508(e) a first violation would incur a fine between $200-$400. This is certainly serious, but doesn't strike me as particularly disproportionate if one grants the propriety of laws prohibiting smoking in bars in the first place. But let's say that is disproportionate. The best thing she can do, other than Randy's advice of just talking to them and noting that smoking at the bar makes her not want to attend, is to organize other customers to do the same. This might convince the bar operators that's it in their best interest to prohibit smoking, irrespective of the law.
Randy is too quick to concede that she only needs to put off calling the police, rather than not calling them all together. There may be cases where its unethical to inform the authorities of a violation of the law, and if one is worried about this it's worth finding out what the actual penalty is. One might for instance think that informing the police of the drug posession of another is unethical under current law, even if one thinks that criminalizing drug use and imposing some lesser penalty would be proper.
I'm out of practice on these ethicist pieces, this is bizarrely rambling and I haven't given an answer. I agree with Randy, it would be fine for her to inform the proper authorities (The Department of Health and Mental Hygiene), and I don't think it's even ethically important, rather than just prudentially useful, for her to take intermediate steps before going to the authorities. Also, mental hygiene is a pretty disturbing phrase, I wonder if some political candidate can make hay out of running on abolishing the Mental Hygiene department, when they're actually planning on just renaming it.
Saturday
His father did it
Tyler and Will speculate on the best way to dispose of unwanted books, with Tyler proposing that rather then leaving the book in a public place where the person who chooses to pick it up might only place a very small value on it (because they don't have to give up anything to get it) it would be better to leave it in a bookstore, where the person who picks it up will value it very highly (highly enough to have paid for it). See his post for a little more of the theory behind this.
Will suggests that it makes more sense (in terms of increasing net social value) to leave it at a used bookstore. I also thought that it was rather strange that Tyler didn't mention the existence of used bookstores, but maybe with all of the traveling he's doing he doesn't have a chance to search out used bookstores in each of the cities he's in. I want to step back from this rather high theoretical level, and give a very specific tip about how to discard of unwanted books (I actually keep almost all of my books, but I have discarded a few): If you're fortunate enough to live in New York, go to Housing Works Used Books Cafe. All of their profits go towards helping homeless New Yorkers with AIDS or HIV, and they'll give you a receipt which you can use to deduct the value of your books from your taxes. It's also a really great looking physical plant, with an excellent selection of books. I happened to have just been there today, and I got the following four books for $18.00 and some odd cents:
Against the Gods by Peter L. Bernstein
Black Dahlia Avenger by Steve Hodel
Equality and Preferential Treatment Cohen, Nagel, and Scanlon eds.
There Are Two Errors in the the Title Of This Book by Robert M. Martin
On this last one, I was wondering if any philosophers (possibly philosophers named Matt Weiner) (this eventually worked last time I tried it) had heard of Martin or knew if the book was any good. The last book I bought which could have been described as "pop philosophy" was quite underwhelming, and I'm not sure if this will be any better, but it was really cheap, and it had a nifty cover, which I preceded to judge it by. The first chapter has been underwhelming. I guessed correctly what the second "trick" error was despite not noticing the first, obvious error.
On the main topic of this post, if for some reason you don't live in New York, try to find a Housing Works equivalent, or just don't get rid of any books until you can travel here.
|
Will suggests that it makes more sense (in terms of increasing net social value) to leave it at a used bookstore. I also thought that it was rather strange that Tyler didn't mention the existence of used bookstores, but maybe with all of the traveling he's doing he doesn't have a chance to search out used bookstores in each of the cities he's in. I want to step back from this rather high theoretical level, and give a very specific tip about how to discard of unwanted books (I actually keep almost all of my books, but I have discarded a few): If you're fortunate enough to live in New York, go to Housing Works Used Books Cafe. All of their profits go towards helping homeless New Yorkers with AIDS or HIV, and they'll give you a receipt which you can use to deduct the value of your books from your taxes. It's also a really great looking physical plant, with an excellent selection of books. I happened to have just been there today, and I got the following four books for $18.00 and some odd cents:
Against the Gods by Peter L. Bernstein
Black Dahlia Avenger by Steve Hodel
Equality and Preferential Treatment Cohen, Nagel, and Scanlon eds.
There Are Two Errors in the the Title Of This Book by Robert M. Martin
On this last one, I was wondering if any philosophers (possibly philosophers named Matt Weiner) (this eventually worked last time I tried it) had heard of Martin or knew if the book was any good. The last book I bought which could have been described as "pop philosophy" was quite underwhelming, and I'm not sure if this will be any better, but it was really cheap, and it had a nifty cover, which I preceded to judge it by. The first chapter has been underwhelming. I guessed correctly what the second "trick" error was despite not noticing the first, obvious error.
On the main topic of this post, if for some reason you don't live in New York, try to find a Housing Works equivalent, or just don't get rid of any books until you can travel here.
Problems with having too much money?
Orin Kerr relates the story of his mother being push-polled on John Roberts and abortion. Without going into Roberts' merits, I don't really understand why any liberal/democratic interest group would want to spend their money on this. Let us assume (extraordinarily optimistically) that every person who is push-polled is "persuaded" that Roberts' confirmation would be a bad thing, AND contacts their Senator to express their feelings. Does anyone actually believe that will lead to Roberts not being confirmed? Senators will (rightly) calculate that far too few voters make their decisions based on a Senators vote to confirm or lack thereof, especially for Senators who aren't up for election anytime soon, and vote in whatever manner they would have anyway. Since there is no reason to think that Roberts lacks majority support right now (I would actually predict that he gets over 70 votes in favor), and no reason to think that push-polling will change how Senators are going to vote on Roberts, why spend money on it? The only thing I can think of is that they think maybe it will be useful in some future Senatorial election, but it seems too much of an indirect, circuitous route to harming a Senator's chances to have much of a point to it.
Surely there are more effective ways for a minority party (and its adjunct organizations) to spend money on trying to achieve policy goals and becoming a majority party again, which would be the best way to achieve these policy goals. In particular, if your (group's) concern is laws restricting abortion, it seems like one good way to use your funds would be to lobby for the repeal of state anti-abortion laws, thereby lessening the damage done by any cutback or overturning of Roe v. Wade. Or just save the money for the 2006 elections.
|
Surely there are more effective ways for a minority party (and its adjunct organizations) to spend money on trying to achieve policy goals and becoming a majority party again, which would be the best way to achieve these policy goals. In particular, if your (group's) concern is laws restricting abortion, it seems like one good way to use your funds would be to lobby for the repeal of state anti-abortion laws, thereby lessening the damage done by any cutback or overturning of Roe v. Wade. Or just save the money for the 2006 elections.
Friday
Sore winners
During a conversation earlier today, it was claimed inter alia, that in attractive couples the man tends to be the winner, while in unattractive couples the woman is the winner. I think this is standard lingo/jargon, but winner simply refers to which ever member of the couple did better for themselves on first glance, meaning the less attractive member of the couple. Without commenting on the truth of the first claim, I noted that it would be explained by there being greater variance of female attractiveness than of male attractiveness, and that it does seem like that is true. Thoughts on either of these are appreciated.
|
Thursday
I try to believe two contradictory things before lunch
Via Bitch, Ph.D., a "The world is too strange for The Onion to keep up" special. This story should be headlined, "Catholic seminarian pleads ignorance that sex can lead to children; wonders why the woman wasn't using birth control." The mind, it does boggle.
|
Wednesday
And eat it too!
Unless I'm misunderstanding the technical issues, Matt Y's proposal (re-auction off a block of the broadcast specturm to cellular providers and use part of the money from the auction to give people who only recieve broadcast television a free conversion to cable) is an awesome idea.
My first quibble: Is the idea that the conversion boxes provide such barebone services that close to no one would go out of their way to appear to only recieve the over the air channels in order to get free stuff.
Addendum: This, marketed properly, should inculcate a feeling that the government is good providing people with useful things. This is a feeling that liberals generally like to encourage and conservatives to discourage
Query: Is there a way to come up with concrete examples of how this would help the median voter for Democrats to use in the 2006 campaigns? Is there a way that candidates running for non-federal level offices can do a smaller part towards it?
|
My first quibble: Is the idea that the conversion boxes provide such barebone services that close to no one would go out of their way to appear to only recieve the over the air channels in order to get free stuff.
Addendum: This, marketed properly, should inculcate a feeling that the government is good providing people with useful things. This is a feeling that liberals generally like to encourage and conservatives to discourage
Query: Is there a way to come up with concrete examples of how this would help the median voter for Democrats to use in the 2006 campaigns? Is there a way that candidates running for non-federal level offices can do a smaller part towards it?
This post does not contain Harry Potter spoilers
Alex at Marginal Revolution has some anti-mugging tips up. I'd like to suggest some additions and revisions.
0) Presupposition: you are traveling alone. The rules he suggests, in particular rule one, are not as important for group travel, even a group of two.
1) Proviso to Tabarrok's rule one: This is especially important to follow when exiting some kind of mass transportation system, a subway for example. If one thinks they're in an area of potential muggers, start walking purposefully as soon as one is out of the station, don't bother to get your bearings. Of course, this could lead to walking into a more dangerous area, so once you've started walking, get your bearings. Depending on how paranoid one is, one may not want to turn around directly after realizing one has gone astray. Rather, take a semi-circuitous route (walk around the block) to turn yourself back in the proper direction.
2) I tend to substitute a heavy looking (and actually heavy) casebook instead of the glass bottle that his rule two suggests. This is more likely to cause blunt force trauma, but probably less scary to an attacker, since it won't shatter into shards and cause bleeding. Also, it causes one to look bookish, which might lead to an assumption of weakness. I have of course never been in a situation where I needed to use a casebook as a weapon, but that hasn't stopped me from thinking about it. I don't think casebook or glass bottle exhaust the options, it's more a matter (as Alex notes) of having something in ones hands that suggests a slightly greater difficulty of attack.
3) My only addition to three would be that if you are lost, go into a business establishment of some kind to ask for directions, rather than asking people on the street. I actually have offered people "help" on the street, but only because I was eavesdropping and knew I had the answer to something they were discussing. This kind of help is also called, "being a know-it-all."
4) I have no expertise in any of these areas, have never been mugged or traveled to anywhere particularly dangerous by myself or otherwise (Moscow maybe, but I was in a large group), and am in general talking out of my ass.
5) I am not going to acknowledge how long it's been since I last posted to this blog (paralipsis!). I forgot to post a link to my friend Scott guest posting on Steve Clemons' Washington Note. Self-pityingly, I am fairly sure his three guest posts got more eyeballs than all the blogging I've done since January.
6) I'm recommitting to my at least one post/day policy as of today.
|
0) Presupposition: you are traveling alone. The rules he suggests, in particular rule one, are not as important for group travel, even a group of two.
1) Proviso to Tabarrok's rule one: This is especially important to follow when exiting some kind of mass transportation system, a subway for example. If one thinks they're in an area of potential muggers, start walking purposefully as soon as one is out of the station, don't bother to get your bearings. Of course, this could lead to walking into a more dangerous area, so once you've started walking, get your bearings. Depending on how paranoid one is, one may not want to turn around directly after realizing one has gone astray. Rather, take a semi-circuitous route (walk around the block) to turn yourself back in the proper direction.
2) I tend to substitute a heavy looking (and actually heavy) casebook instead of the glass bottle that his rule two suggests. This is more likely to cause blunt force trauma, but probably less scary to an attacker, since it won't shatter into shards and cause bleeding. Also, it causes one to look bookish, which might lead to an assumption of weakness. I have of course never been in a situation where I needed to use a casebook as a weapon, but that hasn't stopped me from thinking about it. I don't think casebook or glass bottle exhaust the options, it's more a matter (as Alex notes) of having something in ones hands that suggests a slightly greater difficulty of attack.
3) My only addition to three would be that if you are lost, go into a business establishment of some kind to ask for directions, rather than asking people on the street. I actually have offered people "help" on the street, but only because I was eavesdropping and knew I had the answer to something they were discussing. This kind of help is also called, "being a know-it-all."
4) I have no expertise in any of these areas, have never been mugged or traveled to anywhere particularly dangerous by myself or otherwise (Moscow maybe, but I was in a large group), and am in general talking out of my ass.
5) I am not going to acknowledge how long it's been since I last posted to this blog (paralipsis!). I forgot to post a link to my friend Scott guest posting on Steve Clemons' Washington Note. Self-pityingly, I am fairly sure his three guest posts got more eyeballs than all the blogging I've done since January.
6) I'm recommitting to my at least one post/day policy as of today.
