Seventh Circuit Judge Richard Posner takes dead aim at law review articles in this Legal Affairs article, and the hilarious sub-headline sums up his viewpoint:
Welcome to a world where inexperienced editors make articles about the wrong topics worse.
Any article by Judge Posner is well worth reading and this one is no exception. He notes the result of the system of law review articles:
The result of the system of scholarly publication in law is that too many articles are too long, too dull, and too heavily annotated, and that many interdisciplinary articles are published that have no merit at all. Worse is the effect of these characteristics of law reviews in marginalizing the kind of legal scholarship that student editors can handle well?articles that criticize judicial decisions or, more constructively, discern new directions in law by careful analysis of decisions. Such articles are of great value to the profession, including its judicial branch, but they are becoming rare, in part because of the fascination of the legal academy with constitutional law, which in fact plays only a small role in the decisions of the lower courts. Law reviews do extensively analyze and criticize the constitutional decisions of the Supreme Court, but the profession, including the judiciary, would benefit from a reorientation of academic attention to lower-court decisions. Not that the Supreme Court isn’t the most important court in the United States. But the 80 or so decisions that it renders every year get disproportionate attention compared to the many thousands of decisions rendered by other appellate courts that are much less frequently written about, especially since justices of the Supreme Court are the judges who are least likely to be influenced by critical academic reflection on their work.
Read the entire article. Also, U.T. Law Prof Brian Leiter has some interesting comments on Judge Posner’s views.
Victor over at the Dead Parrot Society has performed this interesting analysis of this earlier American Enterprise Institute study (linked in this earlier post via Marginal Revolution) in which the author of the AEI study — Virginia de Rugy — concluded that the Bush Administration compares poorly with other administrations over the past 40 years in terms of reducing the amount of major governmental agency or department spending. Victor focuses on comparing the second Clinton Administration’s spending with the Bush Administration, and concludes as follows:
The numbers are ambiguous. By focusing only on discretionary expenditures, much — but not all — of the cyclical impact of the recession has been removed from the data. When you do this, Bush’s spending looks much better outside of the well documented cases where he has made a conscious push to increase spending (like education). However, he still has not achieved a real reduction in any federal agency.
But if you look at the actual Budget Authority levels, his administration actually has achieved a few reductions.
In both cases, of course, this has occurred in an environment where many agencies are adding homeland security requests to their budgets; I have only anecdotally adjusted for that. Regardless, the overall spending picture isn’t quite as dreary as implied by DeRugy’s original analysis.
Read the entire post. And as noted in this previous post, the prospect is remote that a Kerry Administration would be more restrained in terms of governmental spending than a second Bush Administration.
Quare: Is the difference between the increase in discretionary spending that would likely occur during the next four years under a second Bush Administration as compared to the increase that would likely take place under a Kerry Administration so marginal that it is not really a meaningful reason to favor one administration over the other?
Scott Rolen hit a two out, two run yak in the sixth off of Roger Clemens to break a 2-2 tie and lead the Cardinals to a 5-2 win over the Stros in Game 7 of a thrilling 2004 National League Championship Series on Thursday night in St. Louis. The win propels the Cards into their 15th World Series against the American League Champion, the Boston Red Sox.
The loss was a bitter one for the Stros, who improbably got within 10 outs of the World Series after struggling for much of the season. A late season surge in which they won 36 of their last 46 games allowed the Stros to win the National League Wild Card spot, and then the Stros won their first post-season series over the Braves in the Divisional Series. The Stros accomplished all of this without two of their starting pitchers — Andy Pettitte and Wade Miller — and lost in the seventh game of the NLCS to the club that had the best record in Major League Baseball this season. Those are remarkable accomplishments.
However, the Stros’ bugaboo during their struggles for much of the season has been lack of consistent hitting, and that trait reappeared over the last three games of the NLCS to undermine the Stros’ chances of getting to the World Series. In the final three games of the NLCS, the Stros had only 11 runs and 16 hits, and 11 of those hits were singles. The Stros could only eke out 3 hits in Game 7, including Bidg‘s lead off tater, and none of the Stros’ hitters looked comfortable the entire game. The bottom line is that two of the Cards’ top hitters — Rolen and Pujols — came through in the clutch, and the Stros top hitters — Berkman, Beltran and Bags — were held without a hit in Game 7. The Cards deserved to win the game and the series.
The Rocket was great through five innings, but clearly tired in the sixth when Pujols doubled in the tying run on an inside fast ball that did not have Clemens’ usual bite, and then Rolen cranked a letter high fast ball on the first pitch to put the Cards ahead 4-2. If the Stros’ bats had been clicking, then the Rocket’s performance might have been good enough. Alas, it was not to be.
Oh, but what a ride it’s been. The city of Houston came alive for the past two months as this team jelled and came within a nose of the first World Series for Houston and Texas. The Stros have been one of Major League Baseball’s most successful clubs over the past decade, and now their task is to transition from the Bagwell and Biggio Era to the Berkman and (hopefully) Beltran Era. After the run that this club made at the end of this season and into the playoffs, I’m not betting against the Stros figuring out a way to get this done and remain among the elite clubs in the National League.
Vaclav Smil is Distinguished Professor of Geography at the University of Manitoba, Canada, and is the author of many books on energy and the environment. In this Tech Central Station op-ed, he reminds us of something that the mainstream media generally fails to report regarding the recent run up in the price of oil:
The years of the highest oil prices were 1980 and 1981 (thanks to Ayatollah Khomeini and fall of the Pahlavi dynasty in Iran) when the Arabian Light/Dubai crude traded at nearly $36/bbl and when the West Texas Intermediate went for almost $38. In 2004 monies this is, rounded for easy memorization, between $ 70-75. The peak of the last few days — $ 55/bbl — is obviously well above what will be the annual mean for the year 2004 and it is no more than 73-78% of the record averages. But this is a wholly inadequate adjustment. Between 1980 and 2003 the amount of oil that the US economy used to generate an average dollar of its GDP fell by 43% as its oil intensity declined somewhat faster than the overall relative energy use.
And so in order to get an approximate but realistic comparison of how much today’s prices impact an average manufacturer or average household purchases, we should multiply the current high price of $55/bbl by 0.57 to get an effective comparable price of around $30, or no more than 40% of the average record price we paid in 1980. Moreover, between 1980 and 2003 average hourly earnings in services, where most new jobs were created, rose by about 30% and so another adjustment taking into account this higher earning power reduces the comparable price to just over $20. Other, more sophisticated adjustments, are possible but this one is easy to execute and easy to remember: the effective — that is inflation-, oil/$GDP- and earning power-adjusted — cost of oil at $(2004)53-55 is no more than about 30% of the average record price we paid in 1980 and 1981. That is why recent “record” oil prices have not had any substantial effect on the way this continent uses, and wastes, the most convenient of all fossil fuels.
Well, I think it’s safe to say that Dan Miceli will not be pitching for the Stros tomorrow.
Miceli served up a walk off gopher ball to Jim Edmonds in the 12th inning as the Cardinals edged the Stros 6-4 in Game 6 on Wednesday at Busch Stadium in St. Louis to force a seventh game in this extraordinary 2004 National League Championship Series. Since the advent of the NLCS about 20 years ago, there had never been a walk off dinger in any NLCS game. Now, there has been one in the last two games of this series. Unbelievable.
The Stros were behind for most of this game, as the Cards racked Stros starter Pete Munro for 4 runs and eight hits in 2 1/3rd innings. However, the Stros bullpen was extraordinary, as Harville, Qualls, Weaver, and then Lidge held the Cards at bay for the next nine innings. After Mike Lamb‘s solo yak in the 4th brought the Stros to within 4-3, it was not until Bags‘ clutch base hit with two out in the ninth that the Stros were able to catch the Cards and send the game into extra innings.
Even though Lidge was magnificent in retiring the Cards in order in the ninth, tenth, and eleventh innings, the Stros really lost the game in the ninth. After Bags’ hit and a double steal, the Stros had Beltran on third and Bags on second with two out and Berkman batting. Berkman worked the count to 2-2 against Cards’ closer Isringhausen before striking out on a low inside pitch that would have been ball three if he could have laid off it. The Stros never threatened after that.
So, this series goes to Game 7, and anything less would not do it justice. This incredible series simply deserves a heart-pounding Game 7. As with the final game of the Braves’ series, I feel reasonably good about Game 7 with the Rocket starting on full rest and Roy O also available for relief duty on three days’ rest. Although I’m concerned that Lidge is pitched out after pitching in the past four games, the Cards’ best relievers Isringhausen and Taveras have also been extended.
So, I like the Stros’ chances. But hang on tight because it’s going to be one wild ride!
This Washington Post article does a decent job of reviewing the work over the past two years of the Justice Department’s Corporate Task Force that was created as a result of the meltdown of Enron Corp.
British historian Paul Johnson (author of “Modern Times,” “History of the Jews,” “History of Christianity,” “A History of the American People,” and his more recent “Art, A New History,” among others) is one of my favorites. In this WSJ ($) op-ed, Mr. Johnson notes that the nastiness of the 2004 Presidential Campaign really does not hold a candle to the campaign of 1928 between Andrew Jackson and John Quincy Adams:
[The 1928 campaign] inaugurated the habit of long campaigns, since Tennessee nominated Jackson for president as early as Spring 1825, more than three years before the vote. . .
Adams’s supporters retaliated by the campaign poster known as the Coffin Handbill, listing 18 murders Jackson was supposed to have committed. Those who claim the current election is the dirtiest know little about 1828. An English visitor, shown a school in New England (where Adams was paramount), put questions to the class, including “Who killed Abel?” A child promptly replied “General Jackson, Ma’am.” An Adams pamphlet accused Jackson of “trafficking in human flesh,” another accused his wife of being a bigamist and adulterer. After seeing it, she took to her bed and died shortly after the election. To his dying day Jackson believed his political enemies had murdered her. On his side, pamphlets accused Adams of fornication, procuring American virgins for the Tsar while serving as ambassador in Russia, and being an alcoholic and sabbath-breaker. A White House inventory listing a billiard-table and a chess-set led to the accusation that Adams had introduced “gambling furniture.” (His most curious presidential habit, of taking a daily swim in the Potomac stark naked, went unnoticed.)
Jackson won the popular vote in this first razzmatazz election, 647,276 to 508,064, and the College by a clear majority. His inauguration was followed by a saturnalia in which thousands of his supporters invaded the White House and engaged in a drinking spree. The Spoils System (a new term) was inaugurated by the ejection of Adams’s men from public offices, a process called The Massacre of the Innocents.
And what does Mr. Johnson think about the qualitiy of the current campaign? Apparently, not much:
In recent decades the most significant election was 1980, when Reagan beat Jimmy Carter and so inaugurated the policies which demolished the “Evil Empire” of the Soviet Union, and ended the Cold War in a Western victory. Reagan won this election, which I covered closely, with wit and one-liners. The current election is likely to be significant, too, in deciding the strategy and tactics of the war against terrorism. But wit, alas, will play little part.
This post from last week addressed the hypocrisy of John Kerry’s political position that the federal government should raise taxes on the wealthiest Americans while his wife continues to use loopholes in the tax laws to pay a lower percentage of taxes than most other Americans.
In this editorial, the Wall Street Journal ($) takes deal aim at the issue and points out the advantages that super-rich folks such as Mrs. Heinz-Kerry have over working stiffs, starting with Ms. Heinz-Kerry’s avoidance of the payroll (i.e., Social Security) tax:
One point we failed to mention is that Mrs. Kerry paid only a token Social Security tax. That’s because the payroll tax is assessed on wages, and Mrs. Kerry declared very little wage income. She gets most of her income from dividends and interest, as many wealthy people do. This is fine by us, but it is one more advantage she has over the vast majority of Americans who draw a weekly paycheck and must (with their employer) cough up the 15.3% payroll levy.
And that advantage is just one of many that super-rich folks such as Ms. Heinz-Kerry enjoys under that income tax system that Mr. Kerry seeks to perpetuate:
Our main point is that this is one more advantage Mrs. Kerry would have over working stiffs on salary if her husband wins the White House and follows through on his plan to raise taxes.
It’s very hard to dodge a tax increase on salary income, especially for middle-class folk who need the money. Many couples who earn more than $200,000 a year are non-wealthy Americans who happen to be at the peak of their earning years and have big bills (such as college educations) to meet now or down the road. They haven’t had time — or been lucky enough to marry rich — to build up the assets to be able to live off tax-free investments the way Mrs. Kerry can. The super-rich, as opposed to the merely successful, are the ones who are really able to avoid taxes — which, come to think of it, may be why so many billionaires are supporting John Kerry.
The data on average tax rates actually reflects the highly progressive nature of the tax system, except for the super-rich who can hire lawyers and accountants to avoid paying taxes:
As it happens, the IRS has just released its data on individual income tax returns for 2002. And they reinforce our point about average tax rates. Recall that Mrs. Kerry paid an average tax rate of 12.4% on her declared income of $5.07 million. In 2002, even after the first round of Bush tax cuts, the average rate paid by all taxpayers was still higher than that at 13.03%.
As for the folks in her wealthy neighborhood, in 2002 the top 1% of taxpayers paid an average rate (also known as the effective tax rate) of 27.25%. By the way, the income threshold for getting into that 1% group was only $285,424, down substantially from 2000 and 2001. And that same top 1% of earners paid 33.7% of all income taxes in 2002. The way to think about these numbers is that, despite the Bush tax cuts that allegedly so favored the rich, the tax code remains highly progressive. And these people kept paying the lion’s share of all taxes even though their earnings declined amid the recession and stock-market slump.
But the most interesting question in regard to Ms. Heinz-Kerry’s tax return is the following:
But back to Mrs. Kerry: Some readers wondered how she could be worth nearly $1 billion (as the Los Angeles Times has estimated) and earn only $5.07 million in 2003. Good question. It’s impossible to tell given that Mrs. Kerry has disclosed only two pages of her 1040 form and declines to explain how her assets are deployed. But we agree with those readers who suggest that much of her wealth must be tied up in trusts and estates that don’t require a declaration of income. Like many of the super-rich, Mrs. Kerry can afford to hire lawyers and accountants to create these shelters for her and her heirs.
The late, great Wall Street Journal editor Barney Kilgore used to say that the rich don’t mind high taxes because they already have their money. Mrs. Kerry and her husband are cases in point.
Inasmuch as the Bush Administration has done nothing during its first four years on making the income tax system in the U.S. simpler and more transparent, it is disappointing to me that the Democratic challenger’s platform in this area is a hypocritical and demogogic appeal for votes rather than a substantive proposal for reform of a broken system.
Houston-based Continental Airlines reported a net loss for the third quarter on Tuesday as high fuel prices and competition from low-cost carriers continued to savage the “legacy carrier” segment of the airline industry. In announcing the loss, the fifth-largest U.S. airline in terms of passenger traffic predicted that it expects to report a significant loss for this year and will do the same next year if conditions persist
As with other reeling legacy carriers such as United Airlines and Delta Airlines, Continental continues to fare badly in competing with the widespread fare discounting of such low-cost carriers as JetBlue Airways and Southwest Airlines. Continental has slashed costs through layoffs and negotiating better deals with suppliers, but it has had insufficient liquid reserves to be able to hedge high fuel prices and now there there is not much they can do about the soaring fuel costs.
Despite the loss, Continental is actually faring better than many of its traditional competitors, which are expected to report even steeper losses later this week. Continental’s revenue continues to grow at a steady rate because its hubs such as Newark, N.J. have particularly strong local traffic bases. Revenue in the latest quarter rose 8.4% to $2.56 billion as Continental boosted capacity, flew more miles and filled more of its seats.
Continental’s unit costs, which are expenses spread over each seat mile flown, rose 4.9% to 9.45 cents mostly because of a higher fuel bill. Had fuel prices been at year-earlier levels, Continental’s unit costs would have fallen 2.1%.