Don’t miss the latest segment (no subscription required for this series) in the Wall Street Journal’s Econoblog series, in which economist John Irons and George Mason University economics professor Russ Roberts discuss America’s broken health care finance system.
Several months ago, this post addressed Seventh Circuit Judge Richard Posner‘s criticism of the recommendations contained in the final report of the 9/11 Commission. In doing research on the 9/11 Commission report, Judge Posner decided to write a new book on intelligence reform, on which he is currently working.
In this NY Times op-ed, Judge Posner points out that the reason the Bush Administration is having trouble finding someone to fill the “Intelligence Czar” position that the Commission recommended is that the proposed position is ill-conceived and makes impossible demands:
The beguiling premise of the commission’s report was that the 9/11 attacks occurred because there wasn’t enough sharing of intelligence data among America’s 15 or so federal intelligence agencies. The report’s reassuring conclusion is that we can solve the problem by centralizing the control of the intelligence system. The premise is doubtful; only in hindsight do the scattered clues gathered in the summer of 2001 point to the attacks that took place.
And slotting in a new bureaucracy (the director is authorized a staff of 500) above the existing agencies will not increase information sharing. Instead, by adding a layer to the intelligence hierarchy, it will delay and diminish the flow of information to the president.
Read the entire op-ed. Key thought here — more centralization of information analysis does not equate with better analysis.
Wall Street Journal architecture critic Ada Louise Huxtable writes this interesting op-ed ($) on the late Philip Johnson‘s career, in which she makes this interesting observation:
His fame made him the “signature architect” for corporate headquarters and commercial developers. The AT&T Building’s much-publicized “Chippendale” top put him on the cover of Time magazine, cradling the model in his arms. But his nimble intelligence and excellent eye failed to produce more than a pictorial pastiche that was flat and one-dimensional or a shallow sendup of the past. What was meant to be monumental was merely big and flaccid.
Whatever Philip Johnson’s legacy turns out to be, it will not rest on his buildings. His dedication to the art that was central to his existence, his proselytizing zeal for new work that pushes concept and practice beyond existing limits, his driving belief in architecture as the defining art of the present and the past, did much to re-establish a sense of the importance of the way we build in an age that worships the beauty of the bottom line. In his own way, perhaps he did change the world.
New class lawsuit legislation that will facilitate removal of most class actions from state to federal courts moved closer to Congressional approval yesterday as the Senate prepared to approve it. The House of Representatives has already committed to ratifying the bill so long as the Senate does not materially amend the legislation, and President Bush has already publicly stated that he will sign the legislation into law.
Under the legislation, most large class actions with aggregate claims of more than $5 million would be subject to removal to federal court, where most defense attorneys prefer defending class action cases.
A few exemptions remain that would allow primarily local controversies to remain in state court, such as cases in which at least two-thirds of the class members are from the state of the state court in which the class action is filed. A similar exemption exists for cases involving injuries that occurred primarily in one state.
The theory behind the legislation is to prevent class action plaintiffs’ lawyers from forum shopping class actions in the state courts to find the most “damages friendly” venue for such cases. However, class action plaintiffs’ lawyers have forum shopped class actions in federal courts for years, so the main impact of the legislation is simply to reduce the supply of available courts in which plaintiffs’ lawyers can initiate a such a lawsuit.
The rest of the political debate regarding the bill is largely partisan drivel.