Now, let me get this straight

POLICE OFFICER & WHISTLE.gifI am not astute politically, so I usually leave analysis of such matters to more politically savvy bloggers, such as local pundits Charles Kuffner at Off the Kuff, as well as Kevin Whited and Anne Linehan over at blogHouston.net.
And I also certainly don’t condone public officials using their clout to obtain favorable treatment for their family members and friends who mess up and find themselves embroiled in the criminal justice system.
However, after reading this article, it occurs to me that the attorney general of New Jersey was forced to resign earlier this week essentially because she forgot some some items in her boyfriend’s car and the boyfriend wasn’t wearing a seatbelt.
What am I missing?

More on the benefits of oil and gas trading

gas pump2.jpgFollowing on this post from earlier in the week on the benfits of speculation in the oil and gas commodities markets, Chronicle business columnist Loren Steffy pens this column (related podcast here) along the same lines that includes an interview with Craig Pirrong, the director of energy markets for the Global Energy Management Institute at the University of Houston’s C.T. Bauer Business School. As Pirrong notes, the current criticism of speculators in the oil and gas markets is simply the latest salvo in a long and misguided American tradition of scapegoating speculators:

Investors [in oil and gas commodities markets] . . . make bets on what the price of oil will be. If they’re right, they make money. If they’re wrong, they lose.
That, Pirrong says, allows producers to share the risk that comes with volatile prices. Speculators, using derivatives and other financial tools, can offer producers more stable price contracts. The stability makes it easier for oil companies to invest in new production or new technology, he says.
“We’d be worse off if they hadn’t come in,” Pirrong says.
Historically, though, speculators have been blamed when markets have gone awry. When Congress attempted to regulate agriculture markets in the 1880s and 1890s, speculators were cited as a threat to price stability, Pirrong says. The same was true in the 1920s, when regulation was enacted amid slumping commodity prices that were again blamed on speculators.
“This is just the latest chapter in a very old story,” Pirrong says.

Merck’s bad day

merck_logo8.jpgAs with the baseball season, Merck & Co.’s defense of the Vioxx litigation is a marathon and not a sprint (previous posts here). Yesterday’s sprint was not good for Merck, but my sense is that it’s still way too early to write off Merck’s defense strategy as a failure at this point.
The bad news for Merck was that a federal jury in New Orleans awarded $51 million to a former FBI agent who was taking Vioxx when he suffered a heart attack, while a New Jersey judge threw out a verdict in Merck’s favor from a trial there last fall. The NJ judge has a reputation of being plaintiffs-friendly, so that ruling was not all that much of a surprise and, despite the federal venue of the New Orleans trial, New Orleans is still a plaintiffs-friendly environment. After a year of Vioxx trials, the scorecard reflects that Merck and the plaintiffs each have four victories, and there are at least another eight or so Vioxx trials scheduled in both state and federal court through the end of this year.
Ted Frank, who has been following the Vioxx litigation closely, has the best analysis of yesterday’s developments in the overall context of the Vioxx litigation (see also here and here). Peter Lattman also has an interesting post in which he includes an email exchange with Houston plaintiff’s lawyer, Mark Lanier, who was the first lawyer to hammer Merck in a Vioxx trial.