UChicago has balls

Now that I have got you reading, I was overjoyed to see that the University of Chicago Law School is awesome enough to start its own, University sponsored, faculty blog. In and of itself, it looks awesome. Despite the fact that many of the best Chicago already has to offer are blogging (namely here and here), this is great for two simple reasons.

First, it is just going to increase the legitimacy of blogging. The University is throwing its clout to an exciting new area of scholarship: that which is rapidly available, off the cuff, and available to read and comment by all (often the comment and reply to comments on the Becker-Posner Blog are nearly as interesting as the posts themselves).

Second (and school pride warning), I love how Chicago is not afraid to actually use its clout here. This just does not seem to be something that universities with incredibly low blogger to faculty ratios (like Harvard) would even think of or if proposed would be pooh-poohed.

I did find one "bad review" of the idea (via Crescat Sententia). Gordon Smith's main complaint seems to be that there is no need, nor any improvement to blogging by Chicago entering into the game. I have to disagree. The blogosphere is one that is difficult to penetrate. It is not like the normal media, where if something is New York Times or Economist approved it comes with some sort of level of approval. Distinguishing between Freakonomics, Insta Pundit, The Corner, Volokh Conspiracy, or Crescat Sententia is no easy task. It basically requires you to exhaust hours of "testing" blogs to see if they have good and interesting stuff. The University of Chicago jumping into the fray provides that blog (which I am sure will have awesome stuff) and the blogosphere (an untested good to the overwhelming majority of the public) with an instant shot of visibility and legitimacy.

Congratulations University of Chicago, see you tomorrow.

-Mr. Alec

Bad news keeps on rolling in for the GOP

If anyone was wondering how Republicans got elected to the presidency from 1932 through 1980, it was just pure bad luck, like this, this, this, and this.

Of course, if something as simple as this happens it could all change. But Bush's this is about the level of Bush's approval ratings before September Eleventh. The presidency is easy when your chief job is to comfort the country (Bush's approval ratings rocketed thirty-five points according to Gallup from 9/7-10/01 to 9/14-15/01).

If Nixon could win two in the Sixties, the Democrats have no excuse. It was Nixon! And the Sixties!

-Mr. Alec

Are artists inherently liberal or conservative?

The general belief is that artists are all liberals, one only has to look at the fact that all of Hollywood was behind John Kerry in 2004. But here is a provacative arguement that they are inherently conservative. I don't agree (because of matters of what a conservative and liberal are), but it seems worth pondering (this is via so many sources, just go here and find out where the root is yourself):

To be a great artist is inherently right wing. A great artist like Dylan or Picasso may have some superficial, naive, lefty things to say, but underneath, where it counts, there is a strong individual, taking responsibility for his place in the world and focusing on that.

-Mr. Alec

Ukrainian infighting and its sagging economy

A big news item recently has been the splitting of Ukranians two leaders of the Orange Revolution. Last week President Victor Yushchenko sacked his seemingly Dianne Feinstein like Prime Minister Yulia Timoshenko. Then Yushchenko's new PM, Yuri Yekhanurov, was rejected by Parliament, mainly because of his connections to corruption allegations.

This is all, of course, terrible news to hear, especially after it was the feel good story of last winter. It seems though, that at the heart of it, the problems are not complex. The diagnosis is that the country has not properly privatized its massive state infrastructure. One problem has been allegations of shady deals in the selling of the state's holdings. The other has been that Ms. Timoshenko's populist tendencies--although perfect for a populist revolution--have been ultimately very damaging to the once "hot" Ukranian economy. Anders Aslund (via Marginal Revolution) picks it up here:

For the past eight months...Ukraine's economic policy has been nothing short of disastrous. Economic growth has plummeted from an annual 12 per cent last year to 2.8 per cent so far this year, driven by a fall in ­investment.

The blame for this startling deterioration must lie with the government's economic policies. By agitating for widespread nationalisation and renewed sales of privatised companies, the government undermined property rights. In addition, it raised the tax burden sharply to finance huge increases in welfare spending and public wages. Very publicly, Ms Tymoshenko interfered in pricing and property disputes, criticising individual businessmen. Chaos and uncertainty prevailed. This populist policy had little in common with the electoral promises of Viktor Yushchenko, the president, about liberal market reforms.

But not all hope is lost. Aslund continues:

...there are hopes the new government will be quite productive, although it will serve for only half a year until parliamentary elections next March. Its first task will be to stop the destabilising re-privatisation campaign, which is likely to lead to only one or two re-privatisations, and declare a big amnesty for other privatisations. A long-promised major deregulation, eliminating thousands of harmful legal acts, will finally be promulgated. The last laws needed for Ukraine's accession to the World Trade Organisation can now be swiftly adopted. The budget for next year, which contains some tax cuts, needs to be enacted.

The crucial political battle, however, is the elections next March. The confirmation vote for Mr Yekhanurov suggests a new dividing line in Ukrainian politics. Most of the rightwing and centrist party factions supported Mr Yekhanurov, while Ms Tymoshenko's bloc, the communists, and two oligarchic parties opposed him.

From now on, the big antagonists in Ukrainian politics are likely to be Mr Yushchenko and Ms Tymoshenko. Their individual popularity remains roughly equal. A consolidation around these two figures is possible, especially as the next elections will be proportional. Ideally, a US-type Republican party could be formed around Mr Yushchenko and a more leftwing, populist Democratic party around Ms Tymoshenko, but it is also possible that the old fragmentation will persist.

Each side has "orange revolutionaries" as well as oligarchs from the Kuchma period. The big question is whether Ms Tymoshenko's revolutionary fire has burnt out or whether Mr Yushchenko's bold attempt at post-revolutionary stabilisation is premature.

It seems possible Yushchenko's move is on par with that of Japanese President Junichiro Koizumi, whose bold call for election (that ultimately ousted many renagade MPs of his own party) will allow him to privatize the state's massive postal service (which does not just deliver mail, but also is a bank that inefficiently houses three trillion dollars in savings).

Of course, it is also possible that Yushchenko's ambitious agenda will be swallowed by infighting and rent-seeking. It seems possible that entry into the WTO could jump start the sagging economy and reaffirm people's wobbly faith in Yushchenko. I can only hope.

-Mr. Alec

Church and state

An interesting thing happened to me yesterday. In my Classics of Social and Political Thought class the professor asked everyone to name a book that has shaped or impacted their worldview or the way they view things. I was very surprised how prominent the bible was in answers. Now I was not surprised that people would view the bible as something so prominent. Every election cycle we are inundated with numbers that show the importance that religion, faith, and morals plays in how people make their decision. Yet this largely a silent majority (Nixon was right maybe once or twice).

Religion has an odd place in American politics. It dominates from beneath the covers. In his fantastic overview of church and state relations, Noah Feldman explains how much of this is to be attributed to two sources: the gains of legal secularism and Justice O'Connor's unique perspective (and clinching vote) in cases of church and state.

I could paraphrase the entirety of Divided By God but the keys is one Supreme Court case. In 1971 the Supreme Court established the "Lemon Test" in Lemon v. Kurtzman. This decision required government action to have a "secular" purpose (go here for more of an explanation). (Even though O'Connor's endorsement test adapted this, it remains largely intact.)

Now the problem with this is that it largely removes religiously inspired morality from the purpose of any government action. It presupposes that the church and the state are in someway separable (which as Jefferson dreamed, they clearly are not). Many of the most contentious area of modern politics revolve around these issues. Most prominent are voting matters like abortion, the death penalty, vouchers for religious schools etc. The problem with the Lemon test is that it requires the goal of any legislation on morally complex matters to be entirely separate from any religious morality.

It essentially forces those who happen to not be secular humanists (which is a tiny percentage) to make their arguments tangential to the real reasoning. This is turn causes religiously secular individuals to start debating the tangential arguments. In total, the most contentious debates become about entirely different issues.

Now the typical response to what I have thus far said is that if the State could begin using religious justification to pass legislation it could result in a tyranny of the majority. I think this is flawed for a couple of reasons. First, on moral issues there is no tangible difference between the morality a Christian espouses and that of a secularist. The only thing that separates the morality of the two is that the former consults the bible or priest, while the latter may reflect on a host of books, friends, or experiences. Why should one be admissible for legislation while the other not, especially when the public debate stands to gain so much from it.

-Mr. Alec

Back in order

So I finished up a lot of my unpacking yesterday. Things are pretty settled now, my schedule is rather intense and on top of that I am attempting to venture into some new and interesting extracurriculars, so I would not expect the pace of blogging to surpass (or near) that of August, but check in every other day and you should see something new.

-Mr. Alec

Kelo's hype and the economics of eminent domain

Sorry about the lack of posts lately. I debated this weekend and have been busy packing and enjoying doing nothing, but my idle state is not more. Lets get into it:

The topic of eminent domain has become a particularly popular one of late. Almost every inch of the political spectrum has come out against the Kelo v. New London decision this spring. Finally property rights loving libertarians are hand in hand with the urban poor against whom eminent domain is often used to "rebuild their blighted areas" (translation, they get kicked out and a J. Crew is put in). All these groups have also taken out much of their anger against the Supreme Court, which they felt was read far too much into the constitution.

Via Balkanization, I found this interesting defense of the Supreme Court's decision by Columbia Law Professor Thomas Merrill. According to Marty Lederman, Merrill's amicus brief had an obvious impact on three of the Justices opinions.

Regardless, Merrill spoke in front of the Senate Judiciary Committee and here are some of the interesting things he said.

Merrill starts by dismissing many of the common misconceptions about the Kelo decision (condensed for your pleasure):

Myth One: Kelo breaks new ground by authorizing the use of eminent domain solely for economic development.

Echoing Justice O’Connor’s dissenting opinion, it is widely asserted that Kelo is the first decision in which the Supreme Court permitted the use of eminent domain solely for economic development. By giving its approval to this new use of eminent domain, it is asserted, the Court has provided a roadmap for an unprecedented – and frightening – expansion in the use eminent domain.

...The universe of prior precedent...includes numerous Supreme Court decisions upholding “takings that facilitated agriculture and mining” because of the importance of these industries to the economic welfare of the states in question. And it includes Ruckelshaus v. Monsanto Co., upholding the condemnation of trade secrets in order to promote economic competition in pesticide markets. Moreover, in none of these previous decisions (or even in Berman with respect to the parcel of property before the Court) could it be said that the property was being taken because of some “precondemnation use” that inflicted “affirmative harm.” Justice Stevens concluded that “[p]romoting economic development is a traditional and long accepted function of government” – surely an irrefutable proposition – and that there was “no principled way” of distinguishing what the petitioners characterized as economic development “from the other public purposes that we have recognized.”

Myth Two: Kelo authorizes condemnations where the only justification is a change in use of the property that will create new jobs or generate higher tax revenues.

The possibility that eminent domain could be justified solely on the ground that it would increase the assessed valuation of property was raised at the oral argument in Kelo. Justice O’Connor’s dissenting opinion, which is based largely on a slippery slope argument, makes much of this possibility, building to her famous line – “Nothing is to prevent the State from replacing any Motel 6 with a Ritz-Carlton, any home with a shopping mall, or any farm with a factory.”

The Court in Kelo did not have to decide whether an isolated taking to produce a marginal increase in jobs or tax revenues satisfies the public use requirement. The New London Redevelopment Project before the Court was designed to do much more than achieve an “upgrade” in the use of one tract of land. A Justice Stevens’ recounted, the project was also designed to generate a number of traditional public “uses”: a renovated marina, a pedestrian riverwalk, the site for a new U.S. Coast Guard museum, and public parking facilities for the museum, an adjacent state park, and retail facilities. Later in his opinion, in discussing the petitioners’ argument that the Court should draw a bright line prohibiting takings for economic development, he noted that the “suggestion that the City’s plan will provide only purely economic benefits” was “unpersuasive” as applied to the taking before the Court.

Myth Three: Kelo dilutes the standard of review for determining whether a particular taking is for a public use.

...[Kelo] suggests that courts should carefully review condemnations that result in a private retransfer of property, or are not carried out in accordance with some planning exercise, in order to determine whether the government is taking property “under the mere pretext of a public purpose, when its actual purpose was to bestow a private benefit.” Justice Kennedy’s concurring opinion makes explicit that the Court’s decision upholding the condemnation in Kelo “does not foreclose the possibility that a more stringent standard of review than that announced in Berman and Midkiff might be appropriate for a more narrowly drawn category of takings.”

In truth, therefore, Kelo intimates that the Court in the future may impose a higher standard of review in public use cases than has prevailed before. Before Kelo, courts merely had to ask whether the use of eminent domain is “rationally related to a conceivable purpose.” After Kelo, courts are instructed to investigate the factual circumstances to determine whether the invocation of a public purpose is a “mere pretext” to justify a transfer driven by “impermissible favoritism to private parties.” In terms of the formulation of the standard of review, Kelo was a significant victory for property rights advocates, a development completely obscured by the widespread denunciation of the decision.

Myth Four: The original understanding of the Takings Clause limits the use of eminent domain to cases of government ownership or public access.

Myth Five: Takings for economic development pose a particular threat to “discrete and insular minorities.”

...Justice Thomas’s preferred position would restrict eminent domain to takings for government use or actual use by the public. Any other type of real estate development would have to use market transactions. Consequently, one way to test his prediction about the impact of eminent domain on poor communities would be to compare the benefits poor communities receive from real estate projects that rely solely on market transactions with the benefits they receive from projects facilitated by eminent domain. Because of the high transaction costs of assembling large tracts of land in developed areas, market-based development projects tend to be concentrated in greenfield sites at the perimeters of urban areas, far from most poor communities. Thus, unless one believes that new real estate development is inevitably bad for poor communities, there is reason to doubt that leaving all commercial real estate development to market transactions would improve the welfare of poor communities.

Justice O’Connor’s position is even more bizarre. Her position is that “public purpose” takings are permissible, but only if the taking is designed to overcome some “precondemnation use” that inflicts “affirmative harm on society.” Translated, this means that eminent domain can be used for economic development only if there is a finding the property is “blighted.” Would requiring a determination of “blight” reduce the danger of poor and minority communities being targeted for economic development takings?

Hmmm, so where does this all leave us. Well first it means that as Public Enemy once told us over and over, "Don't Believe the Hype". I find it interesting how so many people get outraged about Supreme Court decisions without actually reading the rationale behind the decisions. I honestly doubt that these wackos understood the constitutionality of John Paul Stevens' opinion which Souter signed on to (not that I do, but at least I don't pretend to).

But while Merrill really establishes why we should all chill about the Kelo decision he has some interesting things to say about what, if anything, should be done. He dismisses the use of Congress to establish what should and should not be public use. Arguing instead that federalism is far more efficient at what determines justice and efficiency in such cases. For example, the rules governing eminent domain would be very different in New York City, where the challenge is just collecting the tracts of land. Compare that to rural Arizona, where the challenge is usually finding access through other tracts of property to your newly purchased property.

What Merrill does not dismiss is a couple of nifty ways to make the compensation for victims of eminent domain truly "just" (this is also a topic that my favorites Gary Becker and Richard Posner discussed this summer: here and here). The problem with providing evicted citizens with only the fair market value of their house is that that is obviously not the amount they value their house, otherwise they would have just sold it to the state for that much. I will let Merrill contemplate solutions to this predicament:

...Congress could require that when occupied homes, businesses or farms are taken, the owner is entitled to a percentage bonus above fair market value, equal to one percentage point for each year the owner has continuously occupied the property. This would provide significant additional compensation for the Susette Kelos and Wilhelmina Derys who are removed from homes they have lived in for much of their lives.

Alternatively, Congress could require that when a condemnation produces a gain in the underlying land values due to the assembly of multiple parcels, some part of this assembly gain has to be shared with the people whose property is taken. Under current law, all of the assembly gain goes to the condemning authority, or the entity to which the property is transferred after the condemnation.

Obviously these are not well developed policy proposals, but they are more than all of the chatter post-Kelo have produced. Also, they are great case ideas for debate (by the way, T-Bone rocked the Williams debate, seventh place novice, it was a great weekend and a pleasure to debate with him again).

-Mr. Alec

Kermit Roosevelt

Kermit Roosevelt (not this Kermit Roosevelt, this Kermit Roosevelt), a law professor at UPenn Law School, and owner of quite possibly the coolest name ever is now guest blogging at Balkanization. He had a great first post yesterday. He had a follow up today that I have yet to get to, but considering how enjoyable his first post was to read, I encourage everyone to help themselves.

This is a topic that I have alluded to over the past couple of days and one that Kermit has a very interesting opinion on, as did Noah Feldman (also featured in the above UTR link about Kermit) in Divided By God. I was planning on launching into a more thorough discussion on the topic of activism but we'll have to wait and see.

Over the next week I am also going to be finalizing a couple of debate cases--I will be debating at Williams this weekend--so expect what will be (hopefully) some formal arguments on Thursday night. In the meantime, I have crap to do.

-Mr. Alec

Confirmation Hearings: Day 2

Right now I am attempting to finish all the projects that people have got me started this summer. Things are rather hectic and sleep is not nearly as plentiful as it ought to be over summer, although it does not even compare against what a death week can be in college, anyways this is neither here nor there. I would round up the part of the confirmation hearings that I saw today but Dahlia Lithwick summed it up so well:

John Roberts is putting on a clinic.

He completely understands that he needs only to sit very quietly, head cocked to signal listening-ness, while senator after senator offers long discursive rambling speeches. Only when he's perfectly certain that a question has been asked does he offer a reply; usually cogent and spare. Here's a man long accustomed to answering really hard questions from extremely smart people, suddenly faced with the almost-harder task of answering obvious questions from less-smart people. He finds himself standing in a batting cage with the pitching machine set way too slow.

Democrats seemed like their impotent selves, many also wondered why Republicans even got time to question the guy when they were just going to kiss his ass. Little will change with the confirmation hearings but the increased level of judicial awareness has been great. I am enjoying it all.

-Mr. Alec

Day 1 of Confirmation Hearings

The first day of hearings for the first Supreme Court nomination that I have been politically conscience for was rather anticlimactic. Mostly it was Democrats attempting to put make their votes dependent on the amount Roberts is willing to divulge about his beliefs on specific issues. This was followed by Republicans lauding his resume and good looks (alright maybe not, but they might have well).

Roberts provided something for everyone. Roberts extended Republican Senator Sam Brownback's analogy that likened the proper role of a judge to that of an umpire in a baseball game (of course the problem with that it that is spawns debates on the proper role of an umpire in baseball, not that of a judge, but that is besides the point). This of course was aimed at Republicans who have come to realize that the originalist approach is the key to giving them what they want (just as judicial restraint was the dogma of progressives during the 1920s, when the Supreme Court primarily intervened to strike down New Deal legislation). But Roberts also told many Democrats what they wanted to hear. He resolutely proclaimed that he rejects judicial activism and will respect precedent. (Cass Sunstein had an interesting article about the two wings of conservative judges, minimalists and fundamentalists, with Roberts falling in the former while possible future Justice Priscilla Owens would fall in the latter).

Of course all Roberts opening statement really told us was that he knew how to appease all parties involved. The real test is going to come tomorrow when he is questioned on the key issues by members of both parties. Stay tuned.

-Mr. Alec

A Symbol to Unite a Divided Nation

An interesting yet ultimately amusing article on the uniting power of Bruce Lee. The United States had Abraham Lincoln, Bosnia has Bruce Lee. Tell me, who do you think would win a fight between those two (this well honed fighting machine versus this well honed intellect)?

-Mr. Alec

PS I listened to much of the first day of confirmation hearings today, so expect something on the topic later tonight. In the meantime, check out the SCOTUS Blog's uber-lawyer Tom Goldstein who paraphrased all statements made during todays hearing.

Guest Blogger Sam

Sam as he is known in some circles, Beowulf in others (namely when he comments on this blog), has blackmailed me into letting him post a very interesting piece on the war on terror, among other things. So check out the post below. Also check out his own blog, which often strays from the scope of this blog, but regardless is entertaining.

-Mr. Alec

Happy 9/12

It's pretty rare that I write a detailed political entry, but what the hell, it's 9/11, let's live a little. There have been twenty suicide terrorism campaigns waged against democratic states by non-state actors. In each, the terrorists perceived the democracy as having invaded, conquered or occupied their homeland and had the specific political goal of forcing the democracy's government, armies and sometimes civilians (i.e. Israeli settlers) out. In each, the government responded by sending in more troops and attempting to exert more control. 15 have ended with concessions by the democracy, four (Palestinian Intifada II, Al-Qaeda vs. The Western World, Iraqi insurgency, Tamil Tigers) are still ongoing, and only one has concluded successfully for the democracy (Turkey vs. the PKK, in which Turkey captured the leader of the PKK and "convinced" him to tell his followers to stop). Everyone knows this. The 87.4 billion dollar question is "How do we win?" The better question to ask is: "How do they win?" How do they win? How do they, who can only cause a tiny fraction of the casualties to us that we can to them, who can only prick our economy, while we can anihillate theirs, who can infiltrate small groups of unarmed men into our homeland while we can place 150,000 soldiers in theirs, manage to defeat us? They know that it is militarily impossible, so they must rely on Terror, with a capital T. They must convince us not that our goal is impossible, but that it is not worth the cost of achieving it. Take, for instance, the people of Spain, who decided that 131 dead in Madrid and the risk of hundreds more was not worth the goal of rebuilding Iraq. Or the more obstinate Israelis, who for 38 years clung to the Gaza Strip, only to decide it wasn't worth blood in the streets of Jerusalem and Tel Aviv. It does not matter whether Spain should have been in Iraq or Israel should have been in Gaza. What matters is that suicide terrorists convinced them to leave. There is an equation to wars. Will to fight= (Military/Political Goals*Probability of Achieving Goals)-(Costs*probability of costs). If the enemy's will to fight < st="on">New OrleansNew Orleans, we did to every major German and Japanese city with fire. Then we did it again. But we discovered something in Vietnam. Costs alone (Aerial bombardment) without being backed up by blocking the enemy's goals (successful ground operations) fails. So for the past 25 years, American foreign policy has focused on blocking the enemy's goals. This is why, in 1991, we destroyed Saddam's ability to wage war in Kuwait, rather than leveling Baghdad and demanding he leave. If raising the costs to an enemy doesn't work, we figured, threatening them with costs will be even more useless, it could never work. The Terrorists made it work. By scaring the bejeezus out of us, they make it work. How do they do it? Even when we leveled Germany's cities, they fought to Berlin. Japan wouldn't surrender until nuclear weapons and Stalin's entrance into the war made it clear that there would be no American invasion force, blocking the Japanese goal of bleeding the Americans until they stopped. Vietnam beat us back. But with less dead in Iraq than a week's or two of fighting in The Civil War, World War I, World War II, Korea or Vietnam, the New York Times has proclaimed the war in Iraq lost. We have a military built to fight armies and governments. As of this moment, we are the best in the world at this. The terrorists have learned how to fight and destroy hearts and minds. As of this moment, they are the best in the world at this. They are masters of the media. Every cover story the New York Times runs on the Gaza pullout is a hearty note of congratulations and encouragement to Hamas. "Yes! You have won! By your determination and bloodshed, you have forced the more powerful Israelis to leave! You have brought worldwide attention to your cause! You can do it again, in the West Bank, in Iraq, anywhere you like!" So how do we win? We don't. We can, as the New York Times suggests, (and I know I'm picking on the Times, but that's only because it's what I read the most of) concede our goals, pull out and let them all start fighting each other instead of us. Or we can become an Orwellian society, in which ignorance is victory. The media will be required to only tell us about the cool new technology we're using to fight terrorists, like they did in their patriotic fervor of 2002 and 2003. Either way, we lose. Happy 9/12. I'd like to credit Professor Robert Pape of the University of Chicago, leader of the University of Chicago Project on Suicide Terrorism and author of the books "Dying to Win" and "Bombing to Win" (once you have a good title, you stick with it I guess) for having thought up most of this stuff, and teaching it to me, and probably saying it better than I. Stop reading now and just go get his book on amazon.com instead. Go.

-Sam

Washington Post on John Roberts

It has recently come to my attention that the Washington Post has had a great set of articles on John Roberts. The first article details his education and recollects John Roberts the scholar and thinker. Most interesting is what John Roberts the high school student was like. He went to an all boys school that was for the most part, completely insulated from the outside world. While race riots and civil strife spread across the country, Roberts contemplated the merits (or demerits) of coeducation:

During his junior year of high school, he criticized the prospect of coeducation in the student newspaper, foreshadowing by many years his criticism as a federal lawyer of intervention in gender discrimination cases.

"The argument that girls will provide a new viewpoint in the classroom is probably valid, although I certainly can't imagine what points will be viewed," he wrote in the newspaper, the Torch. He said he would not want "the football team waiting on the sidelines for practice while the girls finish their field hockey or whatever. Game times should be interesting, too. Imagine the five cheerleaders on the sidelines, with block 'L's' on their chests, screaming 'Give me a 'L.' Give me a break!"

Also, interesting is that Roberts, who focused on Renaissance intellectual history in college, initially wanted to get a PhD in history until his father allegedly told him, "Real men study law." Slate does a hilarious spoof on this statement, pointing out the level of manliness Harvard law is renown for.

But if that Washington Post article stressed the unerring confidence Roberts had in his beliefs, whether they be in coeducation or in his intended course of study at Harvard, today the Washington Post chronicled his post-Law School work as one of the countries best appellate lawyers. This Roberts comes off as a scholar of the law who would place himself in the shoes of every one of his clients, regardless of their political persuasion. Also interesting about this article is the unique work of appellate lawyers (got me interested in it at least).

So all-in-all we are left with a very conflicted view of Roberts, a man who could be an understanding moderate, like the one who represented gays before the Supreme Court. Or he could become an entirely different beast, the one who has always been sure of his conservatism regardless of his location, friends, or work. Regardless of who he ends up becoming, it is clear that he that he will impress us all in his confirmation hearings; he has had lots of practice with stuff like this.

-Mr. Alec

Why some people stayed

Two interesting articles address the reasons that some people stayed in New Orleans. This Slate article features a couple of interesting interviews with people who remained behind. Most interesting was this part:

Gee says the police taught everyone around here how to loot. They were the first to bust into the grocery store down the street and the Wal-Mart a mile or so up the road. He also says they took to breaking into car lots in the days after the storm and driving off with brand-new Escalades. I'm not sure whether to believe him, until a cop car drives buy towing what looks like a mint-condition Corvette Stingray. "And these are the people telling us to evacuate," says one of the porch dwellers. Every time a Humvee rolls by, a few of the guys make sure to flash the peace sign.

My guess is that we are going to start hearing more and more ridiculous stories.

The other interesting article was in the Washington Post about the effect that family animals had on the lives of thousands.

-Mr. Alec

Bonus politics of Katrina thoughts

I think so many liberals are upset about the hurricane because it confirms many of their notions of the Bush White House, but much to their chagrin their feelings on Bush are not shared by the majority of the country (not that I agree, but this is an important point). We have seen Bush prompt liberal outrage time-after-time (think: Florida recount, all of Iraq, not responding to 9/11 faster enough--remember when his choice not to immediately return to the White House was so prominently featured in Fahrenheit 9/11, the Karl Rove v. Joe Wilson scandal, Abu Ghraib, etc.). But regardless of how many times Bush upsets this group; it never seems to faze the majority of the electorate. I think this is primarily because the majority of the country does not hate Bush with a passion that so many on the left do. Not everyone cringes at seeing him smirk or upon hearing him evoke religion in a speech. Much of the country (or at least the important 2-3 million voters in America) gave Bush a second chance after 9/11; they now view him as sincere in his devotion (instead of a failed good ole boy turned politician). Bush's sincerity is his single greatest asset and the Michael Moore/moveon.org strategy of getting contributions by mocking Bush’s past, his friends, his laugh, or his monkey-like features may bankroll fancy movies and websites, but it isn’t going to create any desperately needed Democratic votes.

-Mr. Alec

Thoughts on the politics of Katrina

Now that real progress has been achieved in the clean up and eventual reconstruction of Louisiana and Mississippi the political show has hit full swing. Every liberal under the sun is attempting to make the Federal Government's failure to respond quickly into a systematic string of failures that have supposedly plagued the Bush White House. Conservatives are countering by attacking state and local officials (most of which were Democrats). When that doesn't work though, many conservatives are just attacking the liberals who are attacking Bush. So as you can imagine the productivity per word ratio is very very low.

With that said, I have some brief comments that I will try to make productive.

I don't think liberals will gain any traction by attempting to make the failure to respond into a long line of Bush failures. Everyone and their mother seems to be attempting to tie Katrina into Iraq or 9/11 or Global Warming or Karl Rove; none of them work for me. I do think that the federal government and Bush in particular should have been quicker in providing assistance, but I don't think this failure is endemic of any bias the White House may have to any race, region, or economic status. When it comes down to it, the federal government just seriously fucked up. Michael Brown is going to hang because of it (on a related note, have you seen a picture of that guy where he doesn't look like a deer in the headlights). Bush is going to have to deal with the embarrassment of giving "Brownie" the FEMA job when he had zero qualifications but I doubt the Democrats are going to gain any seats when their best valid complaint is that Bush is too political in his appointments, which is something inherent in the political process.

That of course is the real reason for all the political noise. Midterm elections are coming up and for Democrats to win anything they need to turn this disaster into something that confirms a preconceived notion of Bush. That is why Monica sunk Clinton and Iranian hostages killed Carter; because it was not just a stupid public relations mistake, it confirmed what everyone suspected of them. That is also why the stillborn Karl Rove scandal probably sunk Bush's ratings as far as Katrina will. Bush is perceived to be secretive, vindictive, and single minded in his dedication to getting what he wants. But Bush is not perceived to be, nor do I think he actually is, uncaring of people in need.

The best Democrats can hope for is a scandal as a result of this failure. Perhaps Rove or Cheney will slip up and get vindictive on someone attempting to expose a particular gaffe by the White House (think Joe Wilson 2.0, but maybe this time well timed and with teeth).

-Mr. Alec

Opportunities amid the damage

It is unfortunate that this country so frequently must wait for disaster or catastrophe to strike until it can create serious reforms, but regardless of this fact, the mandate for change post-Katrina is there. Bush now has an unbelievable opportunity to change many of the countries poorly operating programs. I am not just referring to the countries emergency response programs, although those are obviously in desperate need of some sort of change. There is now a chance to refocus many efforts on urban renewal and assistance.

During the Hurricane Katrina coverage someone joked to me that the reason people were so upset was because they hadn't seen this much poverty on TV since the last race riots. Ironically there is a lot of truth in that joke and also a lot to be learned about legislative possibilities. Right off the bat many traditionally conservative people and press outlets were drawing attention to the story of New Orleans and its history of urban degeneration. At the height of the Katrina outrage Richard Lowry of the National Review had this to say:

To the extent that it has been made especially dangerous to be black in New Orleans, it is a product of a culture of governmental corruption and incompetence, including rotten policing, that goes deeper than any simplistic racial demagoguery can capture. Mayor Ray Nagin of New Orleans is black. He has been a reformer, but it would take more reform than one mayor is capable of to change New Orleans. Nagin’s predecessor, Marc Morial, was black too, and a business-as-usual politician. This summer, aides, friends, and an uncle of the former mayor were indicted on corruption charges.

In many senses, however, poverty is indeed dangerous. The root of it, more than anything else, is the breakdown of the family. Roughly 60 percent of births in New Orleans are out of wedlock. If people are stripped of the most basic social support — the two-parent family — they will be more vulnerable in countless ways, especially, one assumes, in moments of crisis like that that has befallen New Orleans. If the tableaux of suffering in the city prompts meaningful soul-searching, perhaps there can be a grand right-left bargain that includes greater attention to out-of-wedlock births from the Left in exchange for the Right’s support for more urban spending (anything is worth addressing the problem of fatherlessness).

Unfortunately, the post-catastrophe debate will probably be toxic and unhealthy, just like the oily, fetid waters of New Orleans.

Although Lowry's reason for the impoverished condition in New Orleans is typical of many conservatives (like Rick Santorum for whom the traditional family is the sole reason for America's prosperity-nevermind the high average income of gays) it is shocking that anyone at the National Review would be talking about one of their least favorite subjects, urban plight. Conservatives have never really figured out an adequate political way to address urban plight (and no one has really figured out a way to truely address urban plight, but that is besides the point) so many tend to ignore it, viewing it as a Pandora's box. Lyndon Johnson's War on Poverty (similar in many ways to Bush's War on Terror) represented the pinnacle of liberal waste and indulgence to conservatives of the day.

But the National Review was not alone, today David Brooks, one of the founding editors of the Weekly Standard, emphatically stated, "...Hurricane Katrina has given us an amazing chance to do something serious about urban poverty."

And he is right, Bush really has the chance to show his credentials in compassion, while not betraying his rock-hard conservative constituents. Bush could begin by expanding one of the very few two efficient federal programs, Section 8 housing and the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC). Both programs have been in the spotlight lately, with Section 8 housing the displaced evacuees and the EITC being floated as a possible way to assist people with higher gas prices.

With those two simple moves Bush could relieve the suffering of so many, so efficiently. Then if Bush dedicated the amount of attention he has to his War on Terror and Social Security he could spark one of the great debates of this century. Also, he could do it on his terms, I am not calling on Bush to declare a War on Poverty, nor am I suggesting he sponsor a third New Deal or a second Great Society (which was really the second New Deal). But many economists and urban planners have really great ideas that have been tested in limited environment (like those Brooks describes in his article). They are ready for federal implementation, all that is necessary is some effort by our president who has an opportunity only rivaled by that of post-9/11.

-Mr. Alec

Bonus Argument: Bush could use this to woo many of the black voters that Republicans talk so much about gaining.

Humorous Links

In the wake of so much despair and plight in the country, it is time for two funny links.

The first is one I will call "Sweet Justice".

The second one is "No peer of mine."

-Mr. Alec

This better be true

Having lived a year in Hyde Park in Chicago and because I will be living there for another three (maybe more, who knows) one serious drawback is the utter lack of good places to eat. There is no cheap diner where I can get a bacon cheeseburger and a milkshake, there is no deli that I could drop in to get a sandwich (though there are Subways every two blocks, Subway is to Hyde Park as Starbucks is to San Francisco), there is not even a ton of diversity in food options. Sure there is that Thai restaurant, but that is about it. The Thai restaurant, Subway, and Quiznos; that is just unacceptable.

Hell, New Haven, arm pit of New England (in the goodway, not the badway, New Haven is great), has tons of great food. And I am not just referring to the pizza. Anyways, it seems that help is on the way. The Chicago Tribune had this to say (via Dan Drezner):

Where is Chicago's next hot restaurant zone? We've already seen the Miracle on Randolph Street, West Division's dining surge, the South Loop's gradual buildup. What's next?Would you believe ... Hyde Park?

Don't scoff. Or, go ahead and scoff. No one saw Randolph Street coming either.But Hyde Park, a largely well-to-do neighborhood (bounded by 44th Street, 60th Street, Cottage Grove Avenue and the lake) that for years has been underserved by the restaurant community, is poised to become, within a year or three, a legitimate dining destination.

"I love that area," says restaurateur Jerry Kleiner. "There are 50,000 people here [44,700, according to the neighborhood's Web site], you've got the university and the hospital, and the city has been fixing up Lake Shore Drive. I thought this would be a good opportunity."And so in spring 2006, Kleiner is opening a 160-seat, 4,000-square-foot restaurant in the heart of Hyde Park.

What has the dining community giddy with anticipation is the fact that Kleiner is regarded as something of a culinary pied piper. Where he goes, other restaurateurs quickly follow.

More to the point, Kleiner has a track record of launching successful restaurants in neighborhoods others regard as "iffy."It was Kleiner, with partners Howard Davis and Dan Krasny, who launched the Randolph Street Renaissance with the opening of Vivo. Kleiner and Davis got the fine-dining ball rolling in the South Loop by opening Gioco and Opera.

And now Johnny Restaurantseed is coming to Hyde Park.

Kleiner got an attractive lease from his landlord--the University of Chicago--and a great location at 5201 S. Harper Court. Next door to the Kleiner concept--actually sharing the same address--will be The Checkerboard Lounge, a legendary blues club that is moving from its location on East 43rd Street. The Checkerboard Lounge will have a liquor license but will not serve food.Hank Webber, vice president of development for the University of Chicago (Hyde Park's largest employer at 12,000), was instrumental in luring Kleiner to Hyde Park. "One of our real hopes," he says, "is that this new restaurant and the Checkerboard Lounge will continue the momentum that I think has been developing over the years."

Johnny Restaurantseed indeed. Anyways, read the whole article if you go to the University of Chicago. If you don't go there but are interested in coming to Chicago, just know that by the time you'd arrive here the situation will be improved.

Hungry no more,

Mr. Alec

Tracking the pulse of America

This is an awesome little feature (in that really really nerdy awesome kind of way) that graphs the moods of users of livejournal.com (a type of web-diary for friends to read). For each post livejournal users typically pick a mood they are in (also they frequently will post the music or movie they are listening to or watching), it seems that the good folks in Amsterdam thought that this may be of some worth. Check it out.

By the way, I found it via the freakonomics blog, Steven Levitt really is the man.

-Mr. Alec

Schwarzeneger's murky judicial philosophy

Schwarzeneger proves that politicians don't care about any judicial or legislative philosophy; just the end result. On the California Legislature's refedining of marriage as between any two persons:

A spokeswoman for Mr. Schwarzenegger, Margita Thompson, said after the vote that the governor believed that the issue of same-sex marriage should be settled by the courts, not legislators, but she did not indicate whether that meant he would veto the legislation. The bill did not pass with enough votes to override a veto.

"The governor will uphold whatever the court decides," Ms. Thompson said.

In his defense this does have to do with a passed proposition that defined marriage as between a man and a woman, but still, what a terrible sound byte for the Republicans to have to deal with now.

-Mr. Alec

Trading is active

Intrade (to access the actual market click that link, then on the left frame under Trading Categories click Legal, then click Supreme Court) finally launched its market for the Supreme Court justice to replace Sandra Day O'Connor's spot. Unfortunately Intrade was very poor at doing little else than tracking the wild speculation of the media leading up to the Roberts nomination. We'll see what happens this time around.

-Mr. Alec

Gonzales?

Now the hints before the Roberts nomination ended up being all wrong. When Laura Bush told NBC's Today that she wanted a woman nominee prior to the Roberts nomination, everyone pounced, including me (the evidence is here). One thing that there is no debate upon is the level of secrecy this White House has used with all of its decisions. So there really is no point in speculating who Bush's decision may be based upon what we incorrectly believe to be test balloons. Regardless, I will do just that.

William Kristol wrote a column for the Weekly Standard today about the worrisome prospect (to him) of an nomination Alberto Gonzales. Kristol's reasons to worry are based on two premises. First, that Bush is very loyal to his team. A circumspect inspection of his most powerful aides confirms this undying loyalty. The selection of Dick Cheney, John Bolton, Paul Wolfowitz, Condaleeza Rice, and Donald Rumsfeld (especially sticking with Rummy despite the whole bungling of everything) all seem purely out of dedication those who helped Bush get where he is today. Alberto Gonzales is included in this tight-knit group of advisors and given Bush's track record, it would not be out of character for him to nominate Gonzales because of his trust in him. Second, Kristol is worried because of recent comments by John Cornyn. Kristol explains:

And one worrisome straw in the wind is the comment by Bush loyalist John Cornyn (R-Tex.) in today's Washington Post, who, according to the Post, thinks the nominee will likely be "a woman or a minority." Cornyn offered what the Post described as "a vigorous defense of Gonzales." "He would be a very good nominee and one that I would be happy to support," Cornyn said. "I've read about these concerns from some conservatives, and I really wonder where they are getting some of these strange ideas."

Yikes. One hopes Cornyn is just being polite to Gonzales and Bush. Or has he been asked to lay the groundwork for a Gonzales nomination? Did Cornyn talk with Karl Rove yesterday, between the Roberts announcement and his interview with the Post? If so, we conservative constitutionalists are in real trouble. More important, so is Bush.

Well if Kristol was a little worried earlier today now he is probably downright paranoid. At the end of a cabinet meeting Bush said this about his possible nominee:

“The list is wide open, which should create some good speculation here in Washington,' Mr. Bush said to laughter in the Cabinet Room, with the attorney general sitting directly across from him. 'And make sure you notice when I said that, I looked right at Al Gonzales, who can really create speculation.”

This may be worth Kristol’s intense speculation, but it also may not, given that the test balloon's prior to Roberts were utterly wrong. Regardless, knowledge is power; I hope.

-Mr. Alec

Self-reliance and Newport News, Virginia

John Tierney, who I can't quite distinguish whether he is libertarian or contrarian (or is there a difference between the two), had an excellent article on Newport News, Virginia's approach to hurricanes. The city goes door to door to evacuate residents. "If people resist the plea to leave, Mr. Judkins told The Daily Press in Newport News, rescue workers give them Magic Markers and ask them to write their Social Security numbers on their body parts so they can be identified.

'It's cold, but it's effective,' Mr. Judkins explained.

That simple strategy could have persuaded hundreds of people to save their own lives in New Orleans."

Tierney then expands upon this effective, city-run program, applying it to urban riots. Very interesting argument. Check it out.

-Mr. Alec

The economics and politics of the new economy

Usually I don't like Robert Reich's stuff. He tends to come out very strong on economic issues that are rather complex. Also he seems to attack economic policies from his political conscience. But he had a very good diagnosis of the political problems associated with present economic policy in the New York Times. Although I am not sure about his call for universal health care (though I could be convinced) his suggestions to cure what ails the economy are right on:

But if the insecurity keeps growing, and government keeps responding to it by trying to preserve jobs and spend pork, the economy will sink of its own dead weight. Future free-trade agreements will be impossible to pull off. The Pentagon and other agencies will be hamstrung. And our fiscal imbalances will swell to more grotesque levels. Yet what's the alternative? There's no returning to the stable jobs and steady wages of the mid-20th century.

The answer is a new compact that gives Americans enough security to accept economic change. Suppose, for example, lower and moderate-income workers got a larger share of today's productivity gains through a much bigger Earned Income Tax Credit starting at, say, $6,000 for those who earned the least and gradually tapering off well into the middle class. This would go a long way toward easing the pocketbook concerns of Americans who are working harder but getting nowhere.

To cushion the pain of job loss, unemployment insurance should be turned into re-employment insurance, helping people to get new jobs instead of keeping them waiting for old ones to return. Community colleges would do the retraining, in league with area businesses that identified skill shortages. Wage insurance would cover part of the difference between their old salary and their new starting wage.

Of course these ideas are not the brain child of Robert Reich. The Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC) is a negative income tax, a term and concept devised by Milton Friedman in 1962 (here is an overview of the concept and its implementation). Calling for a rise in the EITC is nothing new either. In fact, since 1986 it has been raised three times and to continued success.

The concept of re-employment insurance is a new one, recently popularized by Thomas Friedman in his bestseller The World Is Flat. But Reich does no justice to the beautiful intracies and possibilities of re-employment or livelihood insurance. Back in beginning of 2004 the Atlantic did:

...Robert Litan, an economist at the Brookings Institution, and Lori Kletzer, an economist at the University of California at Santa Cruz, have proposed a fairly inexpensive extension of unemployment insurance to cover workers who find new jobs that pay much less than their old ones. "Wage insurance" would make up a portion of the difference between old and new incomes for up to two years, so that the transition to a lower-income lifestyle would be more gradual. (A pilot program already exists for workers displaced by the movement of jobs overseas.) But wage insurance has potential as more than just a safety net; if unemployed workers knew they could more easily afford to take lower-paying jobs, they might feel freer to jump into whole new industries or career tracks; this would help the economy grow faster (by increasing the speed at which new industries grow) and might also ultimately increase the long-term income prospects of individual workers.

A more radical variation on this concept comes from Robert Shiller, an economist at Yale, who believes that continuing financial-market innovations may soon enable private insurers to offer "livelihood insurance" that could protect workers from potential declines in their occupations (though not against an individual worker's underperformance within a flourishing field). Similar products might insure against the eventual devaluation of specific academic degrees in the United States (such as those in software engineering or Russian language), or even against declines in the performance of the U.S. economy as a whole, relative to the rest of the world. (As Shiller notes, the fact that the past century was a good one for America does not necessarily mean that the next one will be.) Collectively, these products might lessen the large and arguably increasing risks inherent in the U.S. capitalist system.

These are bold ideas; it may be hard at first to wrap one's mind around them. And it is perhaps ironic that financial markets—which are regarded by many people as amoral if not immoral—might ultimately solve some of the problems that socialist and utopian thinkers have been trying for centuries to address. But as improbable as livelihood insurance may sound, advances in data collection, data analysis, and financial-risk theory are lowering the technical barriers to such a system. Government action could help the creation of livelihood insurance on a large scale. Part of the government's role would be technical—for instance setting the standards for the collection and sharing of personal income data that are necessary if livelihood insurance is to work. But two equally important tasks would be the articulation of a new vision of society—one where people are protected against the unexpected shocks that accompany rapid economic change—and the promotion of financial-services products that can sustain that vision. Without large markets covering a wide range of occupations, carriers offering livelihood insurance might have difficulty hedging their risk sufficiently.

Economists argue that the benefits of technological advance, freer trade, and greater competition are great enough that when—as inevitably happens—some people suffer as a result of these forces, those people can in theory be fully compensated for their losses. But in practice such workers are rarely, if ever, compensated—and the consequences of the setbacks they suffer are more severe in the New Economy than they were in the past. Our economic (and political) system can tolerate a certain level of inequality resulting from differences in ability and work ethic (though just how much is an open question). But too often inequality is gratuitous; many people's economic fortunes are buffeted by factors they cannot reasonably predict and over which they have no personal control. As a society we should seek to minimize the randomness of fortune that is inherent in democratic capitalism.

So now the discussion moves from how effective are these two suggestions to why the hell aren't we implementing them now. Sadly the answer is that the EITC and spending a couple million to compile data for livelihood insurance are not sexy concepts. They do not win any votes. This week more than any should highlight that. Voters look for decisive leadership in their politicians, especially in times of crisis. Also, voters often become rooted to a party purely out of belief in certain moral issues. Both of these sectors of politics would be woefully under addressed by your average economist/ champion of increased EITC and livelihood insurance. Just imagine Alan Greenspan attempting to console victims of Hurricane Katrina or appointing a Supreme Court justice because of certain stances on property rights.

But it is here that we reconnect with Robert Reich, who provides a masterful diagnosis:

But the new insecurity is undermining our national interest in other, less predictable ways by setting off political resistance to economic change, with negative repercussions that ripple beyond the economy.

Forty years ago, free-trade agreements passed Congress with broad backing because legislators recognized that they helped American consumers and promoted global stability. But as job and wage insecurity have grown, public support for free trade has declined. The North American Free Trade Agreement, which passed by 34 votes in 1993, was a hard sale for the Clinton administration. But the recent Central American Free Trade Agreement, embracing a far smaller and less populous area, was an even harder sale for President Bush. Despite Republican control of Congress, the trade deal cleared the House in July by just two votes, and then only after heavy White House pressure.

The increasing insecurity of ordinary workers also imperils our national defense by handcuffing the Pentagon. It can't shift the defense budget to fighting terrorism because of local fears that well-paying jobs will be lost. Contrast this with the comparative ease by which the Pentagon downshifted from fighting World War II to the cold war, more than 50 years ago. Its recent base-closing recommendations ignited a political firestorm, causing even the apolitical Base Closure and Realignment Commission to retreat. The commission's chairman justified its decision to save the Niagara Falls Air Reserve Station, for example, by noting that the base "is the second-largest employer in western New York."

Consider, finally, the pork that's been larded into the federal budget. Republicans may collectively oppose wasteful spending, but as individual legislators they've created more pork than any Congress in history. The new $286 billion transportation act is bloated with 6,371 "special projects" with a price tag some $30 billion more than the White House wanted. The president reassured the nation that it would, at the least, "give hundreds of thousands of Americans good-paying jobs." The new $12.3 billion energy bill cost twice what the White House sought because it's laden with what Senator Pete Domenici, the New Mexico Republican who ushered it through Congress, defends as measures to create "hundreds of thousands of jobs." According to the conservative watchdog group Citizens Against Government Waste, pork programs have risen from fewer than 2,000 a year in the mid-1990's to almost 14,000 this year.

Don't blame the politicians, though. Whatever the policy at stake - trade, defense, transportation, energy - it's likely to morph into a jobs issue because that's what's most on people's minds. So politicians concerned about re-election will do what they can to protect jobs against free trade, base closings, or whatever else might threaten them; and to create jobs by getting as much pork as possible.

Unfortunately no economist has a cure for this diagnosis. This is a problem purely of politics. Right now George Bush is in perfect position to address many of these issues, he is a lame-duck president and can for the first time in his presidency begin to look towards the distant future (instead of the next election). He began to do that with his proposal on Social Security reform. When many political analysts described Bush's motivations for Social Security reform they often cited his urge to leave a lasting legacy; to reform one of the most popular government programs for America's future generations. Bush ought to realize he has the opportunity to leave just as significant a legacy with the creation and further entrenchment of livelihood insurance and the negative income tax. These programs could very well become the rigid backbone of the hypersensitive twenty-first century economy.

-Mr. Alec

College Rankings

College season is upon us again and just in time US News and World Report has released its annual list of the countries top colleges. The rankings have not changed much, nor would make any sense if they had (it is not like anything has actually changed at any college over the past 12 months). Now it is not my purpose to decry the overall use of rankings. In fact rankings have a legitimate place in the college process. First, they provide students with a quick and easy way to see their options. They can quickly associate certain colleges with others (that they might not have learned about otherwise). Also with the use of admissions statistics students can quickly figure out the range or tier of schools that they are most applicable to. Second, rankings encourage colleges to raise money and gain faculty. It creates a competition to be the best and to gain the recognition (or money) that comes with being the best.

But the unfortunate side of the college rankings is that there is really only one acknowledged ranking of colleges. Although other outfits have ranked world universities and business schools, US News and World Reports has a stranglehold on our perception of what the best colleges are.

But does that mean that US News also controls what we value in our colleges? Often lost in the headlines proclaiming which college is now the best, is the actual justification of what makes one college better than the other. Let's review US News' actual metric:

Peer assessment (weighted by 25 percent): The U.S. News ranking formula gives greatest weight to the opinions of those in a position to judge a school's academic excellence. The peer assessment survey allows the top academics we contact--presidents, provosts, and deans of admission--to account for intangibles such as faculty dedication to teaching. Each individual is asked to rate peer schools' academic programs on a scale from 1 (marginal) to 5 (distinguished). Those who don't know enough about a school to evaluate it fairly are asked to mark "don't know." Synovate, an opinion-research firm based near Chicago, collected the data; 57 percent of the 4,098 people who were sent questionnaires responded.

Retention (20 percent in national universities and liberal arts colleges and 25 percent in master's and comprehensive colleges): The higher the proportion of freshmen who return to campus the following year and eventually graduate, the better a school is apt to be at offering the classes and services students need to succeed. This measure has two components: six-year graduation rate (80 percent of the retention score) and freshman retention rate (20 percent). The graduation rate indicates the average proportion of a graduating class who earn a degree in six years or less; we consider freshman classes that started from 1995 through 1998. Freshman retention indicates the average proportion of freshmen entering from 2000 through 2003 who returned the following fall.

Faculty resources (20 percent): Research shows that the more satisfied students are about their contact with professors, the more they will learn and the more likely it is they will graduate. We use six factors from the 2004-05 academic year to assess a school's commitment to instruction. Class size has two components: the proportion of classes with fewer than 20 students (30 percent of the faculty resources score) and the proportion with 50 or more students (10 percent of the score). Faculty salary (35 percent) is the average faculty pay, plus benefits, during the 2003-04 and 2004-05 academic years, adjusted for regional differences in the cost of living (using indexes from the consulting firm Runzheimer International). We also weigh the proportion of professors with the highest degree in their fields (15 percent), the student-faculty ratio (5 percent), and the proportion of faculty who are full time (5 percent).

Student selectivity (15 percent): A school's academic atmosphere is determined in part by the abilities and ambitions of the student body. We therefore factor in test scores of enrollees on the SAT or ACT tests (50 percent of the selectivity score); the proportion of enrolled freshmen who graduated in the top 10 percent of their high school classes for all national universities and liberal arts colleges, and the top 25 percent for institutions in the master's and comprehensive colleges categories (40 percent); and the acceptance rate, or the ratio of students admitted to applicants (10 percent). The data are for the fall 2004 entering class.

Financial resources (10 percent): Generous per-student spending indicates that a college can offer a wide variety of programs and services. U.S. News measures the average spending per student on instruction, research, student services, and related educational expenditures in the 2003 and 2004 fiscal years.

Graduation rate performance (5 percent; only in national universities and liberal arts colleges): This indicator of "added value" shows the effect of the college's programs and policies on the graduation rate of students after controlling for spending and student aptitude. We measure the difference between a school's six-year graduation rate for the class that entered in 1998 and the predicted rate for the class.

Alumni giving rate (5 percent): The average percentage of alumni who gave to their school during 2002-03 and 2003-04.

To arrive at a school's rank, we first calculated the weighted sum of its scores. The final scores were rescaled: The top school in each category was assigned a value of 100, and the other schools' weighted scores were calculated as a proportion of that top score. Final scores for each ranked school were rounded to the nearest whole number and ranked in descending order.

Interestingly enough the only parts that even attempt to measure the quality of education one receives are the peer assessment and the faculty resources. Peer assessment is an interesting statistic and probably one of the most fruitful that US News uses. It simultaneously measures the rigor, prestige, selectivity, and level of faculty achievement. Let’s take a look at what the top group of schools would be based purely US News' peer assessment score:

1. (4.9) Harvard, Princeton, Yale, Stanford, MIT
2. (4.8) University of California- Berkley
3. (4.7) Cal Tech, Columbia
4. (4.6) Duke, Cornell, Johns Hopkins, University of Chicago
5. (4.5) UPenn, University of Michigan- Ann Arbor
6. (4.4) Dartmouth, Northwestern, Brown

The most significant changes between US News' final rankings and the above rankings are UC Berkley, which jumps from twentieth to fifth. Conversely, Washington University in St. Louis and Rice University which share a peer assessment score of 4.1, would plummet from their respective rankings of eleventh and seventeenth. To a much smaller degree the University of Chicago rises while UPenn drops.

The reason peer assessment is a fruitful ranking is because it ranks the real worth of a college degree. At the end of four years all a student will have is a sheet of paper and debt. The main purpose of that debt and sheet of paper is that it signals to prospective employers that you received an excellent education. It differentiates a graduate of Yale from a graduate of a community college. Of course often there is a major disconnect between prospective employers and the academic world. Whereas Cal Tech and the University of Chicago are well respected universities with some of the best faculties in the country, many employers would perceive a higher value to a Brown or UPenn graduate. But here in lies the power of US News. It has the power to change that perception, and who better to rank colleges then those who run them; those whose everyday existence is the management and education of some of the countries brightest students and leaders.

Of course peer assessment is not without its warts. But the next question to be discussed is what business does anyone have ranking UC Berkley against Cal Tech and ranking those two against Dartmouth. The differences therein are so substantial that it is truly like comparing apples to zucchinis. To a certain extent US News accepts this notion by ranking liberal arts colleges on a different scale than national universities. But US News would be better off creating more groupings, perhaps putting public universities on a different scale than private or separating tech schools from schools with a strong emphasis on the liberal arts.

US News may be best off by publishing a set of rankings. If it published separate rankings of all its various categories, but attempted not to place any particular amount of weight to them it would give prospective students the ultimate say. The notion that everyone is looking for the same thing in a college is ridiculous. That is the beauty of a range of rankings, if students want a list of the most selective schools they could find that out, if percentage of classes under twenty was their thing, then voilà. This is the beauty of Princeton Review's set of rankings. But they lack any consistency, for example University of Chicago was the rated as the number one college for Undergraduate Academic Experience, this year it is not in the top twenty (having not started this year yet they may know something I don't know).

But this discussion presupposes the eminence of US News' rankings. The best college is something different to different people. It is unfortunate that we have not seen a similar set of rankings from a host of other sources. Obviously the money is there; the rankings have made US News a household name in the United States. Law and business schools benefit from a variety of rankings (business schools compete in numerous rankings, here is a side by side comparison, law schools also have a couple of different rankings, Richard Posner analyzes them here and Brian Leiter ranks them here). There is an important void with plenty of money to be made. Other sources ought to be filling this.

Get on it world.

-Mr. Alec

Rehnquist Links

This New York Times article (via SCOTUS Blog) explains the nature of Rehnquist's illness and how this interacted with his fellow Justices. Most interesting is how Rehnquist's illness played into O'Connor's decision:

Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, who took her colleagues by surprise on July 1 by announcing her intention to retire, called the chief justice's death "an earthquake for the court."

Noting that she has made her retirement contingent on the confirmation of a successor, she said she had not yet decided what she might do if the first Monday in October dawns and her seat has not been filled. It would be, she said, a "surprising dilemma."

...Justice O'Connor said that as the last term proceeded, she had expected the chief justice to arrive at a decision to retire. Hoping to retire herself, she awaited word from him because she did not want to create a second vacancy. Finally, she said, "I asked him, and he told me he really wanted to go another year and thought he'd be O.K."

Slate has an excellent remembrance of Rehnquist by one of his law clerks. It looks at Rehnquist the man, something frequently lost in discussions of his legacy and jurisprudence. The highlight is this:

He invited us to his home for dinner and charades; I don't think I'll ever forget watching the chief act out Saving Private Ryan, crawling around under his coffee table, pointing his fingers like a gun, and mouthing "pow, pow!"

Stanford Magazine has an interesting and comprehensive history of his development. It is worth a look at.

Slate also had a good analysis of the politics awaiting Bush's decision.

Last, but certainly not least, it seems that Bush will not wait the two weeks he did to fill O'Connor's spot. Probably to avoid this.

-Mr. Alec

Should we abandon New Orleans?

Richard Posner says maybe. I don't neccesarily think we should, nor is any politician going to propose this idea, but Posner makes the important point that we should take it into consideration given the costs neccesary to protect the city, costs that will only rise.

Also Posner points out the new risk of terrorism. This hurricane has exposed the major weakness of one of America's economic hubs. A set of bombs well placed on the levee could debilitate the US as Hurricane Katrina has.

Check it out.

[Update: The New York Times op-ed page provides a passionate defense of New Orleans as a cultural hotbed]

-Mr. Alec

Roberts becomes the Chief?

At Volokh Conspiracy Orin Kerr is speculating that Bush will renominate John Roberts to become the Chief Justice. It is an interesting possibility but I think it presupposes who Bush nominates to replace Rehnquist's spot. Roberts would probably be the prime cantidate for the Chief Justice position if Bush nominates Luttig or Wilkenson. But if Bush nominates a more moderate cantidate like he did with Roberts, don't be surprised if Scalia is the next Chief Justice [Update: Found an interesting article that discusses this point].

One way or another Bush will give the religious right will get their wish.

-Mr. Alec

PS An interesting nominee would be the libertarian Judge Alex Kozinski, he is not nearly as stealth as Roberts, but he seems very interesting (profiled here).

Implications of Rehnquist's Death

Very sad news today, Chief Justice William Rehnquist has passed away. He served on the court for 33 years. His legacy is immense and not just limited to his rulings (he brought a level of discipline and structure that the court lacked). For an excellent summary of his accomplishments this Atlantic article discusses his pragmatic approach to his rulings that endeared him to so many on both sides of the aisle.

The implications of Rehnquist's death are pretty significant. This really allows Bush to select the conservative that many on the far-right wanted. He can provide a package of two justices. One, in Roberts is the moderate compromise, and the second is his special pick for the religious right, the constituency that got him in the White House.

My initial thoughts are as follows:

1. Expect a more conservative nominee. The first name that pops into my head is Michael Luttig (who is known as mini Scalia, he is profiled here). Another name is Michael McConnell, a religious conservative (he ingenuiously represented evangelical groups looking to legalize public displays of religion, David Brooks profiled him in July) but also a well respected legal scholar.

2. Who becomes Chief Justice: If Bush chooses another Roberts (maybe Gonzales) then this becomes a no-brainer; Scalia. But if Bush goes the conservative route and nominates Luttig, expect more of a compromise on the Chief Justice. Although it does not give much real power to the conservative jurists, nominating Scalia does symbolize what many on the religious-right want to see.

3. The Supreme Court Nomination Blog will again become a second homepage for me and many others. Keep tabs on it.

4. It will be interesting to see how accurate Intrade is this time around. For the most part it missed the boat on Roberts. It has still been accurate in past instances (here and here) so keep your eyes on it.

5. This is the distraction that Bush needs from his dismal handling of the Hurricane Katrina crisis. It will be interesting to see how much attention Katrina still gets.

6. The significance of this Economist article reemerges. Here is a taste for nonsubscribers:

Mr Bush is surrounded by fellow jocks. Donald Rumsfeld is a former Navy wrestling champion who, at 73, makes a habit of walking five miles a day through the Pentagon corridors. He also likes to challenge underlings to squash. Condoleezza Rice is a former competition-level ice-skater who rises at dawn to run on her treadmill. Margaret Spellings, the education secretary, is a weight-lifter. Even Alberto Gonzales, the diminutive attorney-general, is keen on golf and racquetball.

...And a poor physique can test the president's patience. When Mr Bush sacked Larry Lindsey, his portly economic adviser during his first term, he apparently complained in private about his failure to exercise.

Mr Bush's obsession was on full display during the search for a new Supreme Court justice. He apparently asked one candidate, Harvie Wilkinson, two tough questions: What is the most difficult decision you have ever made? And how much do you exercise? The 60-year-old Mr Wilkinson said he ran three and a half miles a day. But the president urged him to do more cross-training. “He warned me of impending doom,” Mr Wilkinson told the New York Times. In introducing the successful candidate, John Roberts, to the country Mr Bush highlighted the fact that he had been captain of his high-school football team—as if this made up for the fact that he was a swot at Harvard Law School.

An interesting look into how Bush decided on who he will nominate. This of course bodes poorly for Michael McConnell. Regardless we will see how this all plays out. Hope this catches everyone up.

-Mr. Alec

Iraq's tragedy

Lost in much of the hurricane coverage has been the tragic stampede on Iraq's Bridge of the Imams that may have claimed as many as 1,000 women and children. The Economist explains how this all occurred:

The victims were almost all Shias who, in an annual procession, were commemorating the death of a holy man, Imam al-Kadhem, who died in 799AD and is buried in a mosque near the bridge. The vast gathering was restless after some mortar rounds, presumably fired by Sunni insurgents, had landed by the saint's shrine. A rumour then spread that a suicide-bomber was about to blow himself up in the crowd. It would not have been the first such attack. A suicide-bomber killed scores at the imam's shrine in March last year.

It will be interesting to see how this monumental tragedy will affect the constitutional process. Sunni's have frequently attacked and killed thousands of Shiites, yet Shiites have refrained from seeking revenge. Much of the credit for this goes to Ayatollah Sistani (aka the one guy who has some sort of control in Iraq) who constantly calls for peace. But also Shiites are not infinitely patient. The Economist reports that the "Supreme Council for Islamic Revolution in Iraq (SCIRI), a Shia...militia has been taking the law into its own hands against suspected Sunni insurgents." One reaction to this tragedy could be an emboldening of Shiite militias and a hardening of the Shiite stance on federalism and Baathists.

Of course that could end up destroying the possibility Shiite consolations in order to legitimize the constitution. How this ends up playing out is going to be vital to the future of Iraq, a country at a crossroads.

-Mr. Alec

Flood links

The marginalrevolution.com had an interesting and link filled article on the economics of FEMA and New Orlean's levee.

Will Baude has a similar article that also has plenty of links.

Marty Lederman at Balkinization has a critique of Bush's seemingly extemperaneous comments after touring New Orleans (also read the comments, they make some good points too).

John Tierney had a good op-ed comparing fires and floods. He draws an interesting parallel between how private fire insurance has helped cities and subsidised flood insurance has hurt.

That is all I've got for now.

-Mr. Alec

Hurricane Katrina's needless blame game

Everyone in the country is justifiably outraged about the conditions that millions in the hurricane zone have suffered. I can not begin to express my sympathy to those who had have lost their houses, their worldly belongings, and their lives. Naturally in situations like these people become angry and I am not just referring to those who have physically suffered. Granted that the situation has been such a monumental failure that it could only be achieved by a collaborative failure by the National Guard, FEMA, the city of New Orleans, the state of Louisiana, the Federal Government, and the White House. But I do think we have to relax on blaming any one or group. For the most part we are just seeing a variety of politicians attempting to further their own lot. Anger at any lack of action two days ago accomplishes nothing. What we can focus on is what can be done and how we can correctly assist as much as possible.

One of the most contentious issues has been the issue of race. All the images from New Orleans show an overwhelmingly black population stranded. The Black Congressional Caucus and NAACP has attempted to make this an issue of race, contending that the response would have been faster and better had the victims been white. But on the other side of the spectrum, the National Review's response to such concerns was needlessly biting and sarcastic:

Sadly, poverty and age have affected who got out and who didn’t, as many of the poor and elderly didn’t have cars or the resources to evacuate. Many of these people are black, but, pace Elijah Cummings, their skin color as such had nothing to do with whether they escaped the city.

If the federal response has seemed flat-footed, does anyone believe that President Bush got on the phone with the head of the Federal Emergency Management Agency, Michael Brown, and said, “Hey, Michael, let’s slow-walk this thing — we’re talking about mostly black victims here”?

Apparently some people do believe it. According to Jesse Jackson, “Many black people feel that their race, their property conditions and their voting patterns have been a factor in the response.” Voting patterns! Louisiana voted for Bush and just elected a Republican U.S. senator. Is it plausible to think Bush wanted to watch the state’s major city sink into chaos for political reasons? Not to mention that the chairman of the Republican National Committee, Ken Mehlman, has devoted his chairmanship to winning more black voters.

I do think that had wealthy white Americans been the ones stranded they would end up better off in the long run. All you have to do is look at the response the Northridge earthquake got, in which the devestated Los Angeles highway system was completely repaired in a couple of years, versus the response to similar disasters in Oakland or Flordia. The basic reason that LA became a model of disaster response was because completely rebuilding LA's infrastructure was incredibly profitable.

But I reject the notion that if the residents of Brentwood or Beverly Hills were stranded in the identical situation of those in New Orleans that they would have recieved federal assistance any faster. The politics of the matter is just too clear. Bush had every reason to get down to New Orleans and help as much as he could. Showing leadership in any situation like this is simple, you get the media to tape you handing out water while you tour the carnage. I don't think it took Bush 5 days to do this because of the race of the victims. In fact if you want to get involved in the politics of this Bush would have more reason to help Lousiana blacks in comparison to wealthy white Californians. First, Lousiana is a swing-state that Republicans need to keep the White House. Second, Republicans are increasingly trying to woo black voters and it is in their interest to keep gaining 2-3% of black voters every year (especially considering that ideologically many blacks should be Republicans).

Obviously Bush has failed politically, this may play out in the mid-term elections (though that is unlikely). But I don't think we should jump the gun and blame the state of those in New Orleans on Bush's political gaffe. The very influential New York Times editorial page achieves nothing by inferring that the Iraqi war is the reason for the state of New Orleans. I also don't think we should blame it on looters, the hysterical Mayor Ray Nagin of New Orleans, FEMA, etc. There is a time for genuine reflection and eventual blame (think the 9/11 commission) and a time for action and solidarity.

-Mr. Alec

PS I strongly encourage people to donate some money. I know many who read this are poor cheap students, but you don't have to donate much. I gave $20 today, I gave $40 for the Tsunami relief.