I’ll be away on family business for a few days, leaving the site in Ted’s capable hands. See you sometime next week.
Archive for April, 2006
Lott v. Levitt IV
David Glenn, in the Chronicle of Higher Education, has the definitive MSM reporting on the affair. (Permanent link here after Apr. 24.) He finds a mixture of scholars who agree and disagree with Lott on the “replicate” question. And, most notably, he does the first incisive investigation into the “peer-refereed” claim in the second count of the complaint—and makes it seem that Lott might not win that dollar after all. To top it all of it, he’s found a prescient quote from the now-late Otis Dudley Duncan:
“There is no excuse,” he wrote, “for continuing the practice of labeling critics or defenders of Lott’s work with offensive epithets and imputing motives to them. This kind of rhetoric simply obscures or distorts the plain evidence of the public record. Maybe it would help if all parties would imagine themselves in a court, serving as witnesses or attorneys. They would quickly be called down for any ad hominem remarks.”
Separately, Tim Lambert recaps my previous post. See if you can spot the subtle differences.
Lott v. Levitt III
A commenter writes: “In the context of refereed economics journals, ‘replicate’ has one meaning only: The use of an author’s data and model to ensure that falsification of findings is not an issue.” Is this so? Here are some more data points, emphasis added in each case:
Sues to compete in high school race by wheelchair
And wins.
Tatyana McFadden, 16, a sophomore at Atholton High School in Columbia, will be allowed on the track at the same time as the other competitors but will be scored separately under a preliminary injunction granted yesterday in Baltimore by U.S. District Court Judge Andre M. Davis.
McFadden complained that the school’s policy of separate wheelchair races made her “feel left out,” because she would often compete alone after track officials refused to let her share the track with runners because of risk of injury. I look forward to the lawsuit if a competitor is injured: the Post notes that an injury hasn’t happened yet, but that sort of Bayesian analysis never stops 20/20 hindsight. (Jon Gallo and Mary Otto, “Wheelchair Athlete Wins Right to Race Alongside Runners”, Washington Post, Apr. 18) (via Lott). Volokh comments, and there are some good notes in the comment section.
House candidate vows to sue rivals
…if they draw any adverse inferences just because she gave testimony under a grant of immunity from prosecution. (Eugene Volokh, Apr. 19).
Overcriminalization
Delaware court hails non-aromatic fee request
Delaware Chancery Court Judge Vice Chancellor Leo Strine, a prominent figure in corporate law, recently was asked to rule on a petition for fees for lawyers who represented a minority shareholder in litigation involving fallen mogul Conrad Black’s Hollinger International. Per the WSJ:
“I feel queasy a lot of the times when I examine applications for attorneys’ fees,” the judge told lawyers in court. “But I have to get right in there, take my Maalox, ignore the vile smell.”
All of which was by way of paying a left-handed compliment to the fee petition before him, which by contrast in Strine’s view had the earmarks of legitimacy. (It was filed by minority shareholder Tweedy Browne Co. and its lawyers, Kirby McInerney & Squire and Bouchard, Margules & Friedlander).
The current case, he added, is different. It “isn’t even close to having an aroma that makes me queasy.”
(Elena Cherney, “When Investors Help Find Fraud, What’s It Worth?”, Wall Street Journal, Mar. 17)(sub).
“Goodbye, war on smoking. Hello, war on fat”
But somehow, “the food industry” doesn’t sound quite as evil as “the tobacco industry.” Something about food — the fact that it keeps us alive, perhaps — makes its purveyors hard to hate. For that matter, the rationale for recent bans on smoking is the injustice of secondhand smoke, and there’s no such thing as secondhand obesity. …
These obstacles don’t make the assault on junk food futile. But they do clarify how it will unfold. It will rely on three arguments: First, we should protect kids. Second, fat people are burdening the rest of us. Third, junk food isn’t really food….
A fact sheet from [Iowa Sen. Tom] Harkin implies that schools should treat milk, French fries, and pizza like soda, jelly beans, and gum.
(William Saletan, “Junk-Food Jihad”, Slate, Apr. 15).
Update: “Million Little Pieces” class actions
Following the revelation that author James Frey presented fantasies as if they were autobiographical fact, enough outraged readers have stepped forward to demand cash damages — or at least enough class action lawyers have simulated the stepping forward of such outraged readers — that defendants Random House and Doubleday are now seeking the consolidation of no fewer than twelve lawsuits filed around the country. The federal Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation will soon consider (PDF, scroll to p. 11) the publishers’ motion to aggregate into one proceeding suits filed in the Southern District of New York, Northern District of Illinois, Western District of Washington, Eastern District of Michigan, Central District of California, and Southern District of Ohio (via Childs). For Ted’s extensive coverage of the Frey scandal and suits, see Jan. 31 and links from there.
Letter from Apple lawyers makes little girl cry
In California, nine-year old Shea O’Gorman wrote a letter to Apple CEO Steve Jobs suggesting changes that she thought might improve the iPod. The letter she got back from an Apple senior counsel, advising her of the company’s policy against considering unsolicited ideas, was brusque enough to reduce her to tears. Following bad publicity, Apple apologized to Miss O’Gorman and says it is revising its policies on communicating with children. The policy against considering unsolicited ideas, of course, “is designed to protect Apple from future patent lawsuits should submitted ideas ever be used.” (“Apple legal makes little girl sob”, MacWorld UK, Apr. 17).