Any fool can make a baby...

Happy father's day.

As an echo from Laurence Fishburne's 'Furious Styles' in Boyz in the Hood (1991), "Any fool with a dick can make a baby, but only a real man can raise his children."

Cost Benefit Analysis of Terrorism

I am a big supporter of cost benefit analysis. For those that shy away from any sort of economics or math a few examples are best:

1. You can go to a fine dining resturant and get a burger for $20. You could go to a chain resturant and get a similar burger for $10. Cost benefit would suggest you should go for the $10 burger becuase you save half your money but only sacrifice a bit of quality.

As you can see cost benefit can be very useful when applied to certain situations. For example, I can do no work and get a good grade or I can do 4x as much work and get only a slightly better grade. I will take the less work. Cost benefit analysis can help people make certain decisions.

However, the main problem of cost benefit analysis is that you need to fix a price to something. In applying the rational to anti-terrorism measures we must attach a certain value to a human life. This task is inherently difficult. For example: Say that I could spend $1 million and reduce the risk of a given terroism attack that would kill 20 people by 10%. Is the measure worth it? Mind you, we don't know who those 20 people are. I for one do not want to be one of the 20 so I will approve the spending. However, I also point out that the risk is not completely eliminated only reduced. Let's say another million would reduce the risk another 5%. Would I do it? Most likely.

As the previous paragraph points out this is essentially the mathamatics of fear. We can all agree that terroism is a random event much like being hit by a bus or struck by lightning. However, we can spend money to reduce the risks. How much money? The how much is the question becuase it is impossible to attach value to life. There is even an argument we should spend nothing becuase such spending does not even eliminate the risk.

Although this piece offers no answers, I merely suggest that anti-terrorism measures take an economic toll as well. It is common for government to use cost benefit analysis to decide how much money to spend on certain projects. However, in deciding whether to fund increased anti-terror measures the theory doesn't work as well. The mathamatics of fear is a tough varible. At which point do anti-terror measures produce diminishing returns measured in restricted freedoms, loss of revenue, and lack of spending on other projects? The question is simple, but with hefty implications: How much would you spend to save a life?

Using Game Theory to Define the Housing Crisis

I was reading an interesting article the other day (hat-tip Congolmerate) on the housing crisis and the best time for investor who can't pay their mortgage to sell. This got me to thinking about game theory a bit.

Here are the basics: Remember when you used to play Monopoly as a kid and someone wanted to trade you a couple properties for your "Boardwalk". Now the boardwalk would give the other guy a monopoly, but the trade would also enhance your position by giving you a monopoly on a "weaker" set of properties. The debate was always whether you should do the trade and bank on the fact that you could get your hotels up and running before the other guy. I also should point out that by not doing a trade you could essential eliminate yourself becuase a 3rd player already had a monopoly and you did not. If you refused the deal you essentially allowed the other guy to win. What a dilemma. How much can you get for the guy you wants "Boardwalk?" Maybe you can get more. However, how long can you afford to hold out before you are gobbled up by the 3rd player?

I posit that many of the same decisions go into make a decision on whether to buy or sell a house. You are in the same position. You have a high mortgage and presumably can't afford the payments. You might be in a better position if you sold the house and "downgraded." However, much like the monopoly analogy, you think of whether you can get a better deal. Maybe by holding out a bit longer you might be get a "better" property. However, if you hold on too long you will be "gobbled up" by the third player (read Bank - who with foreclose). It appears from my observations that many people are stuck in this situation. Do you hold out in an an attempt to gain more, or do you make the "trade" an potentially improve you position, but lose out on the possibility of more short term gain.

Unfortunately, I do not know enough about mathamatics to justify what the best decision would be. I just remember my monopoly strategy. Becuase a trade would put me in the best position, I would usually do it. Considering the other players in the game (in the real world investors), generally seek to hold out for more, the "trade" might seem to be the more viable option. Although the thought of losing the current "property" is tough, it allows the owner to cut their loses and move into a new place that better suits their means. In Monopoly terms, the trade at least gives you a shot at the win.

- ps. If any math majors/professors read this please feel free to add on. Like I said, I'm no math major.

Legal Impacts of Endangered Polar Bears

In case you have not been following the news, on May 14 the Bush administration listed the Polar bear as a "threatened species" "becuase of" global warming. It is unclear what this listing means for the future of polar bears, but I want to explore the legal ramifications of such a listing.

The language that troubles me in the listing, is the "becuase of" part. I note that the admistration went further than listing the polar bear as simply an endangered species. By giving the reason for the decline of the polar bear, the administration has opened up a whole "legal can of worms."

The reasoning is simple. By declaring the source of the threat to the polar bear, the ESA can challenge companies producing greenhouse gases in an effort to thwart the spread of the global warming. Additionally, it would not suprise me if certain environmental groups such as Greenpeace or Friends of the Earth switched tactics and brought lawsuits based on the Endangered Species Act. Prior to declaring the polar bear endangered, such groups had already been bringing litigation against companies for production of greenhouse gases. Declaring the polar bear endangered "becuase of global warming" opens a whole to new tract of litigation that I believe will develop in the near future.

In a prior article currently availible on SSRN and pending publication, I explored the ramifications of global warming lawsuits on corporations and their insurance carriers. I look forward to seeing how this new declaration will impact global warming lawsuits. I suspect there will be an significant increase. However, I wonder if any plaintiff can win on something as nebulous as a global warming lawsuit. Presumably, plaintiffs would have to show that greenhouse gases directly and proximately caused damage to polar bears. Given the science, I doubt sucess is likely, but greenhouse gas emitters should be aware of yet a new wave of lawsuits on the horizon.

I would like to further explore the success of lawsuits asking the courts to slow greenhouse gas emissions in an effort to save an endangered species. However, this is a topic for another article, but I am interested in seeing what readers think.

The Colvin Report: Wrightgate -- Obama Reacts

Judgment. Change. Hope.

Well, its about time.

Take a look at the Washington Post.

He described Wright as his pastor and a man "who provided valuable contributions to our family." He said the Wright who spoke to the press club "is not the person I knew for 20 years."

"When he states and then amplifies such ridiculous propositions as the U.S. government somehow being involved in AIDS; when he suggests Minister Farrakhan somehow represents one of the greatest voices of the 20th and 21st centuries; when he equates the United States's wartime efforts with terrorism; there are no excuses. They offend me. They rightly offend all Americans..."

Obama said he was "particularly angered" by Wright's allegation that the candidate was engaging in political posturing when he denounced the minister's earlier remarks.

"If Rev. Wright considers that political posturing, then he doesn't know me very well," Obama said. "Based on his comments yesterday, well, I may not know him as well as I thought, either."

Now, here is my last problem with the Wrightgate.

It has been known for over a year that Wright was asked not to attend Obama's Presidential Bid Announcement because Obama's advisors knew who Wright was and what he would do to Obama's campaign if associated early.

But what has come out from Wrights recent statements is that although he was asked not to attend Obama's Presidential Bid Announcement, he met Obama and Michelle in the basement to pray.

Can you imagine... Obama felt that he was too controversial to be out in public with him, so he had to hide him in the basement.

This draws to question, was Wright correct in saying Obama is just playing politics? Does it really seem like Obama was unaware of these statements?

Remember, Wright did nothing more then affirm his earlier statements that Obama has been well aware of for years. Wright hit a nerve with Obama and he struck back. The problem is that Wright hit a nerve with America, and Obama could no more disown Wright then his own family.

The Colvin Report: Victim Wright

There isn't much to say on this one. Wright now thinks he is a victim of a "public crucifixion" and that his words were taken out of context.

I'm not sure how statements blaming the U.S. for 9/11, claiming white people invented HIV to bring black people down, calling the USA the U S of The KKK A, or any of the other outlandish comments recorded on video could possibly have been justified by context... but okay.

He contends that he "describes the conditions in this country...[and] Conditions divide, not my descriptions."

So, apparently Wright believes his outlandish statements were truthful and that the media is to blame for making unedited video look bad.

To Wright, "This isn't an attack on Jermiah Wright, it's an attack on the black church." However, as I recall the statements were made by Wright not a church body and had nothing to do with religion.

He calls it an honest dialog about race... but it sounds more like crazy talk by extremists to me.

More disturbing... again Rev. Wright receives standing ovations and goes unchallenged.

The Colvin Report: Whose To Blame In The Housing Crisis?

I was watching the news this morning when Howard Dean started to attack McCain's plan for dealing with the housing crisis on the basis that McCain said that the ultimate source of the problem rests on the individuals who took out loans they couldn't afford.

I am not going to address the plan itself or what sort of regulation is needed to prevent this from occuring in the future, but I want to address Howard Dean's response.

According to Dean, there is no need for individual accountability. He believes the government should bail people out and the problem will be solved.

However, the source of the problem has to be recognized and accounted for, it cannot be ignored.

The fact of the matter is that many of these home owners took out loans with variable interest rates, knowing the interest rates were at an all time low and would soon rise. They chose these variable interest rates because they could not afford the payments on the loan at the fixed rate. These were people that would not have been able to afford to buy a house without the low interest rates and the banks relaxed credit policies.

Yes, that is right, these people took out loans when interest rates were at historic lows, while there was a 100% possibility of interest rates rising and then these same people were baffled when they couldn't make payments at the higher interest rates.

Maybe banks should have looked deeper into the candidates reported income and ability to repay when the interest rates fluctuated, but the underlying problem is accountability. These individuals are ultimately the ones who over-stretched their finances and in some cases lied to banks.

To suggest it is somehow improper to ask individuals to be accountable for their decisions is unreasonable. Battle over a solution, but don't blame McCain for stating the obvious reality.

Accountability, an interesting concept.

The Colvin Report:Obama The Debate Dodger

Obama is back to dodging debates again.

No "change" here. He is back to the same excuse. "I'm not ducking. We've had 21"

But, much like most of Obama's rhetoric, it is just rhetoric.

One-on-one, Obama and HIllary have debated 4 times and they haven't turned out so well for Obama. Apparently "Yes We Can" doesn't encompass debating one-on-one with opposing candidates.

In the latest debate dodging debacle, HIllary even offered to have a 90-minute debate unmoderated, Lincoln-Douglas style, to ease Obama's fears of being called out on his questionable connections to terrorists, racists, and extortionists.

Not enough for Obama. Perhaps it is playing good politics, but isn't that what Obama is suppose to change?

Its the equivalent of saying you don't take lobbyist money to run your campaign, but then giving them physical posts in your campaign and encouraging their wives and employees to donate to the campaign. It just doesn't add up.

Any other election season, a debate this late in the game would be unneeded, but that is not the case right now. The democrats still have two horses in this race and supporters from both sides are not backing down. The people need to see the candidates face to face and hear their plans for America. A speech is nice, but people want to hear him take tough questions and watch him respond without a script.

I believe Obama is making a big mistake, especially when an overwhelming percentage of Hillary supporters say that they would support McCain in a general election over Obama.

The Colvin Report: Trinity United Church of Chicago

In all likelihood Obama will be the Democratic nominee, unless something drastic happens. So, I wanted to look a little deeper into Obama's church because it will receive attention in the national election.

I have heard many say that the sound bytes were a few stupid things cherry picked from 40 years of sermons and that they in no way reflected upon Obama himself. But, I wanted to look a little deeper into the foundation of the church, who they are modeled after, and what their vision really is. So here it is.

Wright has said that a basis for Trinity's philosophies is the work of James Cone, who founded the modern black liberation theology movement out of the civil rights struggles of the 1960s. Particularly influential was Cone's seminal 1969 book, "Black Theology & Black Power."

Here is a tidbit of James Cone: "Black theology refuses to accept a God who is not identified totally with the goals of the black community. If God is not for us and against white people, then he is a murderer, and we had better kill him. The task of black theology is to kill Gods who do not belong to the black community… Black theology will accept only the love of God which participates in the destruction of the white enemy. What we need is the divine love as expressed in Black Power, which is the power of black people to destroy their oppressors here and now by any means at their disposal. Unless God is participating in this holy activity, we must reject his love.”

Yes... that is what Cone, the inspiration of Obama's church foundation, thinks about religion. Coincidentally, be believes white church's are the antichrist.

In an interview, when Cone was asked which church most embodied his message, he responded "I would point to Trinity first." Cone also said he thought that Wright's successor, the Rev. Otis Moss III, would continue the tradition.

Cone is cited on the Trinity website and his visions follow the posted "black value system."

So now i ask, if these sound-bytes we have heard follow the vision of the church, then how is it that Obama didn't know and how is it that Obama didn't quit this church.

You have to question a mans judgment when he makes such a bad decision. Extremism is bad on every spectrum and it is not something our politicians should embrace.

Even if we accept the argument that he joined the church for political reasons, that still shows bad judgment.

We can get some insight from Dwight Hopkins, a Trinity member and liberation theology professor at the University of Chicago's divinity school "As a community organizer, would people join Trinity? Yes!"

However, "someone who wanted to run for public office would think twice about intentionally using Trinity as a leverage," Hopkins said. "When it's Election Day, all the politicians come to Trinity. But not every day."

Again, I am not saying Obama follows these views, but it does cast doubt on his judgment and his integrity as he continues to play off of plausible deniability.

JEDI MIND TRICKS

In the spirit of keeping things fair, I'm posting this video that while being funny is actually how a lot of non-barack obama followers really see the situation.

The things Obama has overcome would have destroyed any other politician in history and some of us look for a reason.

Some say he is running on a movement instead of a platform.

Others call it cult like.

But some credit Jedi mind tricks.

Baracky: The Movie