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

The Colvin Report: Student Playing Hooky Lands Mom Behind Bars

An interesting legal matter has developed out of Kentucky, where a mother was convicted of truancy and sentenced to one week in jail for allowing her middle school aged child to miss excessive school days, 16 unexcused to be exact. Perhaps unsurprising here, this was her second conviction for truancy.

Maybe it is a harsh stance to take, maybe it is the state pushing a little too far on parental responsibilities, but it does send quiet the message.

Here in America, at least in the past few decades, accountability has become a real issue. I mean, what 12 year old kid actually enjoys going to school? Not very many, but thanks to the scorn and persistence of a good parent, most of us make it to school and end up doing better in life as a result.

As children we can't take care of ourselves. The state may not be able to provide everyone with an equal home environment, but they can at least provide a formal education so that children can grow up with a fighting chance to succeed.

Here the mother stole that chance and she isn't alone. Thanks to the ACLU many things are off limits, but I think the Kentucky court made the right decision here.

Perhaps with a little more accountability and a little tough love the education system could improve.

While I doubt it would ever happen, I propose taking this a step farther and punishing parents when children consistently act up and disrupt class for everyone else.

Maybe its radical, but my guess is that you would have a lot less violence in every school, from inner cities to the farm lands, if parents could be sent to jail for the repeated acts of their children.

Can you imagine the kind of beating that Little Jimmy would get after his dad just spent a week in jail for his sons bad decision?

Maybe that is the answer to improving our school systems. What do you think?

McCain, Not This Guy, Should Be Giving His Top Ten Reasons for Dropping Out

Un-electability??

I return from my brief hiatus to discuss the electability of presidential candidates. Most people would agree that Obama has a lead in the race for the nomination. However, after many weeks of debates, campaign speeches, and news articles, I am wondering whether Obama has not shot himself in the foot.

Let me point out a few things. The first is that perhaps some of Obama's comments were taken a bit too far. However, I must note that this is a man running for the highest office in the land and perhaps he should choose his words more carefully. The second thing to note is that the longer the race draws on the more I find out about Obama including his ties to Rev. Wright, among other nefarious characters.

Obama's patriotism has even been called into question, and I know that his will be hammered home if he should win the nomination. I confess, I do not know Obama personally. I've never met the man, and for all I know he could be a good guy. However, in a country of around 3 million people I doubt many people know Obama personally.

Much like me they will be forced to read the news, and listen to the debates. I wonder after listening to all his rhetoric when people will start asking for answers. McCain has already started outlining some of his plans. Granted Obama has said some stuff, but I wonder how long the wave of "change" can last. After his comments in the past months, it looks more like it is Obama himself that is mired in the ways of old.

Michelle Obama to Colbert: "My husband has a better voice."

Click the picture to watch Michelle Obama's appearance on The Colbert Report.

McCain Tries to Show That He Does Understand the Economy

What Is In a Name? Everything.

I just blew the dust of my old, 7th-grade history book, and it tells me that the South's secesion from the Union was for the most part the result of the South wanting to maintain and expand the aberration that was slavery and the North not.

It also reminds me that the President of the South was a man by the name of Jefferson Davis. That, of course, makes him the racist of racists, bigot of bigots.

Well, yesterday a Geoff Davis apologized, as if that were enough, for calling Barack Obama—a 46-year old man—'boy' over the weekend.

Ain't that something.

In case you forgot, Southern whites degradingly called blacks 'boy' during the Jim Crow era to assert a position of superiority.

Geoff is a Congressman from Kentucky—a state that arguably seceded from the Union. But even if not, Kentucky had a pretty active lynch mob.

And with that, it all makes sense. The only difference between the President of the South and that Congressman from Kentucky is how they spell their first name.

The Colvin Report: I Am Bitter!

I find myself here, in State College, small town Pennsylvania, pondering why I am so bitter while I smell the sweet aroma of gun oil that lingers in the air as I clean my Glock 30 subcompact pistol with my aged white t-shirts.

I had just got off the phone, where I told my parents to pray for me and rejoiced over the blessings that my family has received over the past few years. You see, my 7 year old niece, who nearly died in a horrendous car accident, involving a run-a-way driver (who was probably an illegal alien), had just completed her last session of physical therapy. It was a blessing by anyones measures, or at least an ignorant bitter small town boy like myself.

After that, I couldn't help but complain about why I was still unemployed. Why did all the jobs leave Pennsylvania 30 years ago to never return? Why did George W. provide for a lower average unemployment rate than Bill Clinton, but I still didnt have a job?

Finally it came to me.... I would embrace the conservative party and cling to my bitterness as a way to solve my problems. Alas, I figured things out. Now I can put my gun back together, say my prayers, and go to sleep.

Thank God for Annie Oakley.

Completely Self-indulgent Post

I admit, this is only interesting to Obama supporters, like myself. But, this is another difficult test for Obama, and I think this is sharp, and funny, response. Again, self-indulgent, and totally biased post. Had to do it. (sorry, it's long, but try to watch the whole thing)

The Colvin Report: Finally, The Democratic Battle Solved

The World Wrestling Entertainment "WWE" has extended an offer to Obama and Clinton to finally finish things once and for all, the American Way -- in the wrestling ring.

“Forget about who’s better prepared when the phone rings at 3 a.m., and find out who’s better when the bell rings.”

Finally, an answer to our problems.