The Faculty Lounge

Free Downloads And The Risk Of Viruses: The Case of the Kenneth Feinberg Lecture

What are the odds of contracting a computer virus when you download a free file?  I was pondering this question yesterday as I found an apparent link to a lecture I wanted to share with everyone.  It's the annual time to collect CLE credits and this year I purchased an hour-long lecture (worth one highly valued ethics credit) by Kenneth Feinberg.  Feinberg supervised distribution of compensation to 9/11 victims and he gives a great talk - raising interesting issues and telling compelling (and yes, humorous) stories.  He gave a very similar lecture at Alabama, when I was on the faculty, and we later published it in the Alabama Law Review.  After watching the CLE version of the talk, I wanted to post a link so that others could enjoy it.  He's given this talk many times, I think, so I figured at least one should be available for download.  And I did find a download that purports to be Feinberg giving the Pope and John Lecture at Northwestern University.  The problem: Northwestern does not provide a download of the speech...Kohit.net apparently does.

But I'm a virus-phobe.  And I don't really know what Kohit.net is.  So I never downloaded the talk to see if it's similar to the others Feinberg has given.  But this did lead me to wonder if my fear is grounded.  That is: as an epidemiological matter, are computer viruses actually widespread?  Is this a likely place to contract one?  We know that the threat of computer viruses is a weapon used to deter illegal downloads.  We also know that millions of people download anyway...which, if one believes in consumer rationality, suggests that they viruses are not in fact a big danger. 

What is the reality here?  Should people feel free to download Feinberg's talk here?  I'll leave that one to you.  And if his speech is good, let me know!

Scholars Ponder The Process of Writin' and Citin'

Howard Wasserman over at Prawfs has a great conversation going on about this narrow but absolutely critical scholarship question:  how do you write?  Do you draft the piece freestyle, straight from your head, lightly cited?  Or do you write 'n cite - sketching out the text and inserting footnotes all at the same time?

This is a question that I've never actually discussed with other profs, but one that always vexes me when I'm at the drafting stage.  In my own experience, I tend to do a sloppy mix of both.  I surround myself with all the source material as if I'm going to write 'n cite, but end up doing most of the drafting without inserting footnotes.  The reams of paper function as my security blanket, confirming that a) I'm not making it all up and b) at some point I'll be able to prove that I'm not making it all up.

Whatever your preference, I think you do yourself a real favor by making a strategic decision on this early on.  That way, you can structure your production process around the inevitable need to finish with a fully cited work.  For example, I do extensive outlining before I write.  In fact, part of my ritual is to make a trip to the office supply store to purchase an 11x17 sketch pad, on which I create this outline.  I like lots of room to insert new points.  I note sources on this outline - often without page cites.  I can then refer back to the outline when I later need to generate footnotes. But I also agree with Hillel Levin that, sometimes, you need to switch approaches simply to break writing blocks. 

There is one risk to drafting from your head, footnoting later: you must make sure you actually cite all the ideas (and particularly language) you've borrowed from others.  It's possible that this approach does slightly increase  the risk of inadvertant plagarism. 

For new scholars, the important take-away from this dialogue is that there are different ways to crack the nut.  If one method isn't working, turn the ship and head in another direction.  The crucial thing is produce a first draft; the rest is editing.  And who ever heard of editor's block?

(Image?  C'mon!  That's a Citation, of course!)

Lawyers, Hookers, and Parasites

From the NY Times article on the Mayflower Hotel (Washington, DC), describing the historic hotel most recently known as Eliot & Kristen's place:

Perhaps, but scandal’s brush occasionally touches many businesses serving the city’s power elite.     One Carter administration hand who has prospered here pointed out that the number of lobbyists had skyrocketed to 35,000 from perhaps 3,000 when he arrived.

“All of the parasitic industries — lobbyists, political consultants, lawyers and hookers — have gotten bigger and more sophisticated,” he said, though his matter-of-factness was belied by his reluctance to be named in print. “It makes the city more interesting.”

The article can be found here.

Two Questions for Senator Clinton (and Lanny Davis)

  Lanny Davis, lawyer and political advisor to the Clintons, has written a column, "Two Questions for Senator Obama."  Davis asks, in essence, the following:

1.  Would you support a white candidate for the Democratic presidential nomination if he attended a church at which a white minister used the "N" word and indulged in KKK sounding rhetoric, and then continued to attend that church?

2. Would you support that same white candidate if, after hearing such sermons, the candidate appointed the white minister to his "Religious Advisory Committee"? 

Putting aside the obvious -- that Davis asks these questions to fan the flames of racial controversy --here are two questions for Senator Clinton and her mouthpiece, Lanny Davis:   

1. Do you really think that the anger of African-Americans is the same as the white supremacy of the KKK?

2. Do you really think that everything a clergyman says about secular affairs is an expresion of religious faith? 

 

Bill as Hillary's VP?

    Could Hillary Clinton pick Bill Clinton as her VP running mate?  The 22nd Amendment says only that "no person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice" and bars any person who has served "more than two years of a term to which some other person was elected President" from being elected President "more than once."  But Bill would be elected Vice President, not President, and should Hillary die or resign from office Bill would become President but could not be elected to the office.   So, is Bill constitutionally eligible to be VP?  If not, why not?  And if Bill is eligible to be VP, does this constitutional lacuna bother anybody?

Harvard offers Free Tuition for Public Interest Students

Harvard Law School, with an endowment of $1.7 billion, will no longer charge tuition for students who promise to work five years in a public interest job.  On top of their loan forgiveness program, which offers assistance to repaying the costs of law school for students who work in the public interest, students in their final year of law school at Harvard, will not have to pay anything for their third year of law school. Article is here.

Temple Law Announces Dean Finalists

The Temple Law dean search has yielded three finalists: JoAnne Epps of Temple, Paul Schiff Berman of Connecticut (also a finalist at Arizona State), and Wendell Pritchett of Penn (on leave and currently working for Philly Mayor Michael Nutter).   More information here. 

I have added this information to my ever-evolving list of ongoing dean searches.

The Backroom Story: Prada, Gucci, And Fendi Knockoffs On Canal Street

Here is one of those Steven Levitt Freakonomics mysteries I've been pondering recently.  As many people know, designer knockoff bags are sold by vendors on Manhattan's Canal Street.  You can walk up and down the avenue and pop into shallow shops featuring hundreds of handbags for sale.  But if you're seeking genuine fakes - leatheresque handbags that look like Prada and bear the Prada mark - you have to go a step further.  You have to enter the back room.  It's not difficult to get there.  Walk in and ask "do you have Prada?" and you're shown straight back.  In fact, in many cases, an employee will prod "are you looking for Gucci, Chanel?" and point to the back room.  The back room often isn't immediately visible.  It is protected by a closed door (often covered in merchandise like the rest of the walls) and it's staffed by an employee.  But anyone would quickly notice the traffic streaming in and out.  Any snoop with the remotest desire could discover these fakes with ease.  This setup can't possibly deceive police or corporate monitors.

Thus the Levitt question: why do these backrooms exist?  Is there some sort of formal or informal agreement between police or the trademark owners and the vendors?   Do the vendors think these rooms prevent detection?  Do vendors imagine that these rooms reduce the likelihood of active enforcement?  Or is something else going on?  Naturally, I don't have the slightest idea.  The whole process struck me as very odd - a complete charade.  But in our somewhat rational world, I suspect that there are some hard, instrumental reasons for this phenomenon.  Theories, of course, welcome.

Consecutive Sentences and the Right to a Jury Trial

Exciting news for all you sentencing fans:  today the Supreme Court granted cert. on the application of Blakely to consecutive sentences:

Oregon v. Ice, No. 07-901. Does the Sixth Amendment right to a jury trial, as construed in the U.S. Supreme Court's rulings in Apprendi v. New Jersey and Blakely v. Washington, require that facts (other than prior convictions) necessary to imposing consecutive sentences be found by a jury or admitted by the defendant, as opposed to being found by a judge?

From my new home state--I'm so proud!!

Should Male Faculty Wear Suits and Ties--and Wrinkle-Free Shirts?

File this one under: things people are talking about.  Case Western Reserve University Law School Professor Erik Jensen has an op-ed, A Call for Professional Attire, over at insidehighereducaion urging faculty to upgrade our appearance.  He says of faculty:

Instead of being role models, we’ve convinced everyone to slum. As clothing theorist Nicholas Antongiavanni explains in The Suit: A Machiavellian Approach to Men’s Style, “[M]any came to believe the protestation of academics that taste was nothing but a fraud perpetrated by the great to keep down the people."

I think you'll enjoy Jensen's essay, no matter your views on this, ah, pressing issue (ha, ha).  There's a lot to think about here--in terms of how we comport ourselves, the respect we show ourselves and others.  Now, whether respect is shown by physical appearance is an issue on which there can be some disagreement.  Why should my dress be set by what people on Madison Avenue think?  (Or do I sound too much like Anne Hathaway in The Devil Wears Prada?)  Heck, I've worn the same style of wire-rimmed glasses for the last twenty-five years.

Moreover, I think there are lessons in here beyond whether we wear a tie or not.  For instance, we should think about the example we set for our students in modes of analysis and how we treat those around us.   We model all sorts of behavior; I think our fashion sense is one of the less important lessons, though I understand that probably a lot of other people disagree.

Now one question: does anyone really think that it's faculty who've set the standards for students' dress?  ("We've convinced everyone around us to slum.")  Come on.  If that's true, faculty are a lot more powerful than I've observed in my years as a teacher--and as a student. 

Only once has a student imitated my dress (and that was when he dressed up as me for Halloween)--cardigan sweater, wire rim glasses, white button down shirt, even powdered his hair black.  Basically, the whole deal.

Alfred Brophy

Governor David Patterson: A Rare Critic Of Megan's Law

In the search for an understanding of New York's new governor, here's one more tidbit for the pile.  When it came to Megan's Law, he was the rare rational legislator.  Sexual offender registration and notification laws - Megan's Laws - sailed through every legislature where they were introduced.  Backed by powerful anti-crime groups (many framed, accurately or not, as child protection organizations), these bills drove potential critics into silence.  In my 2001 article, Making the Case for Megan's Law: A Study in Legislative Rhetoric, I documented the legislative debate over these laws in both the U.S. Congress and the New York state legislature. 

In the U.S. House, Megan's Law passed by a415-3 vote - and only one Representative (Mel Watt of North Carolina) expressed any concerns about the law.  Several New York legislators felt a bit freer to articulate their anxieties about the law.  Then-Senator Paterson spoke at least once questioning the efficacy of the bill, noting that because the majority of sexual assaults occur within the home, relatively few ever result in conviction.  This small insight might seem so minor as to be unworthy of mention.  But because opposition to Megan's Law was so politically radioactive, his willingness to offer up any critique at all was notable - for several reasons.    First, he was willing to publicly articulate concerns about a third-rail issue.  Second, his critique - ineffectiveness - was sound.  Even if Megan's Law helped reduce recidivism among those on the rolls,  the overwhelming majority of offenders would never be convicted - and therefore never subject to Megan's Law.  Finally, he was pragmatic - the bill was going to pass ovewhelmingly and he appears to have ultimately voted for the bill (as did all but one of his fellow critics).

This is all consistent with what we're hearing about Paterson more generally.  Progressive and pragmatic.

Crack-down on Mothers Using Drugs

The New York Times reports that Alabama has adopted a new law to prevent children from being exposed to drugs--in and out of the womb.  The district attorney in Andalusia, AL argues that pregnant women should be prosecuted for using drugs, saying that "When drugs are introduced in the womb, the child-to-be is endangered."  This concept of chemical endangerment of a child targets meth towns--municipalities with little diversion outside the chemical.  Most often, these victims are white, poor, and young.  Babies born with traces of drugs in their system provide evidence of the mother's drug use.  State officials hold that they are protecting mothers and children, but those prosecuted think otherwise.

The article my be found here.