Exciting New Project: Filibustery from Newsbound

Filibustery: Episode One from Newsbound on Vimeo.

Filibustery is the first endeavor of Newsbound, a new voice in the news media environment that wants to slow down and take a deeper look into the issues behind the headlines.  Filibustery is a series of short video presentations examining the US Senate's filibuster, its history and its current abuse.  I provided the original illustrations for the video.

The inaugural episode is up and running now.  Stay tuned for further updates and new episodes exploring the filibuster in great detail and other issues in the news.

You can subscribe directly to the Filibustery site, follow it on Twitter and Facebook, and sign-up on Newsbound for updates.

What is this "Standing" Business?

The 9th Circuit Court of Appeal heard oral arguments in the Prop. 8 case yesterday.  If you heard or read any of the news reports, you likely heard about the issue of "standing."  In a case that raises big meaty constitutional, philosophical, and moral issues surrounding marriage--same-sex marriage in particular--you might be surprised that the key issue appears to be basically procedural.

So what is this whole "standing" thing, anyway?  Basically, "standing" means that a party to a law suit actually has an interest in the controversy; i.e. they actually suffered an injury because of another party's action.  It's not enough to simply not like something, or to simply be offended by something someone else does.  You have to actually be injured in some way.

Why does this matter?  At the top, it's about practicality.  Lawsuits consume a lot of time, energy, and money--none of which are limitless--so the legal system has to create some method of limiting the number of potential lawsuits.  If we could all sue anyone simply because we didn't like what they were doing, the courts would be even more backlogged than they already are.  The important cases would get lost in the mess; collective injustice being the result because the courts' ability to redress genuine wrongs would be essentially nonexistent.

That would be bad enough on its own, but there is a deeper issue at work as well.  Standing is also about liberty.  If everyone could sue without showing standing--proving they suffered a real injury--then no one could live freely.  Your personal liberty should not be curtailed unless the exercise of that liberty harms others.

Consider the standing issue in the Prop. 8 appeal.  Supporters of Prop. 8 brought suit to keep same-sex couples from marrying.  The court wants to know how same sex marriage actually harms anyone?  Clearly, if there is a fundamental right to marry that the people of California cannot deny same-sex couples, those same-sex couples are injured by Prop. 8's enforcement.  The same cannot be said of people who oppose same-sex marriage.  Sure, they may not approve but that is thin ice in terms of injury.  Essentially, the court is asking Prop. 8 defenders, "where's the beef?"

The California Bar Exam is a Monster . . .

. . . and I killed it.

Economic Propaganda in Comics!

The good folks at Planet Money inform me that the Federal Reserve published a comic book about monetary policy.

Contrary to legend, the X-Men don't spend all their time battling Magneto.

There's also this 1945 "comic" (really just illustrated bullet points) about how war time economic policy can lead to facism, courtesy of General Motors.

Or maybe you join the party for their artificial elbow implants.

In the spirit of equal time, here's another "comic" about the "Money Myth."  It's long and, well, stupid, but worth checking out if you like your fools raw and unfiltered.

The Evil Banker Oliver Demands Repayment.

Just Say No

I'm in the throes of studying for my Anti-Trust final. As I go back over my notes, outline, and the cases in the book, I can't help but be struck by the government's tenacity in enforcing the law. The DOJ can't just smack a company for violating the anti-trust laws. It has to prove the allegations in court and the judicial branch isn't shy about restraining the executive. But the DOJ and FTC just keep coming back for more.

Why didn't I think of that?

This may seem normal to us but it's a hard balance to strike. One of the hardest challenges facing poor countries is how to create institutions that will enforce the law and not just cater to the whims of whoever's in power. When you don't have "robust" institutions, you have a lot of corruption and exploitation. How do you create a group of people who are more-or-less incorruptible when the entire environment is rife with corruption?