Two Law Professors Watch "Rogue One: A Star Wars Story"

Professors of law are among the hordes who have stampeded to the movie theaters this holiday season for their Star Wars fix. You may find their ruminations of some interest: law prof the first and law prof the second.

As for me ... No, I haven't gone yet. No, and however heretical this may sound to some people, I'm not all rarin' to go either. It feels like an obligation. I'm thinking that I'd rather go see La La Land, actually, because the combination of Ryan Gosling and Emma Stone was so charming in 2011's Crazy, Stupid, Love.

But! As long as we're on the topic of Star Wars (I've always been more of a Trekkie myself), take a look at this fan's detailed obituary of Leia Organa. Not Carrie Fisher, mind you. Leia Organa.

Nerd Analysis: Syria Fallout

Two professors of national security (backgrounds in history and political science) pen this analysis.  Note: they had diametrically opposed ideas about what should be done about Syria, but they agree that the Putin-Obama deal is a wreck: 

For nearly seven decades, American efforts in the Middle East have been based on a bipartisan consensus—one of the few to be found in U.S. foreign policy—aimed at limiting Moscow’s influence in that region. This is a core interest of American foreign policy: it reflects the strategic importance of the region to us and to our allies, as well as the historical reality Russia has continually sought clients there who would oppose both Western interests and ideals. In less than a week, an unguarded utterance by a U.S. Secretary of State has undone those efforts. Not only is Moscow now Washington’s peer in the Middle East, but the United States has effectively outsourced any further management of security problems in the region to Russian president Vladimir Putin.

UPDATE: OK, how about this negative feedback in the New York Times, no less?  Ouchie.  

Nerd Analysis: Putin and Syria

Historian Arthur Herman ponders the Putin deal, which he sees as a poison chalice:

The deal may save Obama from embarrassment but it makes America look weak. ...

Even more, this Putin deal undoes 40 years of a US policy of keeping the Soviet Union, then Russia, out of a major role in Middle East affairs. Ever since the Yom Kippur War every American administration has recognized that no peace or stability is possible in the region if it becomes an arena for Great Power competition between the US and Russia. This isn't the place to summarize the why and hows of that policy; but what Henry Kissinger and Richard Nixon achieved and we've sustained ever since, has been completely undone by the Obama team over the last four years, especially in Syria.  

This Putin deal puts the seal on that reversal. Iran, Israel, the Saudis, everyone who doesn't read the New York Times will know: Russia now calls the shots. And when Russian personnel flood the country, ostensibly to monitor chemical weapons, and the Russian naval base in Tartus is finished, and we do nothing, it'll be the biggest stand down by a Western power in the Middle East since Suez.

This isn't going to end well.

Fouad Ajami on the Aftermath of Iraq

See what he has to say. Here is a bit of it:

First, look at the map.  To Iraq's east lies Iran and a border of several hundred miles.  Had we kept the residual presence in Iraq we would have had a listening station on Iran's border.  The Iranians knew this, and that was why they were eager to push us out.  The Iraqis were more than willing to have us stay without advertising it.  We squandered that possible advantage.  The Iranians would have had to think things over if we were so close to them and right on their border.  

Bernard Lewis and Fouad Ajami on the "Arab Spring"

Two of the most influential scholars of the Middle East weigh in.  Caveat: their analyses culminate in completely different conclusions.

UPDATE: Thanks for the link, Dignified Rant!

Nerd Analysis: "Shut up and play nice: How the Western world is limiting free speech"

Jonathan Turley, professor of public interest law at George Washington University, has a lengthy editorial on the subject that is more pressing than ever.  Here's a bit of his analysis:

The very right that laid the foundation for Western civilization is increasingly viewed as a nuisance, if not a threat. Whether speech is deemed inflammatory or hateful or discriminatory or simply false, society is denying speech rights in the name of tolerance, enforcing mutual respect through categorical censorship.

Whither Voltaire? As Turley notes elsewhere in his article, part of the whole point of free speech is the right to be offensive: "Of course, free speech is often precisely about pissing off other people — challenging social taboos or political values."  (You may recall that a while back I profiled a history professor who argued that renegades challenging social mores often resulted in more freedoms for everybody. You can read his new-ish book too.)

Is the Chinese Communist Party Doomed?

Professor Minxin Pei has a question: Is the CCP doomed?  It couldn't happen to a nicer bunch of people.  Still, here's a thought - change or die:

The answer to the question of how a one-party regime can manage its own political transformation to save itself is more interesting and complicated. 

Essentially, there are two paths for such regimes: the Soviet route to certain self-destruction, and the Taiwan-Mexican route to self-renewal and transformation.

Thoughts on Paul Ryan

The choice of Generation X?  (Well, we're "the Screwed Generation," after all, though that's a rant for another post - and, believe you me, I will rant if given half a chance, since plenty of Boomers seem perfectly happy to eat their young, metaphorically.)  Interestingly, this article was written by a center-left member of Gen X.  

In the New York Times editorials, of all places, comes this argument why moderates should like Ryan.

Remember that Ryan's budget plan was praised by none other than Erskine Bowles, the Democrat who co-chaired Obama’s National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform.  Here's the video.

Finally, look at this list: http://economistsforromney.com/
Now think about this.  As Alessandra and I were saying earlier tonight, WOW, you know the economy's shot to hell if you find so many economists - including Nobel laureates and Ivy League econ professors - willing to publicize their support for Romney.  Come on, campus culture is heavily tilted to the Left.  It takes some nerve to declare in public, as these professors have, one's support for the anything else.  Now take a look at the list of economists.  Look at their institutions.  These aren't cranks.  These are established authorities and serious academics.  (And I'm pleased to see Greg Mankiw of Hahvahd on the list too, and he's also got this note.)  I counted 5 Nobel laureates and as for the others I quit counting at 200 and I was only at the letter H.

On a somewhat related note: I still wish we could require that every single member of government, beginning with Congress and the executive branch, take Econ 101 and pass it with a B or better before being allowed anywhere near policymaking.

Anyway, sci fi author Larry Correia's opinion is worth a look too because he's got a flair for words.  I repeat my now-uncontrollable desire to see Paul Ryan beat Joe Biden like a drum during the VP debates.

Oh, and I debated with myself whether to link to this uproarious Onion satire since it's so pottymouthed, but it's late, I'm tired, and I revert to my old mantra of discourse (i.e, "Screw 'em if they can't take a joke").  I had previously stated that I'm pretty sure the Obama camp is terrified of Paul Ryan, and apparently the Onion thinks so too.  Satire Alert: Take a look at this hilarity written in the guise of Ryan: "Admit It, I Scare the Ever-Loving Sh*t Out Of You, Don't I?"  Here's a blurb:

"I’m young, I’m handsome, I’m smart, and I’m articulate. And that scares the ever-loving sh*t out of you. You can pretend like you have this thing in the bag, but you know good g*dd*mn well that this race just got real interesting, real fast."

Reading Recommendations From An Econ Prof

Usually this sort of thing would have me rushing for the doors, but econ professor Art Carden (Samford University) has some interesting-looking choices.  Carden also links to some cool TED talks and free online lectures.  Ain't technology grand!

6 Policies That Economists Love And Politicians Hate

Hmmmmmm (and on NPR, no less!). Here are two of the policies:

Three: Eliminate the corporate income tax. Completely. If companies reinvest the money into their businesses, that's good. Don't tax companies in an effort to tax rich people. 

Four: Eliminate all income and payroll taxes. All of them. For everyone. Taxes discourage whatever you're taxing, but we like income, so why tax it? Payroll taxes discourage creating jobs. Not such a good idea. Instead, impose a consumption tax, designed to be progressive to protect lower-income households.

A Law Prof Annotates the Declaration of Independence

A fascinating commentary for a glorious document. Commentator Randy Barnett is the Carmack Waterhouse Professor of Legal Theory at the Georgetown University Law Center, where he teaches constitutional law and contracts. Here's a bit of it:

The assumption of natural rights expressed in the Declaration of Independence can be summed up by the following proposition:  “first comes rights, then comes government.”  According to this view: (1) the rights of individuals do not originate with any government, but preexist its formation;  (2) The protection of these rights is the first duty of government; and (3) Even after government is formed, these rights provide a standard by which its performance is measured and, in extreme cases, its systemic failure to protect rights — or its systematic violation of rights — can justify its alteration or abolition; (4) At least some of these rights are so fundamental that they are “inalienable,” meaning they are so intimately connected to one’s nature as a human being that they cannot be transferred to another even if one consents to do so.  This is powerful stuff.

Indeed.

The Hungry Dragon: China and Raw Materials

Zambia-born, Oxford-trained economist Dambisa Moyo has a new book out on the subject, and her conclusion is sobering.

Nerd Analysis: The Screwed Generation

Well, that's just freakin' great.  Let's eat the young.  I'm weirdly reminded of The Grapes of Wrath and Rose of Sharon breastfeeding not a baby, but a starving old man.

Niall Ferguson on "London's Last Waltz."

Pessimism.

Nerd Analysis: Niall Ferguson & Europe's Economic Mess

"Farce"?

A Few Thoughts on Sino-American Relations

By Daniel Drezner, professor of international politics at the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy at Tufts University.  Here's a bit of them:

It is easy to look at China's military modernization and interpret it as a dagger placed against the throat of the U.S. and its allies.  It's worth remembering, however, that China currently spends more money on internal security than defense.  Their actual capabilities in the anti-access/anti-denial area are... let's say a bit exaggerated (though growing).  Sure, Beijing wants to expand its sphere of influence -- it's a rising great power -- but it sees its greatest threats as internal rather than external. 

Chen Guangcheng and the CCP: the Aftermath

Professor Minxin Pei, professor of government at Claremont McKenna College, has some thoughts.  I give you a piece of his analysis:

The apparent agreement between Beijing and Washington to allow Chen to go to the United States as a visiting scholar in the very near future may have put an end to this heart-wrenching episode for now, but the fallout from this event, both for Chinese diplomacy and the ruling Communist Party’s ability to maintain control in an increasingly volatile political environment, will be significant and lasting. 

On the diplomatic front, the relative flexibility demonstrated by Beijing in handling this crisis has definitely prevented an even more damaging outcome.  The all-important U.S.-China relationship was spared another body blow. 

Yet, Beijing should find no cause for cheer. The damage done to the Chinese government’s image abroad is incalculable. For almost a week, the world was riveted by the unfolding drama of Chen’s escape. People all over the world cared about Chen’s wellbeing because he was a powerful symbol for courage and social justice. This couldn’t be good news for Chinese leaders, now seen as complicit in Chen’s mistreatment by thugs hired by local government officials. China may have invested tens of billions of dollars, including extravaganzas like the Beijing Olympics and the Shanghai Expo, to boost its international standing. All it takes to undo such “soft power” offensives is one lonely blind man who dared to show to the rest of the world the cruelty and repressiveness of the current Chinese political system.

Read the whole thing.

Niall Ferguson on Israel and Iran

Professor Ferguson argues that arguments against an Israeli strike on Iran are faulty.  Oh, my.  More here:

Nerd Analysis: A Professor of Psychology and the Moral Foundations of Occupy Wall Street

Interesting.

Nerd Analysis: Law Profs on SOPA

Here's a follow-up to my previous post about SOPA.  Law prof Instapundit links to this Stanford Law Review paper by three other law professors.  Here's a bit of it:

Two bills now pending in Congress—the PROTECT IP Act of 2011 (Protect IP) in the Senate and the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA) in the House—represent the latest legislative attempts to address a serious global problem: large-scale online copyright and trademark infringement. Although the bills differ in certain respects, they share an underlying approach and an enforcement philosophy that pose grave constitutional problems and that could have potentially disastrous consequences for the stability and security of the Internet’s addressing system, for the principle of interconnectivity that has helped drive the Internet’s extraordinary growth, and for free expression. 

To begin with, the bills represent an unprecedented, legally sanctioned assault on the Internet’s critical technical infrastructure ...

It goes on from there.  Read the whole thing.  The SOPA mess is basically saying, "hey, let's cure the disease by killing the patient."  Part of the problem is that the Congresscritters behind SOPA and Protect IP apparently have absolutely no freaking idea how the Internet works.  Oh, and read this .... and this ... and this.  If you really want to combat piracy, then make better streaming services for legitimate access, DUH.