Science fiction writer John Scalzi weighs in on the pricing fight going on between Amazon and Macmillan (the parent company of Tor, which publishes Scalzi's books). What annoys me about the fight is that Scalzi's got two new books out I want to buy, but the fight is keeping them from being available on Kindle. I'd hate to have to break down and go with paper. It's just so last half millennium.
Fortunately, the solution is at hand: iBooks for the iPad. I suspect that's where I'll be buying most fiction from here on out.
At the House GOP Conference today, President Obama gave by all accounts an excellent performance. Not surprisingly, since he's an excellent speaker and debater. But there is an irony I find quite amusing. Obama said:
The only thing I don't want -- and here I am listening to the American people, and I think they don't want either -- is for Washington to continue being so Washington-like. I know folks when we're in -- in town there, spend a lot of time reading the polls and looking at focus groups and interpreting which party has the upper hand in November and in 2012 and so on and so on and so on. That's their obsession.
But here's the key thing: Obama is best at this. He is best at defusing conflict; he is superb at engaging civilly with his opponents. It's part of his legacy - I remember how many conservatives respected him at the Harvard Law Review. But he needs to do more of this, even though he may get nothing in return. Why? Because unless the tone changes, unless the pure obstructionism and left-right ding-dong cycle stops, we are on a fast track to catastrophe.
That was the core message of Obama in the election. It was one of my core reasons for backing him over Clinton - because he has the capacity to reach out this way. I remain depressed at the prospects for a breakthrough, but this was good politics and good policy. More, please. Do this every month. Maybe over the long haul, the poison of the past has to be worked through with Obama as therapist in chief.
But every single left of center blog I've read today focused mainly on the horse race implications. And every single one thinks that the Democrats came out ahead as a result of this event.
Tomorrow, January 30, at the Reagan Library, I will be speaking at the Federalist Society's Fourth Annual Western Conference, which this year is devoted to the topic State Judiciaries and the Popular Will: What Deference Do Judges Owe to the People?
I'm on the first panel (10:15 am - noon), which is devoted to Should Judges Consider the Economic Climate in Deciding Business Cases?
The recent blogosphere debate over the SEC's guidance on climate change disclosure really ought to be a debate about mandatory disclosure generally or, at least, mandatory disclosure of future trends and uncertainties as required by Regulation S-K Item 303. Which prompts me to repost my October 4, 2004 TCS Daily column:
Mandatory disclosure is a -- maybe the -- defining characteristic of U.S. securities regulation. Issuers selling securities in a public offering must file a registration statement with the SEC containing detailed disclosures, and thereafter comply with the periodic disclosure regime. Although the New Deal-era Congresses that adopted the securities laws thought mandated disclosure was an essential element of securities reform, the mandatory disclosure regime has proven highly controversial among legal academics -- especially among law and economics-minded scholars. Some scholars argue market forces will produce optimal levels of disclosure in a regime of voluntary disclosure, while others argue that various market failures necessitate mandatory disclosure.
Both sides in this longstanding debate assume that market actors rationally pursue wealth maximization goals. In contrast, my work in this area draws on the emergent behavioral economics literature to ask whether systematic departures from rationality might result in a capital market failure necessitating government regulation. I conclude that behavioral economics is a very useful tool, but that it in this instance it cannot fairly be used to justify the system of mandatory disclosure.
The interpretive release approved today provides guidance on certain existing disclosure rules that may require a company to disclose the impact that business or legal developments related to climate change may have on its business. The relevant rules cover a company's risk factors, business description, legal proceedings, and management discussion and analysis. ...
Specifically, the SEC's interpretative guidance highlights the following areas as examples of where climate change may trigger disclosure requirements:
Impact of Legislation and Regulation: When assessing potential disclosure obligations, a company should consider whether the impact of certain existing laws and regulations regarding climate change is material. In certain circumstances, a company should also evaluate the potential impact of pending legislation and regulation related to this topic.
Impact of International Accords: A company should consider, and disclose when material, the risks or effects on its business of international accords and treaties relating to climate change.
Indirect Consequences of Regulation or Business Trends: Legal, technological, political and scientific developments regarding climate change may create new opportunities or risks for companies. For instance, a company may face decreased demand for goods that produce significant greenhouse gas emissions or increased demand for goods that result in lower emissions than competing products. As such, a company should consider, for disclosure purposes, the actual or potential indirect consequences it may face due to climate change related regulatory or business trends.
Physical Impacts of Climate Change: Companies should also evaluate for disclosure purposes the actual and potential material impacts of environmental matters on their business.
When the iPad was announced yesterday I found myself surprisingly uninspired. At first it took me a while to figure out why the new product left me cold. But now I know: my problem with the iPad is that it just won't make my life better, simpler, and less burdensome.
The iPad will not rearrange my life the way the iPhone did.
The easiest way to explain this is to run through how the iPhone changed my life. It made a ton of stuff I used to carry around completely unnecessary. It replaced the following devices:
my old cell phone;
my blackberry;
my Flip video recorder;
my digital camera; and
my iPod.
Here's a list of what the iPad replaces:
That's right: nothing.
The iPad replaces nothing I have. It isn't a usefully functional personal computer and it doesn't work well as a phone. Instead, it would add to the stuff I carry around with me.
I don't see the iPad as something to carry on a daily basis. Instead, I see the iPad as a much more functional version of the Kindle.
The president was wrong about the Supreme Court decision. Obama said, "Last week, the Supreme Court reversed a century of law to open the floodgates for special interests, including foreign corporations, to spend without limit in our elections." ...
There are a lot of grounds to criticize the Supreme Court's campaign finance decision. It will allow corporations to spend shareholder money to influence the election of candidates many of those shareholders don't support. And it does open up a loophole that allows foreign corporations to influence federal elections through their U.S. subsidiaries.
But the Court did not overturn "a century of law." The provision upended by the Court was only seven years old. It was a novel innovation of the McCain-Feingold campaign finance law adopted during the Bush Administration.
By now you will doubtless have read that US Supreme Court Associate Justice Samuel Alito supposedly mouthed the words "not true" in response to President Barack Obama's criticism of the Supreme Court's recent Citizens United decision. Glenn Greenwald criticizes Alito, observing that:
There's a reason that Supreme Court Justices -- along with the Joint Chiefs of Staff -- never applaud or otherwise express any reaction at a State of the Union address. It's vital -- both as a matter of perception and reality -- that those institutions remain apolitical, separate and detached from partisan wars. The Court's pronouncements on (and resolutions of) the most inflammatory and passionate political disputes retain legitimacy only if they possess a credible claim to being objectively grounded in law and the Constitution, not political considerations. The Court's credibility in this regard has -- justifiably -- declined substantially over the past decade, beginning with Bush v. Gore (where 5 conservative Justices issued a ruling ensuring the election of a Republican President), followed by countless 5-4 decisions in which conservative Justices rule in a way that promotes GOP political beliefs, while the more "liberal" Justices do to the reverse (Citizens United is but the latest example).
I agree with Greenwald that Alito's reaction was inappropriate, but I disagree with Greenwald's remedy. I think the core of the problem is that the Supreme Court is not "apolitical, separate and detached from partisan wars." Since the Warren Court era, the SCOTUS has routinely seen fit to weigh in as the final arbiter of one political and cultural debate after another. The solution therefore is simple: Unless the plain text of the Constitution as understood by the Framers is being violated, the SCOTUS ought to leave "inflammatory and passionate political disputes" to the political sphere.
Brandishing an iPad, which appeared similar to an iPhone but with a bigger screen, Mr Jobs said the device would have a wide range of uses, from emailing and web browsing to viewing video and reading e-books....
The iPad will start shipping in the US in 60 days, with a price of $499 for a bottom of the range model which can only connect wirelessly using WiFi and Bluetooth technologies and has 16 gigabytes of storage, Apple said. The top of the range version, with 64 gigabytes and the ability to connect to AT&T’s 3G wireless network, would sell for $829, it added. Mr Jobs said Apple hoped to launch the product internationally in June or July.
The iPad has a screen measuring 9.7 inches diagonally, weighs 1.5 pounds and has 10 hours of battery life, Mr Jobs said.
I want one. I don't need one. But I want one. I love my Mac, my iPod, and my iPhone. They look great. They work great. Very high hedonistic value.
I see no reason to think the iPad will be any different. The iPad will be fun to use at home as an entertainment adjunct and on short trips as a laptop replacement. (Even if the name does sound like a feminine hygiene product.)
The only question is when to buy. There's bound to be a few glitches for early adopters and, if the iPhone is any precedent, the price is bound to come down sooner rather than later.
Apropos of which, the FT article continues:
“Apple generally gets it right the first time, they usually only make minor adjustments later,” said Roger Kay, an analyst at Endpoint Associates.
The American Bar Association Committee on Corporate Laws announces that it
"in December 2009 adopted amendments to the Model Business Corporation Act regarding proxy access for director nominations and reasonable reimbursement for shareholder expenses incurred in proxy contests for director elections." The press release continues:
These amendments expressly provide a vehicle for the directors or shareholders of corporations in Model Act states to establish their own procedures, through their corporation’s bylaws, to allow shareholder access to the corporation’s proxy statement to nominate directors and to allow shareholders to be reimbursed for reasonable expenses incurred in connection with proxy contests for director elections. The December 2009 press release announcing adoption of the amendments and a copy of the amendments is available by clicking here.
The Report just issued describes the committee’s deliberations and conclusions concerning the roles of board of directors and shareholders of publicly-owned companies. In particular, the committee reaffirmed its view that centralized management under the board of directors maximizes corporations’ ability to contribute to long-term wealth creation. The Report also reflects the committee’s belief that shareholders should have a process by which they can participate in a meaningful way in the selection of directors. This belief forms the foundation for the committee’s recent proxy access amendments to the MBCA which enables companies and their shareholders to private order on a company-by-company basis how they will address this issue.
Herbert S. Wander, the committee’s chair, noted, “The committee believes that this Report will be helpful to the corporate governance community in understanding the reasons for the recent amendments to the MBCA, the committee’s emphasis on centralized management under a board of directors, the importance of state corporate law and private ordering and the committee’s future agenda.”
The Report also sets forth the committee’s views on communications among board of directors and addresses certain issues regarding shareholder roles and responsibilities. A copy of the Report is available by clicking here.
I am less enthusiastic than some Committee members about expanded shareholder rights, but I commend the Committee for focusing on the need to
My friend and UCLA law school colleague Jonathan Zasloff opines on President Obama's soon-to-be-announced budget freeze:
If this is true – and right now it is unconfirmed – then there seems little reason to support Obama on anything:
President Obama plans to announce a three-year freeze on discretionary, “non-security” spending in the lead-up Wednesday’s State of the Union address, Hill Democratic sources familiar with the plan tell POLITICO.
The move, intended to blunt the populist backlash against Obama’s $787 billion stimulus and an era of trillion-dollar deficits — and to quell Democratic anxiety over last Tuesday’s Massachusetts Senate election — is projected to save $250 billion, the Democrats said.
The freeze would not apply to defense spending or spending on intelligence, homeland security or veterans.
I’m trying to think of what could possibly be a worse plan. Let’s see: we might be entering a double-dip recession and unemployment is in double-digits, and you are going to freeze spending? What in God’s name are they thinking?
Perhaps the worst thing about this is how it cedes the ideological ground to the Republicans. At some point someone must make an argument for government. I think it was former Senator Paul Simon Harry S Truman who said: “give the voters a choice between a Republican and a Republican and they will choose a Republican every time.”
What next? The rotting corpse of Andrew Mellon as Treasury Secretary? Or do we already have that?
UPDATE: Seemingly confirmed by the New York Times. Why exactly did I give money and make calls for this guy in 2008?
Plus, of course, there's the small point that even if the plan does save $250 billion, that's only three percent of the roughly $9 trillion in additional deficits the government is expected to accumulate over the same time period.
Anyway, I know it's unbecoming of me to revel in a little schadenfreude, especially at the expense of a friend, but I can't help taking a certain amount of amusement from watching my leftie friends' heads exploding these last couple of weeks. It makes up a little for all the ribbing I took when Obama won.
