Blog

Between 2009 and 2020, Josh published more than 10,000 blog posts. Here, you can access his blog archives.

2020
2019
2018
2017
2016
2015
2014
2013
2012
2011
2010
2009

The Chicago Public School Strike and a “Natural Experiment” About Crime

September 13th, 2012

Today the Onion had a sharp headline: “Chicago Public Schools Celebrate Third Straight Day Without Any Student Violence.” Once again, The Onion hits very close to reality.

A few days ago the Chicago Police Department stated that they are prepared for a potential influx in crime if over 300,000 students are now on the streets, or not in their normal environs in schools.

“We do have concerns and we’re working with CPS to ensure that rival gang members are not put into the same places,” McCarthy said.

“The fact is, we just came out of the summer where those kids were not in school for the most part anyway,” he said. “So it’s really just going to extend exactly what we’re doing.”

He says he’s working with the Chicago Public Schools to make sure rival gang members aren’t placed in the same school.

McCarthy says police resources will be concentrated well into the early morning hours.

“If the kids aren’t in school, the likelihood is they’re going to be awake later and perhaps out on the street,” he said.

The strike, if it goes on for a while, may create a very interesting natural experiment about how this influx of out-of-school students affects crime rates.

Two years ago, Freakonomics wrote postulated about a similar natural experiments that may be conducted following the forced prisoner release in California in Brown v. Plata. Notably,  Justice Alito’s dissent in Plata heavily relied on a natural experiment-prisoner release in Philadelphia in the early 1990s.

What happens if California cannot meet the prisoner reduction order from Brown v. Plata?

August 17th, 2012

It seems that California may not be able to reduce prison population levels to those required by the Ninth Circuit, as approved by the Supreme Court in Brown v. Plata.

California’s progress in relieving its teeming prisons has slowed so much that it probably won’t comply with a court-ordered population reduction, and judges have raised the prospect of letting some inmates out early.

Three federal jurists have given the state until Friday to come up with a schedule for identifying prisoners “unlikely to reoffend or who might otherwise be candidates for early release” and to detail other ways to hasten the emptying of double-bunked cells.

In the interim, the judges have ordered California to “take all steps necessary” to meet their existing deadline for population cuts.

In Plata, Justice Scalia chided Justice Kennedy’s majority opinion for its unrealistic expectations, but also for urging the court of appeals in advance to show flexibility in the event that California fails to meet the deadline.

I suspect, however, that this passage is a warning shot across the bow, telling the District Court that it had better modify the injunction if the State requests what we invite it to request. Such a warning, if successful, would achievethe benefit of a marginal reduction in the inevitable murders, robberies, and rapes to be committed by the releasedinmates. But it would achieve that at the expense of intellectual bankruptcy, as the Court’s “warning” is en- tirely alien to ordinary principles of appellate review of injunctions. When a party moves for modification of an injunction, the district court is entitled to rule on thatmotion first, subject to review for abuse of discretion if it declines to modify the order.

So perhaps the coda is nothing more than a ceremonial washing of the hands—making it clear for all to see, that if the terrible things sure to happen as a consequence of this outrageous order do happen, they will be none of this Court’s responsibility. After all, did we not want, and indeed even suggest, something better?

Kennedy’s “coda,” urges the 9th Circuit to show all flexibility. Let’s see what the 9th does if California fails to meet its burden.

What percentage of news would be written by computers in 15 years?

May 8th, 2012

15%. A very cool piece in Wired that looks at whether an algorithm can write a news story better than a human reporter.

Hammond assures me I have nothing to worry about. This robonews tsunami, he insists, will not wash away the remaining human reporters who still collect paychecks. Instead the universe of newswriting will expand dramatically, as computers mine vast troves of data to produce ultracheap, totally readable accounts of events, trends, and developments that no journalist is currently covering.

That’s not to say that computer-generated stories will remain in the margins, limited to producing more and more Little League write-ups and formulaic earnings previews. Hammond was recently asked for his reaction to a prediction that a computer would win a Pulitzer Prize within 20 years. He disagreed. It would happen, he said, in five.

And this bit about how engineers can teach computers to tweak narratives is fascinating:

The startup’s first customer was a TV network for the Big Ten college sports conference. The company’s algorithm would write stories on thousands of Big Ten sporting events in near-real time; its accounts of football games updated after every quarter. Narrative Science also got assigned the women’s softball beat, where it became the country’s most prolific chronicler of that sport.

But not long after the contract began, a slight problem emerged: The stories tended to focus on the victors. When a Big Ten team got whipped by an out-of-conference rival, the resulting write-ups could be downright humiliating. Conference officials asked Narrative Science to find a way for the stories to praise the performances of the Big Ten players even when they lost. A human journalist might have blanched at the request, but Narrative Science’s engineers saw no problem in tweaking the software’s parameters—hacking it to make it write more like a hack. Likewise, when the company began covering Little League games, it quickly understood that parents didn’t want to read about their kids’ errors. So the algorithmic accounts of those matchups ignore dropped fly balls and focus on the heroics.

When reading this process of how a story is generated, think how much more work it would be for a computer to write a legal brief:

Narrative Science’s writing engine requires several steps. First, it must amass high-quality data. That’s why finance and sports are such natural subjects: Both involve the fluctuations of numbers—earnings per share, stock swings, ERAs, RBI. And stats geeks are always creating new data that can enrich a story. Baseball fans, for instance, have created models that calculate the odds of a team’s victory in every situation as the game progresses. So if something happens during one at-bat that suddenly changes the odds of victory from say, 40 percent to 60 percent, the algorithm can be programmed to highlight that pivotal play as the most dramatic moment of the game thus far. Then the algorithms must fit that data into some broader understanding of the subject matter. (For instance, they must know that the team with the highest number of “runs” is declared the winner of a baseball game.) So Narrative Science’s engineers program a set of rules that govern each subject, be it corporate earnings or a sporting event. But how to turn that analysis into prose? The company has hired a team of “meta-writers,” trained journalists who have built a set of templates. They work with the engineers to coach the computers to identify various “angles” from the data. Who won the game? Was it a come-from-behind victory or a blowout? Did one player have a fantastic day at the plate? The algorithm considers context and information from other databases as well: Did a losing streak end?

Then comes the structure. Most news stories, particularly about subjects like sports or finance, hew to a pretty predictable formula, and so it’s a relatively simple matter for the meta-writers to create a framework for the articles. To construct sentences, the algorithms use vocabulary compiled by the meta-writers. (For baseball, the meta-writers seem to have relied heavily on famed early-20th-century sports columnist Ring Lardner. People are always whacking home runs, swiping bags, tallying runs, and stepping up to the dish.) The company calls its finished product “the narrative.”

And some interesting discussion how data can be gleaned from a baseball game--but are managers listening:

But even if Narrative Science never does learn to produce Pulitzer-level scoops with the icy linguistic precision of Joan Didion, it will still capitalize on the fact that more and more of our lives and our world is being converted into data. For example, over the past few years, Major League Baseball has spent millions of dollars to install an elaborate system of hi-res cameras and powerful sensors to measure nearly every event that’s occurring on its fields: the velocities and trajectories of pitches, tracked to fractions of inches. Where the fielders stand at any given moment. How far the shortstop moves to dive for a ground ball. Sometimes the real story of the game may lie within that data. Maybe the manager failed to detect that a pitcher was showing signs of exhaustion several batters before an opponent’s game-winning hit. Maybe a shortstop’s extended reach prevented six hits. This is stuff that even an experienced beat writer might miss. But not an algorithm.

H/T Corey Carpenter

Randy Barnett, Popular Constitutionalism, and “you may be looking at a political movement in the face.”

March 27th, 2012

At the 2011 ACS National Convention, Randy Barnett made these remarks about the nature of the challenge to the health care law–Fast forward to 1:31:30) (this is my best effort to transcribe it, I know I missed some stuff):

But I do want to get back to the politics of this for a minute. I understand you had a very lively panel on original meaning [yesterday]  . . . But i take it that the valence in this room is kind of not all that sympathetic with original meaning. Original meaning says the meaning of the Constitution must remain the same until it is properly changed. The opposite of originalism, or different position, is that the meaning of the constitution evolves over time to respond to changing conditions or to respond to political initiatives, or what my friend Jack Balkin calls social movements. That is what the alternative to original meaning is, the evolution of constitutional meaning according to social movements. Well, look if you guys believe in that, you may be looking at a political movement in the face.

Political movements sometimes go in your directions, sometimes political movements don’t. If political movements don’t go in your direction, it is difficult to rush in with  copy of the Constitution . . .  and say no, no, no, it is the Constitution that stops you from doing this. Not if at the same time you think that political movements cause the Constitution to change through political appointments, and confirmed by politically appointed Senate. That is just the way business is done.

That’s the way business is done. Not only should you not be surprised. You should also not complain. Except, if that day were to ever come, you were just on the losing end of a democratic process, then you have judicial restraint to fall back on. You have judicial restraint to fall back on to protect the political process you lost.

I want to suggest that maybe, just maybe the original constitution might have something to offer you if you are ever on the losing end of a political movement.

 

In many respects, Barnett–who is the intellectual godfather of the challenge (and featured in this glowing NYT piece)–and his arguments were right out of the liberal playbook of popular constitutionalism and social movements.

And if the Court strikes down the mandate, the supporters of PPACA will be looking at their own argument smack-dab in the face.

I remember way back in October of 2009 when I attended the ACS Constitution in 2020 Conference (at the very beginning of my blog-wow my posts were quite primitive back then). Oh the mood was different. President Obama had just been elected with a huge margin. The Democrats had both houses. The panelists were talking about social movements to advance many progressive causes. The sky was the limit. Boy how things have changed in about three years.

Instant Analysis: Oral Argument in FCC v. Fox

January 11th, 2012

The transcript is here. I don’t have much time but I will focus on some exchanges of interest.

RBG isn’t pleased with the discretion of the FCC determining what is kosher and what is unkosher.

JUSTICE GINSBURG: General Verrilli, I took 24 it from the briefs and what the FCC has been doing that 25 the major objection is that one cannot tell what’s1 indecent and what isn’t; that it’s FCC, the censor, 2 that’s saying “Private Ryan” is okay, “Schindler’s List” 3 is okay, but “NYPD Blue” is not. And I do think that 4 that is the major objection, that we have a — a 5 government agency that is going to make decisions about 6 when nudity is okay and when it isn’t. You can’t do it 7 in terms of time because the “NYPD” was 7 seconds and 8 another broadcast, “Catch-22,” was 40 seconds. 9 So it’s — it’s the appearance of 10 arbitrariness about how the FCC is defining indecency in 11 concrete situations. That I think is the nature of 12 the -­

Kagan talks about tushies:

JUSTICE KAGAN: — because it turns out that 12 nudity — that there really — sometimes it’s allowed as 13 to some body parts and sometimes it’s not allowed, and 14 the commission hadn’t really said anything about it for 15 50 years, and the length of time doesn’t seem to be 16 what’s indicative of anything, the kind of body part 17 doesn’t seem to be, with some limits, what is indicative 18 of anything, so that ABC just didn’t really know.

RBG also asks about Hair and Metropolis, the opera!

4 JUSTICE GINSBURG: If they did an excerpt 5 from “Hair,” could they televise that? 6 GENERAL VERRILLI: I think it would raise 7 serious questions. I think nudity is going to raise 8 very serious questions, and I think-­ 9 JUSTICE GINSBURG: In the opera in the 10 “Metropolis” case there’s a scene where a woman is seen 11 nude entering a bathtub. Suppose that were shown, that 12 scene from the opera.

AMK asked about the V-Chip.

JUSTICE KENNEDY: And then there’s — and 2 then there’s the chip that’s available. And of course, 3 you ask your 15-year-old, or your 10-year-old, how to 4 turn off of the chip. They’re the only ones that know 5 how to do it. 6 (Laughter. ) 7 That does point out the problem with the 8 V-Chip, Of course, the V-Chip is not new. It’s been 9 around for more than a decade, and the — the broadcasters 10 have tried to encourage uptake. The government has 11 tried to encourage uptake. But — but is your point 12 is that the chip technology works better if you have 13 this differentiation between broadcast and cable media?

Kennedy also asked about the v-chip during oral argument in Schwarzenegger v. EMA:

JUSTICE KENNEDY: V-Chips don’t work?
MR. MORAZZINI: I believe the V-Chip is limited to television, Justice Kennedy.

Justice Alito portends the death of broadcast TV in his desire not to reach the issue.

JUSTICE ALITO: What will happen when -­1 when we get to the point where — when there are only a 2 handful of people in the entire country who are still 3 receiving television programs via the airwaves?

JUSTICE ALITO: Well, broadcast TV is living on borrowed time. It is not going to be long before it goes the way of vinyl records and 8 track tapes.

MR. PHILLIPS: I hope that — I’m sure my client is not thrilled to have you say that.

JUSTICE ALITO: Well, I’m sure -­ (Laughter.)

JUSTICE ALITO: I’m sure your clients will

continue to make billions of dollars on their programs which are transmitted by cable and by satellite and by internet. But to the extent they are making money from people who are using Rabbit ears, that is disappearing. Do you disagree with that?

MR. PHILLIPS: No, I — it would be — you know, obviously not, because that’s why we are not uniquely accessible or uniquely pervasive.

JUSTICE ALITO: Yeah. So why not let this die a natural death? Or why do you want us to

intervene -­

Official – Subject to Final Review

(Laughter.)

This is an anti-Burkean (with respect to technology) Burkean (with respect to law) approach. He really does not want to decide this case on First Amendment grounds (kinda like his opinion in Brown v. EMA). The most anti-free speech Justice strikes again! He does not want to touch Pacifica.

NIno talks about decorum at the Court!

JUSTICE SCALIA: Sign — sign me up as 20 supporting Justice Kennedy’s notion that this has a 21 symbolic value, just as we require a certain modicum of 22 dress for the people that attend this Court and the 23 people that attend other Federal courts. It’s a 24 symbolic matter.

And what church is Nino going to where he hears cursing?

GENERAL VERRILLI: And we certainly agree, 5 Justice Scalia, with the point that was made in the 6 Court’s previous decision in this case, that — for 7 example, the words that are in the Fox broadcast, 8 teachers don’t use those words with students. You don’t 9 hear those words in churches or synagogues. You -­ 10 there are many, many contexts -­ JUSTICE SCALIA: Well, you do more and more. You do more and more, since there’s -­ (Laughter.)JUSTICE SCALIA: — since there’s so much of iton-­

Justice Ginsburg notes that people today just won’t be as shocked by bad language:

JUSTICE GINSBURG: You are saying that the 18 standard can still be symbolic, as Justice Scalia said. 19 We want the King’s English — for the very children 20 we’re talking about when they go on the street, when 21 they — their big brother says something to them, it 22 is — the words that were, the expletives, are in common 23 parlance today. I mean, it is — I think that 24 children — the children are not going to be shocked by 25 them the way they might have been a generation ago.

Carter Phillips wants the Court to overrule Pacifica!

JUSTICE ALITO: Well, you want us to 13 overrule a decision of this Court, Pacifica? 14 MR. PHILLIPS: Yes, Justice.

I think the Chief tips his hand a bit–both as a father, and as someone in favor of the government (substituting the pronoun “we” in place of the government):

CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS: But that cuts both 6 ways. People who want to watch broadcasts where these 7 words or expose their children to broadcasts where these 8 words are used, where there is nudity, there are 800 9 channels where they can go for that. All we are asking 10 for, what the government is asking for, is a few 11 channels where you can say I’m not going to — they are 12 not going to hear the S word, the F word. They are not 13 going to see nudity. So the proliferation of other 14 media it seems to me cuts against you.

CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS: It depends on what 5 audience you’re — you’re trying to get, and the 6 demographic. If you are trying to get an audience that 7 is older, maybe you will decide this is what is going to 8 attract them. They don’t want sanitized language. They 9 want to hear the — the — all those other words. If 10 your target is a much younger audience, maybe that will 11 happen. But the idea that you’re — the problem is 12 going to go away because you are going to be good as you 13 can be, that seems an odd way to analyze First Amendment 14 problems.

CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS: People understand -­ what you have demonstrated I think is that the context matters. People understand that, including children. When they hear a bad word when someone hits their thumb with a hammer, they understand that’s different than 2 having an adult stand in normal conversations and use 3 the words. And it seems to me that your position is 4 saying that the government cannot regulate with an 5 understanding of what takes place in the real world. 6 The government’s effort is to try to 7 understand the context. That’s why you get a different 8 rule in “Saving Private Ryan” than you get with Paris 9 Hilton and Nicole Richie. And what your argument seems 10 to be is they can’t take context into account.

This is akin to Alito’s opinion in Brown v. EMA the Chief joined.

I hope this quote makes its way into an episode of The Simpsons or Family Guy:

JUSTICE ALITO: But if we rule in your favor 18 on First Amendment grounds, what will — people who 19 watch Fox be seeing between 6:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m.? 20 Are they going to be seeing a lot of people parading 21 around in the nude and a stream of expletives?

Breyer refers to Paris HIlton and Nicole Ritchie as “two women.” That is charitable.

We don’t have to overrule Pacifica. What 25 Fox was penalized for was two women on television who basically used a fleeting expletive which seems to be naturally part of their vocabulary. (Laughter.)

This passage from Scalia made me think of Lawrence v. Texas.

8 9 clear. JUSTICE SCALIA: Well, that’s not really I mean, if you want us to be really clear you ask the FCC to simply outlaw any fleeting use of 10 should 11 the F word or the S word, any shots of any nudity in any 12 movie, 13 notice 14 that’s 15 buttocks included; that would give you all of the that you need. Why don’t you propose that? Boy, certain as can be.

And the poor mountain time zone–their TV schedule is all wrong:

JUSTICE BREYER: But this wasn’t — I mean, 21 I — don’t know about this instance. It’s called “Nude 22 Awakening,” it’s about the sexual awakening of a child. 23 You ran it, your client, after 10:00 on both coasts and 24 they choose to run it at 9:00 for some unknown reason in 25 the Midwest. Maybe they thought — I don’t know, whatever. 2 (Laughter.)

And Seth Waxman that the frieze of the Court has images of butts!

Right now, as — as Mr. Phillips suggested, the commission has pending before it, which it has not denied for years, complaints about the opening episode of the last Olympics, which included a statue very much like some of the statues that are here in this courtroom, that had bare breasts and buttocks. It — it has refused to say that “Catch-22” — it’s “Catch-22” — right over here, Justice Scalia. (Laughter.) MR. WAXMAN: Well, there’s a bare buttock there, and there’s a bare buttock here. And there may be more that I hadn’t seen. But frankly, I had never focused on it before. But the point -­ JUSTICE SCALIA: Me neither. (Laughter.)

Justice Kennedy gets the badge for stating the obvious:

JUSTICE KENNEDY: Well, we — well, we have to anticipate what the natural results or consequences of our decision will be.

And Kagan for the win:

JUSTICE KAGAN: General, I think that the, 19 the networks really are saying: Well, even if some 20 regulation is permissible, the kind of regulation that 21 the FCC has done here is regulation that gives it 22 complete discretion as to what kind of speech to go 23 after and what not to go after; that it has not tied 24 itself in any way to any kinds of standards. And, it’s, 25 you know, evident in the notion that this — the way hat this policy seems to work, it’s like nobody can use 2 dirty words or nudity except for Steven Spielberg and 3 that there’s a lot of room here for FCC enforcement on 4 the basis of what speech they think is kind of nice and 5 proper and good. And so that’s a serious First 6 Amendment issue.

Justice Scalia would just as well not have Ritchie or Hilton on any award shows! That solves that!

JUSTICE SCALIA: Maybe the third is you 10 shouldn’t interview these people.