Comments on: Just because I’m not working doesn’t mean you can’t Blog, news, books Tue, 10 Oct 2017 06:01:00 +0000 hourly 1 By: Shouffboobmus Fri, 05 Apr 2013 18:02:51 +0000 So as to turn into qualified to get an easy Payday loans, you must met the criteria. Specialist a financial expert can help you get an expert personal opinion for all your credit problems. If the borrower fails to repay the credit on the specified date, a fee is charged. Reason behind of it is regarded as no credit check required. payday loan payday loans uk , )b5F”

By: Shouffboobmus Thu, 04 Apr 2013 07:08:47 +0000 So, get this loan and meet cash worries at the present! Bad credit personal loans do not at all differ too much from loan made to folks with good quality credit, except for the interest rates. No matter how hard we plan to handle all of life’s harmful emergencies, it seem that something always comes up that wants a short term loan. On average, 33 percent to a Social Security customer’s deposit goes toward outstanding bank payday financial and fee. payday loans Payday Loans Online Uk , )a9L

By: Shouffboobmus Fri, 29 Mar 2013 07:24:06 +0000 There were a surge lately of payday loan companies. Frequently, understanding that they have competition for your company will cause a bank to give you less rate of interest and other benefits in order to win your favor. uk pay day loan But a few things should be known by you before registering. In accordance with a law that Congress created called the Fair Credit Reporting Act, you simply have an adverse mark on your own credit report for no more than seven years.

By: bxohhxwhvl Fri, 18 Jan 2013 19:45:31 +0000 hp3eXv , [url=]klwfnyjcmldt[/url], [link=]oqrptaoojyfp[/link],

By: gvbgdkb Thu, 17 Jan 2013 08:26:43 +0000 RKkPUW vtqvwuunxlkm

By: Lilia Wed, 16 Jan 2013 13:51:30 +0000 That cannot be Hitler, Hitler was the leeadr and starter of Nazism but when the U. S. Army came to his house (where he was living) Hitler didn’t want to be persecuted so Hitler either shot himself, his wife and kids or he hung himself just. I guess you should brush up on your World War II history.. Hitler could not be in this movie because he died at his place where he lived at that time. If it were to be Hitler then they must be fighting in Germany.

By: Evdokiya Wed, 16 Jan 2013 12:40:30 +0000 Treyarch! We want to get out of map in zombies. We want gethcils!But if it has to be patched, ATLEAST make a zombie mode were you have more friends and unlimited ammo (which of course is disconnected from leaderboards). Wherewe can just have fun and explore! a8Thumbs up if you agree! Together we can change!Copy Paste this comment to as many zombie glitch videos as possible Because thats how treyarch find gethcils to patch, searching on youtube

By: kgmhva Mon, 14 Jan 2013 21:40:23 +0000 26eXj8 , [url=]iqcnndqgvuhv[/url], [link=]ansnjrowvpsx[/link],

By: iigzfekq Mon, 14 Jan 2013 21:40:19 +0000 JCGdC9 , [url=]azfprfqflanu[/url], [link=]wmkxhsdmrube[/link],

By: Billy Mon, 14 Jan 2013 11:59:06 +0000 excellent, Bob. grab a cold one as my way of saying conargts . here’s to many more years of B&R, enlightening discussion, boneheads and other things of the day, and a general increase in fan base. what has it felt like to still be creating an amazing legacy?

By: Santyahh Mon, 14 Jan 2013 04:50:10 +0000 Its a great idea, coupled with acitve refusal to give/encourage any form of bribes…it may be possible to see some change atleast when the younger generation take on the mantle…If there is a March in my town, I’d definitely take part…

By: Maria Mon, 14 Jan 2013 04:15:27 +0000 Viking, that is very sensible aprpaoch,if you can avoid then it is better to stay away from bribes. I haven’t had here too many business transactions beside personal issue (buying house etc) and i have always avoided any payments whatsoever. My experience says that for normal person (except hospitals) you can avoid bribes if you don’t expect special treatment. My impression also after talking to people who do serious business here is that they are pretty common in certain situations, although the amounts actually are smaller (mostly) than are standard practise in countries that are not even far away (especially towards south west). Personally biggest surprise was one major english speaking continent where the amounts were signficant indeed. Seeing same people publicly comdemning bribes while sending you their fees was quite an experience.

By: Latoya Mon, 14 Jan 2013 01:08:07 +0000 It’s good to get a fresh way of loonkig at it.

By: Doug Dingus Thu, 09 Aug 2007 21:10:06 +0000 Been thinking about what is corruption. I’m not shy about saying I am really looking forward to this topic seeing the Lessig treatment! I learned so much about law, tech and people from your CODE efforts. Here’s to a great ride.

So far, I’ve broken it down to process corruption (where our existing process encourages unfavorable legislation), authority corruption (where not everyone is willing to accept the rule of law), finally corruption in reasoning. (compartmentalization)

Example of process corruption:

This was mentioned above –sort of: not having Single Subject Legislation. (SSL)

Not enforcing SSL is an enabler. (for corruption)

Right now, it’s difficult to both set and manage expectations. Debates do not have boundaries and are not valid because they are influenced by matters outside the scope of the subject at hand. I believe this is part of what will become defined as corruption here in these circles.

For a given subject matter, point at hand, etc…

There are arguments and they have elements that all add up to some measure of validity. As those involved engage the process, points are made, taken, set off the table, etc… until some consensus is reached. In this, we then have a decision.

If all points are treated equally and rationally, the idea of checks and balances then more or less forces the decision to be defensible, as all parties must see their valid points considered. This is true, unless we have a significant percentage of people not willing to be rational, for whatever reason. I don’t know what that percentage is, only that it is a factor.

Allowing riders changes the game. Once the decision involves matters outside it’s sane scope, we then no longer treat points or people equally and it’s highly likely to also involve being non-rational as well.

This is obviously simplistic, but adequate for my purpose here.


Bob brings point to the floor that more or less nullifies the point Joe made earlier. Some rational discussion leads to Bob taking the point in his favor, thus building toward the consensus in a rational way. Joe then realizes he left with acceptance, or some work to better support his point of view.

A non-rational Joe would explore other options, such as smearing Bob to impact his point for those foolish enough to entertain those kinds of things. Let’s assume that Joe is rational for the moment.

The end result of these kinds of deliberations is highly likely to be defensible overall, thus the people will see it as “fair” and or “just”.

Now, let’s say Joe knows this is coming, but does not want to accept his position. He can lobby for a rider that will impact Bob significantly. Perhaps this is something very valuable to Bob, or damaging, it really does not matter. What does matter is that Bob now has a strong incentive to NOT bring his winning point to the table, leaving the deliberations imbalanced and the potential to arrive at a non-defensible consensus then becomes reality.

Clearly a non-rational Joe would explore these things, along with other attacks on Bob, or those that support Bob, in an attempt to sway the discussion his way, regardless of merit.

However, a completely rational Joe would still be likely to entertain riders because the process allows for it. IMHO, this is a process corruption. A rational Joe would not attack Bob, but would work to influence Bob. If said influence lies outside the scope of discussion, and is permitted, that is process corruption.

The end result of this is that EVERYTHING ends up being political. Who you know, what you have and who supports you trumps all.

Said rider could also lie within the scope of the subject being deliberated. While it’s impact on the rational balance of the deliberations is the same, it being within the scope, really just manifests itself as a means to make arguments. I don’t see this as a problem, to be clear.

How can this behavior be justified?

That leads to authority corruption:

The US is setup essentially so that the rule of law is the highest authority where power of the government over the people is concerned. We are all free to abide by our own personal highest authority, however we must respect the rule of law, particularly where our decisions and actions can impact others ability to make their decisions and actions freely.

Authority corruption is where the rule of law is treated as an arbitrary thing. The laws are fine, so long as they reinforce whatever personal authority happens to govern. Thinking like this means the law is a tool to be leveraged toward specific goals –a simple control scheme.

eg: (I don’t mean to offend)

Let’s say Joe’s personal highest authority says that acting a specific way, or doing a specific thing is not approved. (evil, bad, a sin, etc…) There is no rational support for this idea, only some construct Joe considers authoritative.

Joe then, can ignore the law, rules of engagement, however he sees fit as these are mere constructs of man and therefore only serve his authority. Attaching a damaging rider, attacking the other person, manupulating means, methods and processes are all on the table as far as Joe is concerned. These actions are defensible because his authority says they are defensible, and he knows a lot of other people consider his personal authority to be the highest one, just as he does.

This leads to corruption in reasoning:

Essentially this is confusing conviction with truth. If one accepts one or more beliefs as truth, and one of the core ideas that compose said belief require denial of our general ignorance in these matters as a race, one then ends up in a position where truth is an arbitrary thing.

On the other hand, if one accepts one or more beliefs as truth, and is convinced of this, but also remains aware of this being a personal choice where others may differ, the matter of conviction is clearly differentiated from that which is known to be true.

Engaging in the former requires one to compartmentalize ones reasoning, thus making that which we know to be rational an arbitrary thing. Put very simply, it is essentially like saying, “This is true because I think it’s true.”, which is circular.

This then is a fallacy and false on matters of form alone. Accepting a fallacy as part of ones body of core truths then makes one unable to reason rationally, and therefore unable to contribute to the process in a just and true fashion.

Again, very simplistic, but thought provoking, which was my point.

Looking forward to seeing how this all goes!

By: Bob Calder Sat, 28 Jul 2007 20:52:28 +0000 Corruption related story:
Ludwig De Braeckeleer, a physicist, has posted a story about his research into the Lockerbie bombing in 1988 claiming that intelligence agents of the CIA had infiltrated Wikipedia. If this is true, it is obvious that Wikipedia’s critics are afraid of the wrong people. *chuckle* Of course there is the non-issue side of the coin since this is not particularly surprising.

Anyone who knows the universal success of Wikipedia will immediately grasp the importance of the issue. The fact that most Internet search engines, such as Google, give Wikipedia articles top ranking only raises the stakes to a higher level.
While researching my next article about the Lockerbie bombing, I witnessed an incident that made me wonder whether intelligence agents had infiltrated Wikipedia. . . .
According to clues accumulated by ordinary citizens around the world, it could be that the CIA and other intelligence agencies are riding the information wave and planting disinformation on Wikipedia. If so, tens of thousands of innocent and unwitting citizens around the world are translating and propagating their lies, providing these agencies with a universal news network.

The interaction of Daniel Brandt’s organization with Wikipedia is particularly instructive as it illustrates collective intelligence success between communities that have tension between them.

By: Wendy Sat, 28 Jul 2007 03:15:35 +0000 Dear Prof. Lessig:I’m currently working defense on a case where the police seized a password-protected laptop from a 19 yr old college student’s bedroom. The ct granted the Motion to suppress the computer as evidence. Gov’t has appealed that.
The initial search was based on the third-party consent exception to the 4th Amendment’s privacy protections. Unlike the recently decided Andrus case, wherein a 91 yr old father’s consent to search his 50 yr old son’s room and computer, our case is very distinguishable. The computer is not the instrumentality of the crime (ie, not child porn or fraud or anything else). The computer is only in her room, in her parent’s home because she’s home from college for the summer. Prior to the search, the girl was hospitalized where she remained DURING the search. Ostensibly, her parent gave consent to search.

What effect? It seems to me that the Motion should be upheld as a violation of the adult child’s right to privacy. Police admitted at the suppression hearing that the open laptop was “in sleep mode” when they seized it and that they weren’t even aware the computer contained a password. I assume that username and password requirements had prevented them from accessing any information therein; or perhaps somewhere off=site otherwise used newer technology to circumvent any password barriers. It seems to me that a new laptop would have username/password protections at log-on; and all email programs require same. Blogs likewise. How is it possible that this girl has no manifested privacy, or that society would not recognize a right to privacy, here?

What do you think? Is it just as I suspect bad policing? or is it a trend? Most, if not all case law I find on the issue of passwords and 4th Amendment, recognize a privacy right but refuse to suppress anyway. (True, most–in most, if not all cases, the computer is an instrumentality of the crime—child porn, ebay fraud, hacking, identity theft.

i believe this case will be crucial in outlining the 4th Amendment as it applies to home computers. what do you think about everything? Am I simply making too many assumptions about password protections and society’s recognition of this as a reasonable expression of privacy rights? Not to mention potential spoilation of evidence issues. Authentication issues. this could go on forever. I would welcome your advice re: any of the foregoing issues.

By: Morten Mertner Fri, 27 Jul 2007 17:54:40 +0000 I’d also recommend reading Steven D. Levitt’s Freakonomics – it has some powerful insights on cause and effect in modern society. Although not a book on corruption in itself, somehow it seems related as the book touches upon the darker sides of human nature.

By: Botter reeves Fri, 27 Jul 2007 06:38:07 +0000 Vast improvement in the quality of legislation could be had by requiring that each bill presented to the legislators (both houses) for consideration be written in ink on plain white paper by the legislator presenting the bill. No computers, no staff writers, just the guy we elected and his very own hand, pen, and ink. That ought to put paid to the huge bills that no one can possibly have the time or inclination to read and understand in entirety.

By: John A Arkansawyer (the artist formerly known as adamsj) Tue, 24 Jul 2007 09:43:15 +0000 Dick Durbin has a clue. Who can talk with his staff about applying the appropriate technology to implement his idea?

By: ron b Sun, 15 Jul 2007 12:04:04 +0000 I suspect that most followers of Mr. Lessig (and thus most contributors to this discussion) tend to be somewhat liberal in their view of the world. (As am I). But it would seem that even the most staunch conservatives would like to see an end to corruption, at least theoretically. So I’m wondering if there is a good forum out there that is populated by intelligent conservatives (yes, it’s hard not to make a snide comment here – please resist :-) where this same discussion thread might be instituted as well. It would be interesting to compare and contrast the suggestions and see where the overlap exists.

On to specifics, I do love EMD’s note about having campaign contributions be anonymized. Not only does it seem to address a significant problem with how much influence special-interests can wield, it also seems like it might be considered sensible enough by the majority to actually be something that has a chance of being implemented.

By: EMD Fri, 13 Jul 2007 05:58:39 +0000 Laws eliminating contributions from other than individuals are of dubious constitutionality. I advocate taking a page from the approach that Yale Law School professors Bruce Ackerman and Ian Ayres wrote about in their book, “Voting with Dollars: A New Paradigm for Campaign Finance.” They propose an anonymous campaign contribution system where a donor contributes money through a govt agency (e.g., FEC), which passes the contribution to the candidate without revealing the donor’s name or affiliation. (I’m ambivalent about their proposal that the govt provide a $50 voucher which the contributor could earmark).

Although a donor would be free to tell a candidate he/she has made a contribution, the candidate would, presumably, be somewhat skeptical of such a claim because there would be no way to confirm the truth of the claim.

By: jhhdk Thu, 12 Jul 2007 19:52:29 +0000 While many suggestions are excellent it’s worth remembering that this is a global problem and as such I’d focus less on specific solutions to USA democrazy.
That being said bhere are my suggestions, some of which I beleive may also only apply to USA:
- Figure out how to make people comitted to politics again.
- Make voting mandatory
- Make descition making process completely transparrent, except maybe defence, security and foreign policy (can’t have other side knowing what we’re up to before we kill, catch or meet them).
- Ban polical TV commercials.
- Fund campaigns exclusively based on votes in last election or signatures, but using a logaritmic scale.
- Require full finacial disclosure from anyone seeking to meet with elected official or candidate. Can’t have cooperations pretending to be groups of concerned citizens.
- Ban voting for idiots by idiots (didn’t say i have to be consistent did you?)
- Give public service media sufficient funding to make proper journalism possible while preventing undue influence from goverment (funding also awarded to stations on logaritic scale but according to viewers and readers instead of voters).
- Once power has been handed back to the people, try to figure out how to prevent “Rule by uninformed majority at the expense of minorities”.

By: Kevin Mon, 09 Jul 2007 00:20:22 +0000 I find Poptones comment especially resonant. I am a student currently and am continually amazed at the rights and liberties surrendered by my peers. The irony is quaint: Conservative ideology would have citizens surrender their rights and liberties to the federal government and strengthen it immensely.

Teaching a “patriotic” history, however quixotic the term, is a noble idea. This nation was founded on an extreme mistrust of large government and its powers. Its ideological origins were ones of revolt (Thank you Bernard Bailyn). The founders’ are undoubtedly rolling in their graves as they see young people hand their hard-earned rights to the federal government.

Teaching that we can continue into our future with the vigilance shown by the founders of this nation would be an excellent corner stone to an approach to modern American politics for my generation.

By: poptones Sun, 08 Jul 2007 02:36:33 +0000 Fighting corruption sounds noble but the realities are much less concrete than most seem to make it sound. Example: Who won the last presidential election? Why? We had an unpopular president, a vp most considered corrupt even then and yet somehow that administration managed to get re-elected. Is that just because they had so much money?

If you cut off the money from one head the hydra will just grow another. Ahnuld ran a strong anti-corruption campaign about how up front everything was going to be and yet a non-profit corporation pays for most of his high falutin’ travel. And guess who donates to that non-profit?

I used to like the idea of mandating network access by the candidates during election cycles, but the reality of that would just be the same as the campaign matching funds is now – if you don’t get at least this much of the vote (and the parties in power get to decide how much) then you don’t qualify – no access. It doesn’t solve anything, really, since the networks and affiliates already are free to donate as much time as they wish.

How many people actually vote in elections? And how many of those have actually done any research?

The greatest corruption, as I see it, is the apathy and ignorance that permeates our culture. We need children who are taught history and our constitution from a patriotic view rather than a corporate one. Most young folks I know seem to believe the government has the right to censor speech, search homes and do pretty much everything else this administration says it can do. Do they even teach the bill of rights to kids past the 5th grade in this country?

By: Patrick Sweeney Sat, 07 Jul 2007 07:06:37 +0000 Stephen Andrews,
See OpenSecrets.

I know riders get abused, but are they always abusive? Couldn’t the power of a line-item veto accomplish the same thing, while only targetting the points of abuse?

Why not restore the Fairness Doctrine in broadcasting. Would public financing eliminate 3rd-party advertising? There is a First Amendment issue, even though we all know how the powers that be have co-opted and corrupted this loophole to create “independent” groups to broadcast their message.

Plessy v. ferguson and other bad decisions. It is crap, but it is the law.

We have a republic, not a democracy – unless you live in a town in Massachusetts and you go to town meetings. It is an important distinction. Do not confuse the U.S. system of government as laid out in the Costitution with a democracy.

D. Stafford,
You are my kind of radical. Given the available technologies is a republic still the way to go – how about true transparency and democracy? OK – too radical, and it will never happen. However, it does pretty succinctly address issues of cronyism, campaign finance, and other common abuses of the current system.

I’ll read through the rest and maybe post more later.