Brooklyn Judge Rejects Improperly Documented Foreclosure Motions, Shocks Ban...

via Consumerist by Chris Walters on 8/31/09

There's a judge in Brooklyn, NY, who has tossed out nearly half of the foreclosure cases brought before him over the past year, because the lenders have such messy paper trails that they can't prove ownership anymore.

Justice Schack's take is straightforward, and sends a tremor through some bank suites: If a bank cannot prove ownership, it cannot foreclose. "If you are going to take away someone's house, everything should be legal and correct," he said. "I'm a strange guy - I don't want to put a family on the street unless it's legitimate."

As a result, he's become an example for other judges to follow, and a "dangerous" rogue in the eyes of lenders.

What's surprising, however, is Judge Schack isn't coming up with novel readings of the law. He's just forcing lenders to follow the rules.

"To the extent that judges examine these papers, they find exactly the same errors that Judge Schack does," said Katherine M. Porter, a visiting professor at the School of Law at the University of California, Berkeley, and a national expert in consumer credit law. "His rulings are hardly revolutionary; it's unusual only because we so rarely hold large corporations to the rules."

"A ‘Little Judge' Who Rejects Foreclosures, Brooklyn Style " [New York Times]
(Photo: steakpinball)

It's time to embrace American royalty

via Salon: Glenn Greenwald by Glenn Greenwald on 8/30/09

(Updated below - Update II - Update III - Update IV - Update V)

We're obviously hungry to live with royal and aristocratic families so we should really just go ahead and formally declare it:

Bush daughter Jenna Hager becomes 'Today' reporter NBC's "Today" show has hired someone with White House experience as a new correspondent — former first daughter Jenna Hager, the daughter of former President George W. Bush. . . . She "just sort of popped to us as a natural presence, comfortable" on the air, [Executive Producer Jim] Bell said.  Hager will work out of NBC's Washington bureau.

They should convene a panel for the next Meet the Press with Jenna Bush Hager, Luke Russert, Liz Cheney, Megan McCain and Jonah Goldberg, and they should have Chris Wallace moderate it.  They can all bash affirmative action and talk about how vitally important it is that the U.S. remain a Great Meritocracy because it's really unfair for anything other than merit to determine position and employment.  They can interview Lisa Murkowski, Evan Bayh, Jeb Bush, Bob Casey, Mark Pryor, Jay Rockefeller, Dan Lipinksi, and Harold Ford, Jr. about personal responsibility and the virtues of self-sufficiency.  Bill Kristol, Tucker Carlson and John Podhoretz can provide moving commentary on how America is so special because all that matters is merit, not who you know or where you come from.  There's a virtually endless list of politically well-placed guests equally qualified to talk on such matters.

About this latest hiring by NBC, Atrios observed:  "if only the Villager values of nepotism and torture could be combined somehow."  The American Prospect's Adam Serwer quicky noted that they already have been:  "Liz Cheney."  Liz Cheney is really the perfect face of Washington's political culture, a perfect manifestation of all the rotting diseases that define it and a pure expression of what our country has become and the reasons for its virtual ruin.  She should really be on every political TV show all day every day.  It's almost as though things can't really be expressed thoroughly without including her.  Jenna Bush as a new NBC "reporter" on The Today Show -- at a time when every media outlet is firing and laying off real reporters -- is a very nice addition though.

 

UPDATE: Just to underscore a very important, related point:  all of the above-listed people are examples of America's Great Meritocracy, having achieved what they have solely on the basis of their talent, skill and hard work -- The American Way.  By contrast, Sonia Sotomayor -- who grew up in a Puerto Rican family in Bronx housing projects; whose father had a third-grade education, did not speak English and died when she was 9; whose mother worked as a telephone operator and a nurse; and who then became valedictorian of her high school, summa cum laude at Princeton, a graduate of Yale Law School, and ultimately a Supreme Court Justice -- is someone who had a whole litany of unfair advantages handed to her and is the poster child for un-American, merit-less advancement.

I just want to make sure that's clear.

 

UPDATE II:   Speaking of Mike Wallace's boy, Andrew Sullivan says that, during his interview about torture with Dick Cheney today, he "sounded like a teenage girl interviewing the Jonas Brothers."  Andrew compiles the "questions" Wallace asked of Cheney and it's hard to describe it any other way.  He adds:

When future historians ask how the United States came not only to practice torture but to celebrate it and treat torturers as heroes, a special place in hell among the journalists who embraced and justified it should be reserved for Chris Wallace.

That's going to be a very crowded place (see here for more on Wallace's particularly well-deserved consignment to that locale).

 

UPDATE III: For those complaining that there are many other examples of political nepotism and dynastic succession other than those mentioned here:   this was a two-paragraph post in which I stated explicitly that, beyond the identified examples, "there's a virtually endless list of politically well-placed guests equally qualified to talk on such matters."  When saying that, I linked to this post of mine from last December, which, unlike today's post, was intended to be a very comprehensive discussion of American political aristocracies and royal families.  Anyone who thinks I'm somehow being selective in this critique should read the first paragraph of that post.  And yes:  this also would absolutely be an example of the same syndrome. 

That said, today's post is about a particular strain of royal succession:  those who inherit their position and and whose achievement is attributable to their mommies and daddies and yet ludicrously purport to be Stern Advocates for (and Beacons of) Meritocracy and become righteous opponents of "unfair" affirmative action on the ground that only merit should determine advancement.  Not everyone who inherits their influence is guilty of that.

 

UPDATE IVWonkette notes that I neglected to include this hideous event.

 

UPDATE V:  Elect the father-dependent Ethan Hastert to his dad's former seat in Congress (h/t).  I'd be willing to bet that this "self-described economic and social conservative" finds affirmative action to be a deep affront to merit-based achievement.

It's time to embrace American royalty

via Salon: Glenn Greenwald by Glenn Greenwald on 8/30/09

(Updated below - Update II - Update III - Update IV - Update V)

We're obviously hungry to live with royal and aristocratic families so we should really just go ahead and formally declare it:

Bush daughter Jenna Hager becomes 'Today' reporter NBC's "Today" show has hired someone with White House experience as a new correspondent — former first daughter Jenna Hager, the daughter of former President George W. Bush. . . . She "just sort of popped to us as a natural presence, comfortable" on the air, [Executive Producer Jim] Bell said.  Hager will work out of NBC's Washington bureau.

They should convene a panel for the next Meet the Press with Jenna Bush Hager, Luke Russert, Liz Cheney, Megan McCain and Jonah Goldberg, and they should have Chris Wallace moderate it.  They can all bash affirmative action and talk about how vitally important it is that the U.S. remain a Great Meritocracy because it's really unfair for anything other than merit to determine position and employment.  They can interview Lisa Murkowski, Evan Bayh, Jeb Bush, Bob Casey, Mark Pryor, Jay Rockefeller, Dan Lipinksi, and Harold Ford, Jr. about personal responsibility and the virtues of self-sufficiency.  Bill Kristol, Tucker Carlson and John Podhoretz can provide moving commentary on how America is so special because all that matters is merit, not who you know or where you come from.  There's a virtually endless list of politically well-placed guests equally qualified to talk on such matters.

About this latest hiring by NBC, Atrios observed:  "if only the Villager values of nepotism and torture could be combined somehow."  The American Prospect's Adam Serwer quicky noted that they already have been:  "Liz Cheney."  Liz Cheney is really the perfect face of Washington's political culture, a perfect manifestation of all the rotting diseases that define it and a pure expression of what our country has become and the reasons for its virtual ruin.  She should really be on every political TV show all day every day.  It's almost as though things can't really be expressed thoroughly without including her.  Jenna Bush as a new NBC "reporter" on The Today Show -- at a time when every media outlet is firing and laying off real reporters -- is a very nice addition though.

 

UPDATE: Just to underscore a very important, related point:  all of the above-listed people are examples of America's Great Meritocracy, having achieved what they have solely on the basis of their talent, skill and hard work -- The American Way.  By contrast, Sonia Sotomayor -- who grew up in a Puerto Rican family in Bronx housing projects; whose father had a third-grade education, did not speak English and died when she was 9; whose mother worked as a telephone operator and a nurse; and who then became valedictorian of her high school, summa cum laude at Princeton, a graduate of Yale Law School, and ultimately a Supreme Court Justice -- is someone who had a whole litany of unfair advantages handed to her and is the poster child for un-American, merit-less advancement.

I just want to make sure that's clear.

 

UPDATE II:   Speaking of Mike Wallace's boy, Andrew Sullivan says that, during his interview about torture with Dick Cheney today, he "sounded like a teenage girl interviewing the Jonas Brothers."  Andrew compiles the "questions" Wallace asked of Cheney and it's hard to describe it any other way.  He adds:

When future historians ask how the United States came not only to practice torture but to celebrate it and treat torturers as heroes, a special place in hell among the journalists who embraced and justified it should be reserved for Chris Wallace.

That's going to be a very crowded place (see here for more on Wallace's particularly well-deserved consignment to that locale).

 

UPDATE III: For those complaining that there are many other examples of political nepotism and dynastic succession other than those mentioned here:   this was a two-paragraph post in which I stated explicitly that, beyond the identified examples, "there's a virtually endless list of politically well-placed guests equally qualified to talk on such matters."  When saying that, I linked to this post of mine from last December, which, unlike today's post, was intended to be a very comprehensive discussion of American political aristocracies and royal families.  Anyone who thinks I'm somehow being selective in this critique should read the first paragraph of that post.  And yes:  this also would absolutely be an example of the same syndrome. 

That said, today's post is about a particular strain of royal succession:  those who inherit their position and and whose achievement is attributable to their mommies and daddies and yet ludicrously purport to be Stern Advocates for (and Beacons of) Meritocracy and become righteous opponents of "unfair" affirmative action on the ground that only merit should determine advancement.  Not everyone who inherits their influence is guilty of that.

 

UPDATE IVWonkette notes that I neglected to include this hideous event.

 

UPDATE V:  Elect the father-dependent Ethan Hastert to his dad's former seat in Congress (h/t).  I'd be willing to bet that this "self-described economic and social conservative" finds affirmative action to be a deep affront to merit-based achievement.

Government Has Made $4 Billion On The Bailout, So Far [Wall Street Meltdown]

via Consumerist by Meg Marco on 8/31/09

The NYT says a little less than a year after the economic meltdown, the government is starting to see a profit from banks repaying bailout money.

From the NYT:

The profits, collected from eight of the biggest banks that have fully repaid their obligations to the government, come to about $4 billion, or the equivalent of about 15 percent annually, according to calculations compiled for The New York Times.

These early returns are by no means a full accounting of the huge financial rescue undertaken by the federal government last year to stabilize teetering banks and other companies.

Of course, there is still a chance that those billions will just help to offset the huge losses incurred in other bailouts. Only time will tell.

As Big Banks Repay Bailout Money, U.S. Sees a Profit [NYT]
(Photo:Great Beyond)

Why Don’t Teens Tweet? We Asked Over 10,000 of Them.

via TechCrunch by Guest Author on 8/30/09

This guest post is written by Geoff Cook, cofounder and CEO of social networking site myYearbook. Everything about Twitter is looking up these days, except for a few pesky uptime issues of course. But a number of recent reports also suggest teens are one demographic that just doesn’t seem to be embracing Twitter like the rest of us. So while I’m excited to see Robert Scoble proclaims that Twitter is worth a cool $10 billion, it might be a good idea to analyze a little data to try to understand why teens just don’t think Twitter is as rad as the rest of us.

Over the last few months everyone has weighed in on the question of “Why Don’t Teens Tweet” — except, it would appear, teens. We recently ran a survey of 10,000+ US teens aged 13 – 17 to see if we could add anything new to the question. As it turns out, the question itself is flawed.

To date, reasons given for the alleged aversion of teens to Twitter have ranged from the condescending “Because they have nothing to say,” to the responsible “Because it doesn’t feel safe,” to the Letterman-like “Because they can’t afford it” — at least without a mobile data plan.

Of course, all of these reasons are predicated on the widely accepted notion that “Teens Don’t Tweet” — that there is a phenomenon that needs to be explained. As recently as last week even, the New York Times cited the fact that only 11% of Twitter is teen as evidence of Twitter’s unpopularity to that group.

The implication is that 11% is a small number, but if we look deeper, it turns out that Twitter has a higher concentration of teens than Facebook. You can see in the chart below that Facebook is only 9% teen, so Twitter is actually more teen than Facebook, which rightly has never been perceived as having a “teen problem.” Facebook has so many users that teens just can’t be that large a percentage of the service, by definition.

Nielsen also suggested that “Teens Don’t Tweet” in a report that was destined to become a trending topic on Twitter itself. Almost as quickly as it came out, a number of bloggers, including Danah Boyd, debunked the study for charting the age group 2 – 24 and yet drawing conclusions about teens, noting there are not too many 2-year-olds on Twitter.

To be sure, the truthiness of the headline “Teens Don’t Tweet” is persuasive. It really does feel true, and on one level it is: the vast majority of teens don’t tweet. Of course, the vast majority of the adult population doesn’t tweet either.

As it turns out, teens actually tweet more than the general population, prompting Silicon Valley Insider to say yesterday, “Kids Don’t Hate Twitter Anymore.” According to comScore, Twitter’s unique visitor composition index in the 12 – 17 age group is 118 (a value over 100 represents a higher concentration of unique visitors from that age group as compared to the age group’s concentration across the entire web). More interestingly, Twitter’s 12 – 17 composition index of 118 is higher than its composition index in the 25 – 34 and 35 – 44 age groups. The bottom line: Twitter actually skews more teen than the average site, and much more teen than Facebook.

Similarly, the teens who visit Twitter do so 5.2 times per month, more often than users aged 25 – 44, who visit fewer than 5 times per month.

But, there is a lot more to the story than widespread misinterpretation of data. After all, why don’t the majority of teens tweet? The issue of teens and Twitter first got legs when Morgan Stanley published an influential report written by Matthew Robson, a 15-year-old intern from the UK, which became an instant hit. Here is the reason the report suggested that teens don’t tweet:

Most have signed up to the service, but then just leave it as they realize that they are not going to update it (mostly because texting twitter uses up credit, and they would rather text friends with that credit).

To validate this explanation, we ran a survey asking thousands of US teens whether text messaging charges have anything to do with whether or not they use Twitter, and over 90% said: “No — I wouldn’t use Twitter anyway.” (Note: unlimited texting plans are common in the US, whereas the Morgan Stanley report was written from the perspective of a UK teen.)

Robson also observed his friends and classmates in the UK signing up for the service and then never using it again, a pattern that proves very similar in the US. In fact, in our survey, we found that 45% of teens aged 13 – 17 who have a Twitter account don’t tweet. Most send a few and stop altogether, and 17% never sent a single one.

Similarly, we looked into the idea that maybe teens are turned off by Twitter’s openness and consider it unsafe. We found no support for this hypothesis either, with almost no one citing “It’s too open” or “It’s not safe” as reasons they don’t use Twitter, as the chart below shows.

So why? Why doesn’t Twitter engender passion in even most of the teens who take the plunge and sign up for an account? The answer lies in the reasons teens do use Twitter. Of teens with a Twitter account, the top 4 reasons cited for using the service are, in order:

  • Update My Status
  • Keep Up With My Favorite Musicians, Bands, or Celebrities
  • Stay Current with What’s Going On in the World
  • Keep Up with Friends I Know

If we break down those top reasons one by one, a clearer picture emerges of why Twitter is not more popular among teens.

  • Teens already update their status religiously on other sites like Facebook, MySpace, and myYearbook.
  • Teens use MySpace to keep up with musicians and celebrities, which MySpace differentiates on.
  • As a group, teens are not major consumers of news from any outlet, making “staying current” a poor driver of mainstream adoption — though of course there are exceptions.
  • Teens use both MySpace and Facebook to keep up with friends they know.

Given the above, it is no surprise that teen penetration is not higher. The value proposition of Twitter to the majority of teens is the issue.

No doubt, this is why most teens describe Twitter as “not for me”, and also why most teens who are not on Twitter cite the generic reason why as “Because it’s lame.” Twitter doesn’t help most of them do anything new, so to them, it is lame. Of course, for those teens who are celebrity hounds or compulsive news followers, or those looking for an audience for their status updates, Twitter is invaluable.

But now we have come full circle. Most teens don’t use Twitter because it doesn’t enable them to do anything they can’t already do elsewhere, which is the same reason most adults don’t use Twitter. It has nothing to do with any teen-specific concerns like texting plans or safety. It comes down to something more simple: delivering value beyond Facebook and MySpace — a competitive moat that Facebook is bridging one move at a time, from the Everyone button to the acquisition of FriendFeed to the centrality of the stream itself.

The question of “Why Don’t Teens Use Twitter?” is the question of “Why Doesn’t Everyone Use Twitter?” The answer, it would seem, is both obvious and heretical … maybe Twitter isn’t for everyone.

Additional Teens & Twitter Survey Results:

Disclaimer: Here is some more info on the panel of teens we surveyed. We don’t claim the 10,000+ survey results represent the definitive survey of teens in the US. We do, however, claim that our users look very much like the users of other social networks and that our audience overlaps significantly with MySpace, Facebook, and Twitter, and that the insights of myYearbook teens may be useful to this analysis.

Crunch Network: CrunchBoard because it’s time for you to find a new Job2.0

TechCrunch50 Conference 2009: September 14-15, 2009, San Francisco

WaterFurnace : Residential Product Comparison

Check out this website I found at waterfurnace.com

Here's a very easy calculator for figuring cost/benefit numbers for a geoexchange heating and cooling system.

How a sewing machine works

via Bits & Pieces by Jonco on 8/26/09

Lockstitch

I always wondered how that thing worked.

via

10 Keys to Leading Creative People

via tonymorganlive.com by tony on 8/23/09

I’ve had the opportunity to lead a number of creative people over the last 15 years both in ministry and in the marketplace. And, from time to time, I’ve been known to be a “creative” myself. Creatives are different. They deliver new ideas and approaches, but they come with their quirks. You can’t lead creatives like you lead “normal” people.

Within the church, don’t assume creative people only work in your worship arts area. They’re likely to hangout there, but it’s also very possible they’re on just about every ministry team at your church. They may not sing songs or draw pictures, but they’re still creative. And, if you don’t learn how to lead them, they’ll find someplace else to take their creativity.

Here are some reminders for leading creative people:

  1. Tell them what to do, but not how to do it. You can hold them accountable for the results, but don’t force them to embrace a certain process.
  2. If you want their input, you’ll need to ask. If you stop asking, they’ll stop contributing.
  3. If you ask, you better consider their input. If you’re not really going to use their input, it’s better not to even ask.
  4. Know that they’ll be emotionally attached to what they create. So, if you decide not to use their creation, you’ll have to process that appropriately and not abruptly.
  5. You need to give them a deadline, but it better be reasonable. Creative people need room to dream and let their ideas percolate.
  6. Don’t try to motivate them with money, but they do want your praise. They’ll react when the extrinsic rewards are taken away, but they’re really intrinsically motivated.
  7. They’ll get easily bored if they find themselves stuck in the routine. They need the freedom to take on new challenges and opportunities and hate to get stuck in maintenance mode.
  8. They deliver new ideas, but they dread the details. To bring the best out of them, you need to protect them from the bureaucratic structure and administrative tasks.
  9. They need a creative and participative environment. Creative people need the fuel that other creative people generate.
  10. You need to provide boundaries, but they need to experience freedom. Boundaries force people to get creative. That’s when the best ideas are generated. But if creative people ever feel restrained, at best they’ll start to sulk and at worst they’ll join another team.

Do you consider yourself to be a creative person? If so, think about the best leader you’ve worked for. What did they do that brought the best out in you?

Do you lead creative people? If so, think about your most creative person on the team. How do you lead them differently to get the biggest impact from their contribution?

Let’s get creative about leading creative people.

Related Posts:


  • Story

Tech Support Cheat Sheet Reveals the Secrets of Troubleshooting [Tech Support]

via Lifehacker by Adam Pash on 8/24/09

If you read Lifehacker, chances are you've been designated as your family's de facto IT person, and you've probably spent more than your fair share of hours troubleshooting applications you know no better than the person asking. How do you do it?!

(Click the image above for a closer look.)

Popular webcomic xkcd hits the nail on the head with 90 percent of the troubleshooting most of us end up doing with this spot-on Tech Support Cheat Sheet. The only thing missing is the "If you haven't already, restart your computer and try again" entry, though that's probably more fitting for a "Why won't my computer do X?" rather than "How can I do X on my computer?" flowchart. The chart's a little on the passive-aggressive, Let Me Google that For You side, but it's also a fairly accurate guide.

"Five Myths about Health Care around the World"

via Economist's View by Mark Thoma on 8/23/09

An attempt to "dispel a few myths about health care abroad":

5 Myths About Health Care Around the World, by By T.R. Reid, Commentary, Washington Post: ...I've traveled the world ... to see how other developed democracies provide health care. Instead of dismissing these models as "socialist," we could adapt their solutions to fix our problems. To do that, we first have to dispel a few myths about health care abroad:

1. It's all socialized medicine out there. Not so. ... In some ways, health care is less "socialized" overseas than in the United States. Almost all Americans sign up for government insurance (Medicare) at age 65. In Germany, Switzerland and the Netherlands, seniors stick with private insurance plans for life. Meanwhile, the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs is one of the planet's purest examples of government-run health care....

2. Overseas, care is rationed through limited choices or long lines. Generally, no. Germans can sign up for any of the nation's 200 private health insurance plans -- a broader choice than any American has. ... The Swiss, too, can choose any insurance plan in the country.

In France and Japan, you ... can go to any doctor, any hospital, any traditional healer. There are no U.S.-style limits such as "in-network" lists of doctors or "pre-authorization" for surgery. You pick any doctor, you get treatment -- and insurance has to pay. ...

As for those notorious waiting lists, some countries are indeed plagued by them. Canada makes patients wait weeks or months for nonemergency care, as a way to keep costs down. But ... many nations -- Germany, Britain, Austria -- outperform the United States on measures such as waiting times for appointments and for elective surgeries. In Japan, waiting times are so short that most patients don't bother to make an appointment. ...

3. Foreign health-care systems are inefficient, bloated bureaucracies. Much less so than here. ...

4. Cost controls stifle innovation. False. The United States is home to groundbreaking medical research, but so are other countries... Any American who's had a hip or knee replacement is standing on French innovation. ... Many of the wonder drugs promoted endlessly on American television, including Viagra, come from British, Swiss or Japanese labs. Overseas, strict cost controls actually drive innovation. ...

5. Health insurance has to be cruel. Not really. American health insurance companies routinely reject applicants with a "preexisting condition"... They employ armies of adjusters to deny claims. If a customer ... faces big medical bills, the insurer's "rescission department" digs through the records looking for grounds to cancel the policy... Foreign health insurance companies, in contrast, must accept all applicants, and they can't cancel as long as you pay your premiums. ...

In many ways, foreign health-care models are not really "foreign" to America, because our ... system uses elements of all of them. For Native Americans or veterans, we're Britain: The government provides health care, funding it through general taxes, and patients get no bills. For people who get insurance through their jobs, we're Germany: Premiums are split between workers and employers, and private insurance plans pay private doctors and hospitals. For people over 65, we're Canada: Everyone pays premiums for an insurance plan run by the government, and the public plan pays private doctors and hospitals according to a set fee schedule. And for the tens of millions without insurance coverage, we're Burundi or Burma: In the world's poor nations, sick people pay out of pocket for medical care...

This fragmentation is another reason that we spend more than anybody else and still leave millions without coverage. All the other developed countries have settled on one model for health-care delivery and finance; we've blended them all into a costly, confusing bureaucratic mess.

Which, in turn, punctures the most persistent myth of all: that America has "the finest health care" in the world. We don't. In terms of results, almost all advanced countries have better national health statistics than the United States... In terms of finance, we force 700,000 Americans into bankruptcy each year because of medical bills. In France, the number of medical bankruptcies is zero. Britain: zero. Japan: zero. Germany: zero.

Given our remarkable medical assets -- the best-educated doctors and nurses, the most advanced hospitals, world-class research -- the United States ... should be the best in the world. To get there, though, we have to be willing to learn some lessons about health-care ... from the other industrialized democracies.

There are, of course, groups that have a strong interest in perpetuating these myths as part of their attempt to block health care reform.