I'm extensively quoted by one of my favorite legal reporters, Adam Liptak. (See also the WSJ Law blog.)

Music out of Escher.

Relatedly.

Question to Chicago blog readers: I couldn't help but notice walking to and from my hotel that the Agam in front of the Smurfit-Stone building was no longer there. Where did it go?

They don't sell Fisher-Price Little People any more. Incomprehensible.

A.M. Best's Ray Lehmann is kind enough to quote me at length on the Stoneridge case.

The New York Michelin ratings are out (and the Times steals their thunder by printing them all) and Slim and I were discussing the economics of Michelin stars. The restaurant where we had our best meal, Taillevent, dropped from three stars to two shortly after we were there. The third star adds demand and creates a premium in the pricing. But there are restaurants nearly as good that don't get the premium because they just miss the additional star. Quality is continuous, but rankings are discrete: surely there are one-star restaurants nearly as good as two-star restaurants, and zero-star restaurants nearly as good as one-star restaurants. Too, restaurants whose business model depends on the Michelin accolade would try to step things up a notch in response to a downgrade (assuming their chef doesn't commit suicide from despair).

If one buys into this theory, the quality restaurants that are the best bargains in New York are Craft (recently mysteriously lost its star), Lever House (recently lost its star), Sushi Yasuda (zero stars that should be one), Union Square Cafe (ditto), 11 Madison (ditto), Tamarind (ditto), Aquavit (ditto), Cafe Boulud (one star that should be two), Robuchon (arguably worth a second star), Gramercy Tavern (at the high end of the one-star range), and Masa (two stars that should be three). Except that the theory depends on Michelin having market-moving power. That's true in France, where each additional star adds 25-60% in tourist business (depending on which news story you read about the subject), but it's not clear to me that Michelin has that much influence in New York City relative to Frank Bruni or even Zagat's.

A worthy successor to Dave Barry.

This post provokes two separate points.

1) The problem of the modal spouse. Ms. Ali's plight illustrates very nicely my objection to Tyler Cowen's claim that it's better not to be fussy about spousal compatibility. As I noted in the comments to that post:

The viability of [Tyler's] strategy is strongly dependent on whether the person in question adopting the strategy has traits (religious beliefs, intelligence, cultural tastes, dietary preferences, social and political views, sexual attitudes and tastes, physical appearance) close to the societal mean.... A 5'4" Orthodox Jew libertarian or a socialist vegan leather fetishist is going to have fewer modal wives than a moderate Christian with a 110 IQ—and, moreover, the marginal utility of a modal wives for the first two is going to be substantially higher than for the more average gentleman, since the wife selected from a pool of thirty is more likely to be close to his modal wife.

One can adopt a combination of the first and second strategies by using a pool more likely to produce a modal wife: an Orthodox Jew could restrict himself to meeting other Orthodox Jews; a genius economist stays away from the sports bars and instead trolls bookstores and academic events. But the more dimensions along which one's traits are unusual or restrictive, the harder it becomes to adopt even variants of the second strategy without coming across fatal incompatibilities. Woe is the Orthodox Jew who is only attracted to lithe blondes; a politically-active Republican vegan is likely to have trouble as well.

To which one might add the independent hijab-wearing religious Muslim over the age of 30 is in especially poor shape.

2) Amber's solution: speed-dating. (Muslims appear to have thought of this.) But the speed-dating concept (invented, unsurprisingly, by a rabbi) reminds me of the one time I went to a speed-dating event in Washington. The rules forbade mentioning one's career. But it was in Washington, so the first two minutes of each five-minute date were spent discussing whether we were going to follow that rule. And since it was Washington, in the third minute, we both revealed (invariably) that we were attorneys. (Except for one law student, who then tried to hit me up for job leads. Until I drafted this post, it didn't occur to me that I had the option to be unethical enough to string her along.)

Ed Morrissey of the Captain's Quarters Blog interviews me about the Stoneridge case and argument, and about Sarbanes-Oxley. I got thirty minutes and the Congressman got ten.

I'm scheduled to be on Bloomberg TV at 5 pm Eastern talking about the Stoneridge case. See also Point of Law October 6 for more links.

From Bjorn Lomborg. Kim Strassel's interview of Democrat John Dingell is also edifying.

Avvo rates my incomplete resume a 9.9 out of 10. What is clearly needed are some more peer endorsements to get me up to 11.

My Monday talk-radio discussion with Hugh Hewitt about the Stoneridge case (and other class action and legal reform issues) is on-line. My brother informs me that it's a good thing when one gets held over for a second segment.

I'm quoted in Friday's DC Examiner.

Update: And quoted by the AP today.

I'm surprised so few people are aware that a couple of local shops import H&H bagels:

*Calvert-Woodley Liquors in Van Ness
*Arrowine in Arlington

H&H will also ship, albeit at ludicrous prices.

In addition, Brooklyn Bagel Bakery by the Arlington Courthouse Metro creates a reasonable facsimile, since they actually kettle-boil.

Tree self-rescue for paraglider pilots.

But, really, not much to see here. Check out my serious sites: the Point of Law blog; the Overlawyered blog; the AEI Legal Center for the Public Interest website; and my AEI webpage. You can find more on the Stoneridge case at the AEI website; if you're in the DC area Friday morning, come sign up to attend our panel discussion on the case.

I'm scheduled to go on the popular national radio show shortly after 6 pm Eastern talking about the Stoneridge case. Find your local station on-line.