|
Ex Parte is a group weblog managed by the Harvard Federalist Society, a student organization of Harvard Law School, and written by its student members. To join Ex Parte, contact the Majordomo, Eric Soskin, at esoskin-at-law-dot-harvard-dot-edu.
Ex Parte Editorial Policy
***
Friday, January 31, 2003
Posted
1:28 PM
by Austin Bramwell
I propose that the U.N. be moved to Las Vegas, or placed on a cruise ship, so that delegates could exhaust their energies in Lucullan dissipations. That way, their power could be neutered much like that of nobility at Versailles. (Perhaps they could even indulge in witchcraft, much like the Marquise de Montespan, mistress of Louis XiV.)
Posted
12:30 PM
by Patrick Lewis
For a brief moment of levity: Always be careful when passing the time during a meeting by playing games on a palm pilot. A Norweigan Conservative MP was caught playing a "war game" on his Palm during a Parliament meeting about the Iraq war. Isn't it too bad we can't just pass out palms to the entire UN, and just leave prosecution of world peace up to more responsible organizations like NATO?
Thursday, January 30, 2003
Posted
7:19 PM
by Austin Bramwell
I have to confess that I found Red Dawn disappointing; a case can be made that the film finds moral equivalence between the Americans and the revolutionaries. Perhaps next time we can watch Invasion of the Body Snatchers, which is not only anticommunist but pro-McCarthy, or even Dr. Strangelove, wrongly interpreted as an indictment of American policy during the Cold War. Why, who could disagree that, at least metaphorically speaking, there has been a conspiracy afoot to "sap and impurify all of our precious bodily fluids"? (Quite apart from the metaphor, here is an interesting article on the politics of fluoridation.)
Posted
6:54 PM
by Austin Bramwell
Ahem, Patrick, but a king, by definition, cannot by a dictator. A dictator seizes control in the name of the people; a king, by contrast, serves the interests of the monarchy. Was Queen Victoria, after all, a "dictator"?
Posted
6:29 PM
by Jonathan Skrmetti
Adam White has a fairly thorough discussion of the near-universal support of America's unilateral action.
Posted
6:29 PM
by Jonathan Skrmetti
Speaking of criticisms uttered of Bush, at last night's Shooting Club/Federalist Society showing of Red Dawn (fear not, it was properly licensed) I could not help but whoop when a Russian soldier castigated "American imperialists and cowboys." This Communist propaganda is identical to the rhetoric we hear today from France. A fellow Federalist Society member suggested that the rhetoric is identical because the French "are f!!!ing Communists."
Posted
6:21 PM
by Patrick Lewis
It's important to point out that the group Austin describes advocates a constitutional monarchy, which does not invest the monarch with absolute power. Most of Arabia is ruled by kings and other dictatorial regimes.
I just wonder how you convince all the rival ethnic groups to accept the legitimacy of the monarch.
Posted
6:12 PM
by Christine Niles
America unilateralist? Pshaw. I've grown so tired of the word "unilateralism" that I cringe each time I hear it. It's ceaselessly uttered by critics of the Bush Administration (along with "cowboy", "imperialist" and "bully"). But no longer. This letter by the prime ministers of Spain, Portugal, Italy, the U.K., Hungary, Poland, and Denmark, along with the President of the Czech Republic, roundly affirms international support of the United States in the event of war with Iraq. Hooray for these sane and sober words issued from the pens of European leaders, who understand that U.N. credibility hangs in the balance if the Security Council shies away from enforcing its resolutions.
Posted
2:16 PM
by Austin Bramwell
Here's a group that advocates restoration of the Hashemite monarchy in Iraq. What could be a more sound proposal? History shows that those Arabian nations with a tradition of monarchy are also the most friendly to the West, most capable of unity, and most moderate in their domestic policies.
Posted
2:15 PM
by Avigael Cymrot
Although this year's State of the Union address did not have the same rhetorical punches of last year's speech, I think the best line came right after Bush described Iraq's policy of torture, mutilation, and rape: "If this is not evil, then evil has no meaning." A great, clear response to the postmodern sophisticates who sneered at Bush's "simplistic" invocation of the "Axis of Evil." Additional clear rhetoric came today from the leaders of Spain, Portugal, Italy, the U.K., Hungary, Poland, Denmark, and the Czech Republic in the form of this letter in support of unity with the U.S., urging the U.N. Security Council to face up to its responsibilities or go the way of the League of Nations and fade into irrelevance.
Posted
1:23 PM
by Patrick Lewis
Some results on Gallup polling of support for an invasion of Iraq (prior to the State of the Union): The title of the report, Blacks, Postgraduates Among Groups Most Likely to Oppose Iraq Invasion is quite telling. Most curious to me is the postgraduate angle: the percentage of postgraduates opposing the war in Iraq is almost a 100% parallel to the percentage of liberals and Democrats opposed to the war. Just more evidence of the shocking anti-conservative bias in higher education...
Another interesting side-note: hispanics surveyed are almost a perfect parallel to whites w/r/t their support of the war, and indeed support it at a slightly higher rate than do whites.
Posted
12:46 PM
by Avigael Cymrot
As Rod Drehrer notes, changing behaviors by promoting a combination of abstinence, fidelity, and condom use seems to have had an effect in combating AIDS in Uganda, and should be looked at as a model for the rest of Africa. I don't think that, in this case, advocating both abstinence and safe(r) sex are antithetical -- given the severity of the crisis, it probably makes sense to take a multi-pronged approach.
Wednesday, January 29, 2003
Posted
11:18 PM
by Greg Weston
Dan, I do think changing behavior is responsible for the decline in new HIV infections. My point was that these changes occurred without a national crusade for fidelity and abstinence, which Austin suggested is necessary to combat AIDS in Africa. And yes, AIDS has everything to do with being ""desperately poor", "barely educated", "having little or not medical care", "no indoor plumbing or electricity" and being "chronically undernourished." A healthy American adult will probably not get the virus if exposed to it, for instance, by engaging in a single act of heterosexual intercourse with someone infected, because our immune systems and general constitutions are usually strong enough to fight the initial infection. That can't be said of your average African.
Regarding Norplant, it does have side effects, but for an African woman who already has many children she can't feed, they are a small price to pay. Pregnancy has "side effects" too in very poor countries, one of the more common of which is the death during childbirth.
Anyway, the lawsuit and worries of the perennially worried class of "public health groups and women's advocates" that you cite are entirely irrelevant, because I am not calling for using it as instrument of social control or giving to to people without informing them of the risks. I am simply calling for a network of clinics to be set up to make it available for any woman who wants it.
And AIDS often does not involve a choice, especially for the millions of women and their children who get it because their husbands had unprotected sex with an infected prostitute.
Posted
10:49 PM
by Greg Weston
Christine: They should be arrested of course. What they are doing is sabotaging a military operation, the fact that they are doing so openly makes it no less treasonous.
Posted
10:47 PM
by Greg Weston
Jonathan, every conservative judge confirmed by the Senate is like a poke in the eye of the small-minded know-it-all Manhattan leftists who run that increasingly disreputable newspaper. The level of preening moralistic condescension somehow reached war-protester levels in that editorial. I was left wondering just which of Estrada's beliefs are "extreme."
Then I thought of a fun exercise, namely to list all the views shared by 50% or more of the American public that the NYT would consider "extreme." Here's my start:
1. Execution of murderers and terrorists 2. A ban on late-term abortion 3. A flag-burning amendment to the Constitution 4. A large reduction in legal immigration 5. An immediate invasion of Iraq 6. Making English the official language of the United States
Now I don't necessarily agree with everything on the list, but the point is I don't think I am the center of the universe, or that I am so important that my positions define the mainstream, or that if I disagree with the vast majority of the public that it is the public whose views are extreme and not mine. This cannot be said of the editors of the Times.
Fortunately preen and condescend are all those editors can do. Nobody important cares what they think anymore, and Estrada will be confirmed and make an able judge for the few years he'll be on the DC Circuit en route to the Supreme Court. I wish him the best of luck, and commend him for being willing to give up his lucrative practice to serve his country.
Posted
8:11 PM
by Adam White
Christine: Call in the French, for their own brand of "unilateral" action.
Posted
8:00 PM
by Christine Niles
What can be done to these people?
Posted
7:55 PM
by Christine Niles
"Under the influence of post-Kantian philosophy, 20th century physicists have rejected all of the above ideas" (those ideas being causality, rationality, and objectivity). A bit of an overstatement. And inaccurate--Hume made a devastating critique of causality long before Kant came along.
Though there are aspects of Randian Objectivism I admire, I've always thought the philosophy was about fifty years behind its time.
Posted
7:48 PM
by Christine Niles
Interesting characterization of "Old Europe." Responding to the analogy that France and Germany are like spoiled teenagers, James Taranto proposes a more fitting analogy:
In truth, old Europe is more like America's battle-axe mother-in-law--shrill, imperious, meddling, hypercritical. Once a vibrant and attractive young woman, today she is embittered by the ravages of old age. As unpleasant as she may be, the burden falls on America to maintain a degree of civility; after all, we married into this family. But as the head of our own household, we can't afford to take the old lady's dotty advice. Ideally we'd have the forbearance to pretend to listen respectfully to her every word, then go about our business ignoring what she says. But we're only human; if we occasionally lose patience, that's entirely understandable.
Posted
7:40 PM
by Patrick Lewis
Greg: Overpopulation isn't the Achilles Heel of Africa, Greg. It's incompetent leadership on the part of their corrupt and largely communist regimes. Overpopulation is a polite myth propagated by Leftists who want to cover up the inferiority of their preferred political systems and racists who use the argument as "code" to simply get rid of people they don't like.
Posted
6:24 PM
by Josh Pater
Seats on the green monster? That's unpossible!
For those of you who missed the article (not to mention the Simpsons reference above), here is what the Red Sox are planning for this coming season.
Given this city's proclivity for underground pathways, I don't see why it can't just make Landsdowne Street a tunnel, and stick some seats above it.
Posted
3:10 PM
by Austin Bramwell
Absurdite du jour: Here is a Randian critique of modern physics purporting to debunk both Einstein's theory of relativity and quantum mechanics on the grounds that they partake too much of "post-Kantian philosophy" and ignore the laws of "Aristotelian logic." (Thanks to Greg for apprising me of the existence of this sort of literature.)
Posted
3:01 PM
by Dan Kelly
Greg: You seem to oversimplify the situation in the US. How do you know that changes in behavior (either because people are choosing to be less promiscous or because people are scared of getting the disease) have not led to the decreasing rates?
Also, the last time that I checked getting HIV has little to do with being "desperately poor", "barely educated", "having little or not medical care", "no indoor plumbing or electricity" and being "chronically undernourished" as you suggest. Getting HIV means making a choice (whether about sexual activity or drug use) which applies equally in both the wealthiest and poorest countries. Also, I don't see evidence for your assertion that many of these problems are "caused by or exacerbated by overpopulation." People are very worried about AIDS in the US, and, (without immigration) the US population rate would be negative (i.e. Americans are not replacing themselves.)
As for Norplant, I just finished reading an article for Torts about Norplant's settlement with 36,000 women who had not been informed about the devices dangerous side effects. (See NY Times 8/27/99 at A1 "Settlement Offer Made on Norplant") In addition to these side effects, the article points out (and keep in mind that this is even from the NY Times) that "public health groups and women's advocates worried that the contraceptive could become an instrument of social control, forced on poor women and others whose fertility was seen as more of a threat to society than a blessing." Norplant = not such a good idea.
Posted
2:43 PM
by Greg Weston
Patrick, were I the leader of one of the those impoverished countries in Africa where 15-40% of the adult population is infected with HIV I certainly wouldn't hesitate to use the methods you describe as blackmail were the the only method to ensure AIDS drugs are widely available.
Austin, spending a lot of money on AIDS prevention that doesn't focus on abstinence and fidelity has worked well in the United States, where rates of infection and death have been steadily decreasing for more than 10 years. The $15 billion will do a lot of good in Africa, but in the long-run the situation is very bleak. Most people in southern Africa are desperately poor, are barely educated, have little or no medical care, no indoor plumbing or electricity, and are chronically undernourished. Such a population is always ripe for an epidemic, and were it not AIDS now it probably would be something else later. As many of these problems are caused by or exacerbated by overpopulation, every effort should be made to make contraception as available as possible. It would do so much good for relatively little money if we made sure Norplants were available and free to every woman in the third world who wanted one.
Posted
2:38 PM
by Dan Kelly
Austin: I agree with your analysis of the AIDS plan. The AIDS epidemic in the Third World can ultimately only be halted by a change in behavior (see article) not by the current policy of actually encouraging increased sexaul activity by distributing contraceptives. I do believe, however, that announcing such a tremendous investment for AIDS research was a politically savvy move by Bush. The announcment (I believe) came during the first half of the speech but acted as a nice balance for his case for intervention elsewhere, i.e., "the US is not just the big imperialist bully which some people claim it is, we actually are concerned about the world and want to help."
Posted
2:28 PM
by Jonathan Skrmetti
Hey all. Two Estrada-related links for your consideration: first, the good: the RNC's glowing Miguel Estrada:American Success Story; then, the pathetic vitriol from the knee-jerk propagandists of small-minded pettiness. For a response to the latter, see the NoLeftTurns blog. Thanks as always to Bashman for the latter links.
Posted
2:19 PM
by Dan Kelly
Patrick, Josh, et al.: A friend of mine who is doing graduate work in chemical engineering at MIT assured me in 2001 that within 25 years there would be a fully devolped, inexpensive, and practical replacement for oil in the US economy. I was skeptical about his quick time frame for such a dramatic change, but he assured me that it was a near certainty. I agree that this would be critical for reducing our dependence on the Middle East. All of the power which Middle Eastern governments have (e.g. in demanding aid from the US) would evaporate overnight because all of their wealth is tied to black gold.
Patrick, I'm not sure that I agree with your conclusion that the dependence on our funding (e.g. by Saudi Arabia) has "kept them in check" or that it would work in the future; it seems that basically their government supports terrorists who do what they want and the US chooses to ignore it unless it is particularly egregious.
Posted
1:49 PM
by Patrick Lewis
Hi Josh,
We need to keep the middle east dependent on us financially. If we cut them loose, who knows what they would do. At least by maintaining some kind of control over them, we can keep (relatively) moderate dictators in power and keep the place stable. You can't just ignore the middle east.
Austin: I was discussing this AIDS initiative with Brett after IP today. THere's been a movement afoot for the past few years now to abandon intellectual property protections for AIDS drugs in the third world. Whether through a system of outright piracy or compulsory licensing (a regime where the patent holder is REQUIRED to grant the country (or one of its companies) a license to produce the drug), the third world has been threatening for a time to knock off our AIDS drugs. They allege they'll only use them to help their people, but basically everyone in the pharmaceutical business is convinced they're just going to export their knock-offs to Europe, Canada, and Asia. In short, it's blackmail, and Bush is likely to be trying to defuse this movement. It's better to pay them off than have tinpot despots undermine our pharmaceutical industry and destroy any chances we have of curing AIDS.
In general, though, the topic of public health in the third world is a very detailed and nuanced discussion that is probably off-topic for this list. Suffice to say, for a public health campaign to be effective, the government (or an NGO with the government's consent) must be well funded, possess the credibility of the people it is trying to serve, and have effective means of communicating with those people. In many of the AIDS-plagued areas of the world, those prerequisites are not met.
Posted
1:45 PM
by Jonathan Skrmetti
Austin, Senator Santorum addressed your concerns about American efforts to halt the spread of AIDS and control its consequences in an August piece for NRO. In a more recent NRO article, Kathryn Jean Lopez discusses success stories in the battle against AIDS, in which abstinence and fidelity have been the most successful strategies.
Regardless of the outcome of our imminent war with Iraq, energy remains a vital national security issue. We are currently beholden to an unstable collection of petty thugs and torturers for our economic well-being. Even if we "conquer" Iraq, we will have to remain intimately involved with the Middle East to maintain some degree of stability and to deal with the consequences of allied (chortle) governments using the United States as a scapegoat for their own corrupt practices and thus unleashing waves of violent and disaffected zealots toward American targets. Our consumption is such that even with ANWR opened for drilling we will remain heavily dependent on foreign sources of oil. This is an unacceptable situation, and heavy investment in technology that could dramatically improve both our national security and our quality of life is a sound solution.
Posted
1:18 PM
by Josh Pater
Austin: would that your consideration of energy sources were met with even a modicum of your level of faith in the market.
If you want to talk about interferences, what about the hundreds of billions dollars we have spent, and the hundreds of billions more we will spend, exerting our influence over this wayward and backward segment of the world known as the Middle East? You believe that an enormously expensive incursion into Iraq is called for, yet you rule out from the beginning an expenditure which, had it been made earlier, would have saved us lots of hassle, and if made now, will undoubtedly save us from more hassle and expenditures in the future.
Posted
1:13 PM
by Austin Bramwell
Another embarrassing moment was Bush's call to devote American largesse to halting the AIDS epidemic in the third world. Until professional AIDS workers become open-minded enough to promote abstinence and fidelity, giving them more money will only make the problem worse.
Posted
1:04 PM
by Austin Bramwell
Re: "Alternative fuels." The only good reason for the government to interfere with the free market's allocation of resources is to protect national security. In this case, however, if we conquer Iraq, we won't have to worry any more about oil supplies from the Middle East (and, arguably, we never really did). In the meantime, the idea that alternative sources of energy are an exigent need remains pure flapdoodle.
Posted
12:07 PM
by Jonathan Skrmetti
Greg, I initially thought that there was one feed, but according to friends who care far more about political communications minutiae, each network has access to all the cameras and can decide what shots to broadcast. I hope they're wrong; the world would be a better place if everyone saw the cut to Edwards. But I'm inclined to believe them until better evidence comes along. In the meantime, I'll sit around pining for a Cadillac Sixteen.
Posted
11:42 AM
by Bill Korner
Romney said that Massachusetts schools were not going to get the shaft even as state budgets are cut and no additional federal money is forthcoming. However, this report from the Center for Education Reform belies that claim:
Massachusetts: Local governments and schools in the Bay state are targeting charters to soften the budget cuts that are inevitable across the board. A Waltham elementary school principal "sent an email to families urging defeat of a charter program. In Framingham, homeowners got a letter with their tax bill reminding them of the fiscal impact of a charter school that opened last fall. In North Adams and surrounding towns, some 400 people have signed a petition against a charter school proposal," according to the Boston Globe.
Of course, this is not directly his fault. If we want things to be take care of at the state level, then they're going to have to have the money. Bush's education reform plan is largely an unfunded mandate.
Posted
1:49 AM
by Patrick Lewis
Greg: Isn't that a bit bold of a statement? "I am extremely skeptical that...within our lifetimes...[there will be] a good alternative to the internal combustion engine?"
Besides, we desperately need better energy-storage and production devices. We've stretched the chemical battery about as far as it's going to go with the explosion of computer technology: anyone whose laptop or cellular phone battery has died at an inopportune time can attest to that. The person or evil corporation that revolutionizes energy storage (whether through fuel cells or some other technology) will be sitting on a gold mine and, perhaps, an alternative to the internal combustion engine.
Posted
1:36 AM
by Josh Pater
Greg, you may be right about hydrogen fuel; I don't know. I guess my excitement wasn't about hydogen per se, but about the thought that the administration is accepting the importance of developing alternate energy sources. I don't think everything will be just rosy if we can only tap ANWR and Iraq (not that I am necessarily opposed to either of them). Neither do I think that this great nation, if it made a serious attempt to develop such resources, would fail within our lifetimes.
Incidentally, on Cadillac's new concept car: would it kill those folks to make a car that's not horrendously ugly?
Posted
1:25 AM
by Greg Weston
Speaking of cars, I'm falling in love with Cadillac's new sixteen cylinder, 1000-horsepower concept car. I'll put it in my garage next to my Dodge Tomahawk. Being able to go 0-60 in 2.4 seconds I think would be very useful for all those times you have to merge onto busy highways. Now these are the real cars of the future, and I heartily congratulate the designers for their "bold faced slap against mediocrity."
Posted
12:59 AM
by Greg Weston
Josh, as the saying goes hydrogen fuel is the technology of the future, and always will be. I am extremely skeptical that there will ever, at least within our lifetimes, be a good alternative to the internal combustion engine. Even as the speed of computers doubles every 18 months, and gasoline-powered engines get cleaner and cleaner, all that there is to show for the countless billions that governments and automakers around the world have spent researching alternative fuel sources are some bulky $150,000 clunkers that don't go as fast or as far and are less roomy than a $15,000 Ford Focus. Sure, maybe there will be a totally unforeseen breakthrough, but once the oil starts flowing from the ANWR, all the untapped Caspian fields, and a democratic Iraq, our national dependence on it will seems a lot less worrisome.
Posted
12:42 AM
by Josh Pater
I was quite pleasantly surprised to see the President's proposal for $1.2 billion in hydrogen fuel research. Here is what the White House is saying about the initiative:
"President Bush announced a $1.2 billion Freedom Fuel initiative to reverse America’s growing dependence on foreign oil by developing the technology needed for commercially viable hydrogen-powered fuel cells – a way to power cars, trucks, homes and businesses that produces no pollution and no greenhouse gases. The Freedom Fuel initiative will include $720 million in new funding over the next five years to develop the technologies and infrastructure needed to produce, store, and distribute hydrogen fuel for use in fuel cell vehicles and electricity generation."
I was surprised because, although I thought it was time for a Republican to face the fact that our dependence on fossil fuels is quite detrimental to our national security, I didn't expect it to come from an administration with so many ties to oil as this one. (I say Republican because a Democrat, for better or worse, couldn't get away with it. Conservatives get so much mileage out of labeling liberals with ideas like this as economy-spoiling tree-huggers that it seems untouchable for a national Democratic candidate. Enter Al Gore.) As for why I perceive such a need, lately I've been more and more convinced of the wisdom of an "international Manhattan Project" to eliminate our dependence on a bunch of tyrants in the Middle East; a bit more on that project can be found in the article from last year from which I lifted the phrase:
"If Washington were to spend the approximately $106 billion that—according to Earl Ravenal, a former Pentagon analyst—it is devoting this year to defending the Persian Gulf region, and if Western Europe, Japan, China, and Russia were to kick in what they would otherwise spend on policing the region, it's hard to imagine that this goal couldn't be achieved."
Posted
12:29 AM
by Greg Weston
Jonathan, was it only Fox News that cut to Edwards? I think is there usually just one set of cameras that all the broadcasters share.
Posted
12:27 AM
by Greg Weston
Tonight I was very proud that I voted for our president, and I'm eager to do so again in 2004. In 2000 the various third party candidates spoke of how there wasn't a dime's worth of difference between the two major parties. That wasn't true then, and after watching Gary Locke's response to Bush's speech I don't know how anyone could think so now. It is sad really that the party of Thomas Jefferson and Andrew Jackson has become the party of Bill Clinton and Al Sharpton, of racial checkboxes and partial-birth abortions, of reactionary public employee unions and the blame-America-first crowd.
Locke's speech was so bad you really have to question the competency of the leaders of the party that chose him. He had a bizarre haircut, bopped his head up and down on every third word, and was overwhelmingly negative. He kept straying off into odd and pointless tangents, and his speech utterly lacked the seriousness and substantive content of Bush's speech. Was I the only one who noticed how excessively pleased with himself he was after uttering his "upside-down economics" line? I don't even think he believed the part where he said that allies in our upcoming war against Saddam Hussein's government are as important as they were in World War II. The American military is so vastly superior to Iraq's, it is hard to take Locke's position seriously. Most of our bombs have satellites and computers guiding them home while Saddam's dilapidated army of unhappy conscripts tools around in 50's vintage Soviet tanks. It took the US less than 100 hours to route a march larger and better funded Iraqi army in 1991. The only potential usefulness of the French or Germans in the war I can think of would be to help deal with the hordes of Iraqi troops as they all attempt to surrender at the same time.
Tuesday, January 28, 2003
Posted
10:59 PM
by Jonathan Skrmetti
I just got back from the HLS GOP's State of the Union party. Spirits were high, especially when the President discussed the evils of malpractice lawsuits and Fox News cut to Senator Edwards. I thought the President did quite a good job, with some innovative and unexpected proposals leading up to a very compelling case against Iraq. Then the rebuttal provided plenty of amusement to wind down the evening.
Posted
2:00 PM
by Jonathan Skrmetti
Forget rose-coloured, these people are looking at the world through opaque spectacles
I was getting my hourly dose of Bashman and found this interesting example of those of a particular ideological bent getting the facts wrong in their pursuit of "justice":
First, the blog TalkLeft cites a source "in the know" as saying:
The primary evidence in the case was a doctor who said that one time use of cocaine was known to cause death. His only support for this was popular press about the Len Bias case. Apparently that was enough for this court too as they stated: "Given the fact that it is public knowledge that usage of cocaine is potentially fatal, we find the fact that McKnight took cocaine knowing she was pregnant was sufficient evidence to submit to the jury on whether she acted with extreme indifference to her child’s life.
Now, here's the language on causation from the South Carolina State Supreme Court decision:
Dr. Proctor, who performed the autopsy and who was qualified as an expert in criminal pathology, testified that the only way for the infant to have benzoylecgonine present was through cocaine, and that the cocaine had to have come from the mother. Dr. Proctor determined the cause of death to be intrauterine fetal demise with mild chorioamnionitis, funisitis and cocaine consumption. Dr. Proctor ruled the death a homicide.
Another pathologist, Dr. Woodward, who was qualified as an expert in pediatric pathology testified that the gestational age of the infant was between 35-37 weeks, and that it was viable. He then described how one determines the cause of death of a viable fetus, by looking for abnormalities, placental defects, infections, and the chemical constituency of the child. He explained the effect that cocaine would have on both an adult and a child. He testified that the placenta was the major heart-lung machine while the baby was inutero and that cocaine usage can produce degeneration of the small blood vessels in the placenta. He stated that he found areas of pinkish red degeneration of the blood vessels which were consistent with cocaine exposure. He testified that he did not see any other indications of the cause of death, and found a lack of evidence of other infections, lack of other abnormalities, otherwise normal development of the child, it’s size, weight, and lung development. Although Dr. Woodward agreed with Dr. Proctor that chorioamnionitis and mild funisitis were present, he testified that to a reasonable degree of medical certainty, those conditions had not caused the death of the infant. He also opined that neither syphilis, nor placental abruption killed the infant. He concluded that, to a reasonable degree of medical certainty, the cause of death was intrauterine cocaine exposure. Although Woodward could not say the exact mechanism by which the cocaine had killed the infant, he testified the “mechanisms through cardiac function, placental functions, are seen as most probable.” On cross-exam, Woodward testified that he believed the death was caused solely by the cocaine effect, and that the drugs could have caused the baby’s heart to stop, or to have caused the baby’s heart to rise precipitously putting the baby in congestive heart failure. He explained the lack of abnormalities in the heart found by Dr. Proctor’s autopsy, stating, “I wouldn’t expect to see specific indices in the heart if the heart just stopped or if the heart went into congestive heart failure.” Finally, Woodward testified he had seen both children and adults dead with less benzoylecgonine in their systems than McKnight’s baby.
Although McKnight’s expert, Dr. Conradi, would not testify that cocaine had caused the stillbirth, she did testify that cocaine had been in the baby at one point. She also ruled out the possibility of chorioamnionitis, funisitis or syphilis as the cause of death.
Viewing the expert testimony in the light most favorable to the state, we find sufficient evidence to withstand a directed verdict. McHoney, supra. Any defect in the expert testimony went to its weight, a defect McKnight was free to challenge with her own evidence.
You can find the complete text of the opinion here.
Posted
1:19 PM
by Christine Niles
ND received an e-mail about the Georgetown amicus brief a week or two ago. The brief argues that J. Powell's opinion in Bakke should be the governing rule, and that any discrimination based on race--including for college admissions--should be reviewed under strict scrutiny. The Georgetown brief essentially argues that diversity is the compelling interest needed to survive strict scrutiny, and the bulk of its paper is taken up with explaining why diversity is so lovely that adding an extra 20 points for being black, brown, or red (but not yellow or white) makes sense.
Posted
12:25 PM
by Jonathan Skrmetti
I don't know if there's an opposing brief, Whitman, but if there is, I hope it's better than the law student brief in support. I'm not going to detail what's wrong with the brief here, since someone on the other side might see this and make corrections, but it is not something I would feel comfortable signing my name to and sending to the Supreme Court.
Posted
12:04 PM
by Whitman Holt
I recently got a copy of an e-mail asking law students around the U.S. to sign onto an Amicus brief supporting Affirmative-Action in the Grutter v. Bollinger case (U/Michigan AA issue). Does anyone know if there is any opposing brief (i.e. anti-AA) being generated by/for law students?
Posted
11:28 AM
by Austin Bramwell
Here's a salutary correction: Contrary to popular myth, Shakespeare's famous line "The first thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers" was uttered not in commonsense protest of byzantine legal rules, but in inordinate zeal to upend established authority. (In defense of Jack Cade's rebellion, however, it should be said that Cade's band was not a rabblehood, and Henry VI was an unusually derelict King.) Of course, whether Shakespeare would have defended the lawyers of today is another question altogether.
Monday, January 27, 2003
Posted
11:41 PM
by Jonathan Skrmetti
Civilian casualties in times of war are tragic and if we should go to war with Iraq we should take extraordinary steps to limit civilian casualties, which will be difficult given Saddam Hussein's predilection for placing military targets in densely populated civilian areas. However, people who intentionally use themselves as human shields deserve no such treatment. They know what they've gotten themselves in for, and if a target needs to be destroyed to further the war effort, people stupid enough to put themselves in harm's way there know exactly what's coming and deserves what they get. I think those people should be tried for treason if hostilities begin, they continue their efforts, and they survive. Still, perhaps their presence will deter in some small way Saddam's use of other civilians as human shields (though I doubt it). Does everybody remember the footage of Saddam with the blonde British kid during the first Gulf War?
Posted
11:36 PM
by Jonathan Skrmetti
Another thing: BAMN is very eager to start the new civil rights movement. Those who struggled in the original civil rights movement actually fought for civil rights: the right to be treated equally regardless of race. BAMN is pushing for unequal treatment based on race - in the past, this sort of thing was called apartheid and generally frowned upon. Now I guess it's unfair of me to judge someone based on the content of their character; the new civil rights movement demands that I judge people on the color of their skin.
Posted
11:10 PM
by Avigael Cymrot
The "human shields" in the article linked to by Patrick below seem to have a similarly bizarre fixation on race--they seem to believe that while Americans will tolerate the deaths of Iraqis in the war as they are (apparently) non-white, Americans have such racial solidarity with the white man that if any white Westerners are killed by American bombs in the war in Iraq it will suddenly become a political catastrophe for Bush and Blair. Although I support a possible war on Iraq, I will feel regret at the inevitable casualties among Iraqi civilians, who are basically under imprisonment; however, I will have next to no sympathy for Americans or Europeans who are placing themselves in harm's way to deliberately prop up a totalitarian dictator who has caused the deaths of approximately 1 million people.
Posted
10:43 PM
by Jonathan Skrmetti
By Any Means Necessary is an organization that should simply not be taken seriously. Unfortunately, they are being taken seriously, at least in some circles. Here is their fundamental belief:
The bigoted lie that differences in human biology have produced our social order is at the base of the attack on affirmative action. The fundamental, if often unspoken, logic of the attacks on the gains of the Civil Rights Movement derives from the claims of the pseudoscientific theory of biological determinism that says that the inequality that pervades our society and structures the social order is “natural” and therefore both immutable and just, and that no social policy either can or ought to remedy this inequality.
To reiterate, BAMN believes that anyone opposed to affirmative action takes the position because they adhere to a theory of biological determinism that tells them that certain races are inferior. It's funny; I always thought the whole idea behind the attack on affirmative was that our social order ought not recognize superficial differences in human biology. BAMN is a group that dwells on differences in skin color (biologically determined differences) ad nauseum, while the vast majority of Americans opposed to affirmative action tend to think that such differences should not lead to disparate treatment.
Of course my inability to see that I and others who oppose disparate treatment based on race as rooted in a pseudoscientific theory of biological determinism is just my white privilege blinding me to the truth. This must be the case because BAMN's eighth organizational principle includes the prescription that they will tell the truth and nothing but the truth.
Until BAMN starts taking on real arguments against affirmative action and countering them, and stops setting up straw men with Klan hoods to knock down so they can congratulate themselves on their new civils rights movement, I doubt they'll say anything worth listening to.
Posted
8:41 PM
by Christine Niles
It all comes down to me? Oh dear. I've got some work ahead of me.
From the pages of BAMN. This is hilarious. By Any Means Necessary asserts that a "defeat for affirmative action in these two cases [Bollinger] will resegregate higher education and make Brown v. Board of Education a dead letter." Talk about hyperbole. Some other questionable statements on their website:
Experience hones social-assessment skills, enabling black and other minority students to relate to people from a variety of different backgrounds often at a higher level of understanding than their white peers. Can you say "elitist"? Elsewhere, BAMN states that
The defeat of affirmative action in the University of California system led to a decrease in Filipino, Pacific Islander, Chinese, Indian and Pakistani enrollment at UC Berkeley graduate programs and also led to a dramatic increase in racist hate-crimes against APAs in the city of Berkeley.(emphasis added) As to the first clause of the sentence, no kidding; as to the second, I'd like to see how they determined causation on that one.
BAMN also proudly asserts that, "On May 16, 2001, we successfully forced the UC Regents to unanimously vote to reverse the ban on affirmative action in the UC System." Forced? Doesn't this sort of defeat the purpose of a democratic vote?
Posted
7:19 PM
by Patrick Lewis
Kevin: Hmm, I was a bit too hasty on that second article, in retrospect. Mea culpa. But, your point does raise an interesting question: how can anyone politically challenge affirmative action under the Left's regime? Whites can't challenge it because to do so is to be racist (and might cause you to get slapped by NYC councilman Charles Barron); blacks and latinos can't challenge it because there is the stigma that they benefitted from it, and therefore are hypocritical for biting the hand that fed them. Christine, I think it all comes down to you. ;-) (just teasing)
Posted
6:31 PM
by Kevin Plummer
Patrick: I didn't read the second article in the same manner that you did. It seemed to me to be far more tongue in cheek. In fact, the author makes the point, or at least infers, that he succeeded based on his own merits (top of his high school class) rather than due to affirmative action, and that he is more disappointed in the belief, by either conservatives or now liberals, that he only succeeded based on affirmative action. The white affirmative action crack was merely to show the hypocracy that "where you are today" may not be based upon a government program. I don't think that he is in favor of affirmative action, rather he is opposed to others assuming that affirmative action is the reason that successful minorities have succeeded. Considering that he probably advanced due to his merit and ability rather than by government handout, this opposition seems pretty understandable.
Posted
6:14 PM
by Jonathan Skrmetti
Former Felicity star (and lucky husband of Jennifer Garner) Scott Foley is starring in a New NBC show, A.U.S.A. It is, not surprisingly given the title, a show about an assistant U..S. attorney. While one would expect the show would focus on the criminal side of the job, the Entertainment Weekly synopsis suggests that it may involve civil practice as well. I am a big fan of federal prosecution, but I as skeptical as to whether the American public is ready for six week tax fraud trials, federal tort claims cases, and the Sentencing Guidelines. I suspect the only way the show will succeed is if, like The Practice, it is wildly inauthentic.
Posted
5:21 PM
by Patrick Lewis
Christine: check out the By Any Means Necessary coalition's website and this article about affirmative action (from a latino) - I think they illustrate my point about Marxist power structures very well. Notice how both pieces undermine the concept of merit-based admissions (the former through specious claims about the lack of reliability of standardized testing, the latter through references to "white affirmative action" getting whites to where they are) and classify the debate as one of groups struggling against oppression. Ultimately, Christine, I think these groups see "points" (whether SAT points, grade points, or racial bonus points) as all being arbitrary and unrelated to their merit. Instead, it's cast in terms of minority classes struggling against white oppression: from that vantage point, the 20 points are seen as an entitlement because they're seen as the "least" the white oppressors can do to cancel out the effects of their oppression.
The second article, incidentally, is also interesting because it attacks a comment Lieberman made where he suggested that Condi Rice's career is owed to affirmative action and not to merit. I only include it because it seems generally to support racial bonus points and attacks anyone (whether a Republican or Democrat) for drawing the inference that admission based on bonus points translates to lesser merit for the points' recipient.
Posted
3:32 PM
by Christine Niles
Patrick: Thanks for the info. I understand the reasons why Asians aren't given preferential treatment in admissions, and I should clarify strongly that I do not advocate such for Asians. Quite the opposite. My question goes to the reasons why any minority would feel proud of or entitled to extra points based merely on skin color. I would very much like to hear answers from African-Americans, Hispanics, or Native Americans who support affirmative action.
Dan: I have always felt that people who support abortion in the abstract would, nine times out of ten, change their minds if they were to see the end product. Feminists have complained of pro-lifers' practice of displaying pictures of mangled bodies of aborted fetuses, but Naomi Wolf, longtime abortion advocate, criticizes such feminists for their lack of honesty:
The pro-choice movement often treats with contempt the pro-lifers' practice of holding up to our faces their disturbing graphics. [But] how can we charge that it is vile and repulsive for pro-lifers to brandish vile and repulsive images if the images are real? To insist that truth is in poor taste is the very height of hypocrisy. Besides, if these images are often the facts of the matter, and if we then claim that it is offensive for pro-choice women to be confronted with them, then we are making the judgment that women are too inherently weak to face a truth about which they have to make a grave decision. This view is unworthy of feminism.
Posted
1:43 PM
by Dan Kelly
I think it is about time for Congress to ban both D&X and D&E. An informative but disturbing article about "piece-by-piece" abortion is here. By the way, it's lucky for pro-abortion advocates that the media covers for them. If the general public actually saw these gruesome "procedures" on television, they would be banned in under 5 minutes.
Sunday, January 26, 2003
Posted
10:27 PM
by Patrick Lewis
Is it just me, or should these American and British "Human Shields" who are volunteering to chain themselves to various places in Iraq to make it "politically impossible" for Bush and Blair to carry out a war be arrested and put on trial for treason if they ever return?
Christine: Until recently, there hasn't been much organization within the APA (Asian & Pacific American) community to demand affirmative action. It's beginning to change, as this document from UCLA evidences. This report, titled Beyond Self Interest: APAs toward a community of justice, advocates that APAs demand affirmative action. It justifies the claim by structuring the question to imply conflict between the white and Asian communities (for example, the very first section of the document starts off by referencing white supremacism). That isn't accidental: affirmative action is based on Marxist/Gramscian racial power structures. That you, as a class, "suffer" is a necessary, but not sufficient, condition to receive government largesse. The suffering must be caused by the bourgeois, oppressive white class -- then, redistribution of wealth and power between the two groups through affirmative action and racial setasides becomes appropriate.
If the affirmative action people are successful in breeding more anti-white sentiment in the APA community, you will start to see the tide shift to grant affirmative action to APAs. How? The race baiters will change the story of the Asian diaspora from one of escaping oppressive communist regimes to find freedom and prosperity in America to one of a people suffering under the yoke of white racial oppression. Once that change is complete, you will see Asians earning bonus points at Michigan.
Posted
1:07 PM
by Jonathan Skrmetti
The Boston Globe is reporting that Chief Justice Margaret Marshall has taken herself out of the running for the position of Dean of Harvard Law School. (Thanks to Howard Bashman for the link.)
Posted
3:04 AM
by Christine Niles
Interesting numbers. Undergraduate applicants at the University of Michigan are ranked on a scale of 150 points, with 100 being the minimum number of points needed to guarantee admission.
20 … the number of points an applicant receives for being African-American, Hispanic, or Native American
20 … the increase or decrease in the number of points earned for a full letter of grade point average (e.g., 80 points for a 4.0 (A) average, 60 points for a 3.0 (B) average, 40 points for a 2.0 (C) average, and so on)
12 … the total amount of points that can be earned for a perfect standardized test score (e.g., 1600 on the SAT)
8 … the maximum number of points that can be earned for taking a difficult high school curriculum
3 … the number of points that can be earned for an outstanding personal essay
0 … the number of points an applicant receives for being Arab, Asian, or Caucasian
90% or better … the 1996 acceptance rate of African-American, Hispanic, and Native American applicants with grade point averages of at least 2.8 (B-) and SAT scores of 830 (about the 20th percentile nationally)
also 90 % or better … the 1996 acceptance rate of Asian and Caucasian applicants with grade point averages of at least 3.8 (A-) and SAT scores of 1200 (about the 80th percentile nationally).
As I've noted elsewhere, technically, as an Asian, I am considered a minority--but, apparently, not the right type of minority for U. Mich. Nevermind that most of my relatives endured incredible hardships and left their beloved home country and everything they knew in order to start over in America--many with little or no comprehension of English. We were no more exempt from struggling through our academics in the midst of difficult economic circumstances than anyone else. None of this shows up on my skin--and that is as it should be.
The fact is, I would feel ashamed to know that I was accepted into college because I had enough extra points for having the right skin tone. Why would any minority feel happy about this? Why would any minority feel entitled to this? These are not rhetorical questions. Those of you who know the answers should enlighten me.
Saturday, January 25, 2003
Posted
5:09 PM
by Kevin Plummer
Actually, I think he would be oppossed just by the American League senators, while the National League senators would complain about the "DH" litmus test that their colleagues have.
Posted
1:10 PM
by Jonathan Skrmetti
Howard Bashman has a great interview with Judge Jerry Smith up on his blog. Judge Smith was the speaker at the joint Harvard Law School Federalist Society/Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy banquet last year; he's a very open and honest man, especially about his opposition to the designated hitter rule, and that is reflected in the interview. Many HLS Federalist Society and JLPP alums have clerked for Judge Smith. Check out the interview.
Incidentally, I can just imagine if Judge Smith had to go through confirmation hearings these days: People for the American Way would insinuate that his opposition to the designated hitter rule was some sly form of racism, designated hitters past and present would be wheeled out for the committee to give sob stories about how they can't field and the judge would take away their livelihood, and Democrats would accuse him of trying to roll back the clock on the designated hitter rule, then argue that the judge is a judicial activist since he wants to change the rule. Then Pete Rose would come out and accuse the judge of sexual harassment, and the whole thing would turn into a media circus.
Posted
7:20 AM
by Patrick Lewis
CNN is celebrating the 50th Anniversary of the publication of Kinsey's "Sexual Behavior in the Human Female" (1953). The article is a very interested read: the book made the claim that 50% of men and 25% of women had committed adultery, for example.
Ah well. Now that my evidence class is over, I'm gone for the weekend. Be back Tuesday!
Friday, January 24, 2003
Posted
4:23 PM
by Austin Bramwell
Btw, while I still have a chance to discuss the pill, I should add that it has converted adolescence from a transitional phase the normal state of humanity. That is to say, as children mature earlier, adults marry later, with the result that the years in between become nothing but a prolonged adolescence. But, then again, what is liberalism, with its gay visions of every individual choosing his own paths to self-fulfillment, other than a preference for adolescence over adulthood?
Posted
4:17 PM
by Avigael Cymrot
I've heard about rampant grade inflation, but this is ridiculous. If only the U.N. were grading 1L exams!
Posted
4:16 PM
by Austin Bramwell
Josh: Charlie Glenn is speaking for ACS? I suppose he'll play the role of right-wing gadfly. Here he is questioning the merits of the "bloodless secular faith" imposed by government schools.
Posted
4:07 PM
by Jonathan Skrmetti
Relationships have consequences.
Exam's done; I wish I had a faster printer - I had to cancel the 1200 dpi print job to ensure I got it in on time. Hopefully that won't have a substantial grade impact.
Posted
12:09 PM
by Patrick Lewis
I think Skrmetti has belied the truth of the matter - he is seeking a consequence-free short-term relationship, and feels disadvantaged by his more refined appearance. I can picture him saying, 'if only I was an underpaid construction worker and not a law student, Fox would be airing Jonathan Millionaire right now!" </sarcasm>
Posted
10:44 AM
by Jonathan Skrmetti
Kevin, a darned good point. My pretext for opposing pill use is not very persuasive. I'll think up something better, but not until I finish my take-home exam.
Posted
10:11 AM
by Kevin Plummer
Actually, Jonathan, wouldn't this be a good thing, thinking only from the genetic inheritance point of view, for less "rugged" men? Those on the pill are, while on the pill, less likely to have children. From pure genetic inheritance, you should be happy that, of all women, only those far more likely to give birth are attracted to you.
Posted
1:56 AM
by Jonathan Skrmetti
Based on Patrick's recent post, I have decided that "the pill" is a moral evil and must be eradicated from the earth. Its potentially devastating effect on the genetic inheritance of the human race poses a grave risk. For anything that prevents women from being attracted to me is surely an affront to all that is right in the world, and while I am many things, "rugged looking" is not one of them.
Posted
12:34 AM
by Patrick Lewis
An article I ran across that relates to contraception use:
New research from St. Andrews indicates that women's preferences for men physically change depending on whether the woman is on the "birth control pill." Apparently women on the pill seek more "Rugged" looking men, whereas women not on the pill seek men who are less rugged. The authors suggest a number of reasons for this. It apparently discredits a previous notion that women's "mate preferences" changed depending upon what point along her menstrual cycle she was at the time. (Yes, this is real)
Dan: 70% of America may indeed oppose the rationale behind 90% of abortions, but the vast majority still see no issues with first-trimester abortions (which is when the highest volume of abortions occurs). It's become a rights issue. We may "dislike" a lot of things in society, whether convenience abortions or the KKK. Because this is seen by pro-choicers as a rights issue (regardless of their support for "convenience abortions"), most folks will object on principle to command and control regulation or proscription of abortion. It's the same as how a majority of Americans also dislike the KKK, but think they should have the right to hold protests. I'm telling you, this comes down to first-principles and must be confronted on that basis. The abortion battle isn't about Gallup polls and compromises - the battle is squarely about answering the question: whose right is it? The mother's right to choose, or the fetus's right to life?
That is why I stick to my claim that the pro-life position is still out of the mainstream, at least until I see the percentages opposed to first trimester abortions drop far lower than they are. Until then, arguing pro-life is about the same as arguing that we should take away the First Amendment to ban the KKK. (or, at HLS, pass the speech code and send conservatives for a little re-education, Soviet-style. ;p)
Jonathan: The fact I have an Evidence exam in 013:45 and am posting on here is more confirming evidence of your inviolate principle regarding blogging and exams. ;)
Thursday, January 23, 2003
Posted
10:58 PM
by Josh Pater
While the cats are away...
Bashman also points out that the ACS is hosting some interesting events -- including the following at Harvard: 'Conference on "What is Liberalism?" featuring Judge Guido Calabresi, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, Professors Janet Halley and Gary Orfield, Harvard, William Eskridge, Yale, and Charles Glenn, Boston University, and others. The program will include panels on school choice, sexual politics, voting rights, and poverty.'
Too bad it will be held February 21-22, while the HLS Fed. Soc. faithful will be elsewhere.
Posted
10:50 PM
by Jonathan Skrmetti
Kill Whitey . . . or at least read his blog
Adam White has weighed in on our judicial nomination discussion:
While some may argue that the Democrats would cave before garnering too much negative reaction to their "obstructionist" tactics, that surely will not happen when abortion is the one issue tying the Democratic Party together.
I'm not sure Adam's quite true; we could probably get a pro-life Justice to fill the next spot, but not someone with Garza's prominent paper trail of opposition to Roe.
Incidentally, look down a fews posts on Adam's blog and note his statement that "With my Securities Regulation exam tomorrow, I won't be blogging again until at least Friday night." It's an inviolate law of nature: as finals approach, blog activity skyrockets.
And with that, I have to prepare for my terrorism exam tomorrow.
Posted
10:37 PM
by Jonathan Skrmetti
Dan, first of all, a Bashman quote is always a good thing. Second, I think there's just no question that Garza would not be confirmed if he was nominated - he has been explicit in his opposition to Roe. Why throw a nominee to the wolves when there's no chance he'd make it? I think it would be better to wait on Garza until his confirmation is at least plausible. A rough confirmation fight now could ruin his chances for later appointment to the Court. The case against someone like Estrada is much, much harder to make, and would highlight for America how political Democratic obstructionism has become.
If there is a chance Garza could be confirmed, I would be all for his nomination. But I think that putting him up just to be smacked down, no matter how politically advantageous, would be unfair to Garza and a waste of time for the Senate.
Posted
10:16 PM
by Dan Kelly
Jonathan: Just to add a little more credence to my view for playing hardball, here's a quote from Bashman on How Appealing: "The voters last November elected a Republican majority to the U.S. Senate. Part of the reason why was a dissatisfaction with the obstructionist tactics Democrats were using to block President Bush's judicial nominees."
Posted
10:08 PM
by Dan Kelly
Jonathan & Patrick: I am definitely not beyond being persuaded that nominating Estrada (or someone with similar conservative values) is not politically prudent and/or viable, but I am not convinced by the reasons you have given.
Patrick: I am not suggesting that Republicans should play the "race card"; Garza and Estrada are both extremely well qualified and I am not saying that Republicans should use any nomination to say that Democrats are only opposing them because of their race (this would be the equivalent to the usual "race card" tactics); I also agree (and concur with Jonathan) that the pro-life position is not out of the mainstream (I think the statististics demonstrate that basically 70% of Americans oppose 90% of the circumstances in which abortions are performed); additionally, the pro-life position is definitely not out of the "mainstream" among Hispanic voters. Thus, I do not think that "Latino voters would say 'they oppose Garza because he's pro-life.'" Indeed, I think Hispanic voters would rally around a nomination for either Estrada or Garza (although I am open to hearing evidence to the contrary).
Jonathan: I agree with you that it might lead to a Democratic filibuster. But you seem to assume that this is necessarily a bad thing. On the contrary, the average American is smart enought to realize both when the government or legal system is being systematically prevented form performing its function and the effects of such a stoppage. That is why Bush was able to get so much mileage in his mid-term election speeches about the fact that the Democratic senate was preventing judges from being confimed and thus preventing justice from being done. A Democratic filibuster of Garza or Estrada would have major negative political effects for the Democrats. Bush should stay aggressive and not back down.
Posted
9:43 PM
by Brooks Eubank
In vitro fertilization is just great (and morally unobjectionable in my opinion) for that one embryo that gets implanted. However, in my exceedingly limited understanding--that means feel free to correct me anyone--the overall proceedure usually, if not always, involves the conscious creation of extra embryos that are either discarded or shoved in the fridge for a very uncertain ultimate fate. Most people who oppose abortion, at least the it=murder types like me, would find this part of the procedure, rather than the somewhat untraditional production of a healthy living infant, the most disturbing.
Posted
8:41 PM
by Patrick Lewis
Jonathan: I'm sure Hanson will have a field day ripping that opinion next year in his Torts class. The judge dismissed it on personal responsibility grounds:
If consumers know (or reasonably should know) the potential ill health effects of eating at McDonald's, they cannot blame McDonald's if they, nonetheless, choose to satiate their appetite with a surfeit of supersized McDonald's products," U.S. District Court Judge Robert Sweet said in a 65-page ruling.
Heaven forbid. I bet his clerks had fun writing this.
Posted
8:09 PM
by Jonathan Skrmetti
Alina, let's just count our blessings that the suit was dismissed. Around HLS there are quite a few people who view this as a tremendous loss and an example of evil corporate influence corrupting our legal system.
Posted
7:56 PM
by alina stefanescu
Guys, I know the abortion debate still matters, but when there are cases as crucial as this one being dismissed, maybe it's time to change the subject of discussion to super-size issues. (I'm trying to keep a straight face about the state of the nation, but it gets more difficult every day.)
Posted
7:14 PM
by Jonathan Skrmetti
Patrick, the pro-life movement is becoming increasingly mainstream. If you look at poll numbers, the radical left is beign marginalized and the American public is buying into more and more of the pro-life position. While the public may not yet be ready to overturn Roe (however you do that - thank you, Burger Court, for removing the issue from the province of the legislature and turning it into a constitutional issue), being pro-life no longer carries the social stigma it once did.
Posted
7:09 PM
by Jonathan Skrmetti
Dan, it may play well for the Republicans in the long run, but in the short run it would lead to a Democratic filibuster and a vacant seat on the Court. Garza may be nominated, but he would not be confirmed.
Posted
5:15 PM
by Avigael Cymrot
Austin: I'm not sure why you consider in vitro fertilization per se to be either a social evil or a consequence of contraception; in vitro fertilization can be used to assist infertile couples who otherwise would not be able to have families. Simply because you disfavor certain outcomes or potential outcomes of in vitro fertilization does not mean that the procedure is in and of itself immoral. Here's an interesting article addressing comparative religious and secular approaches to the issue on JLaw.com.
Posted
5:04 PM
by Patrick Lewis
Dan: I don't think Republicans have the political traction to play a race card. Democrats still enjoy the presumption of being racially harmonious, such that people would not tie opposition to any latino candidate to race. Latino voters would say "they oppose Garza because he's pro-life," not "they oppose Garza because he's latino, and they're using pro-life as an excuse." I still think abortion is a third-rail for Republicans and it ought to be avoided until the pro-lifers can put their position back into the mainstream.
Don't get me wrong: I want to see Roe overturned as much as the next conservative. My own view is probably moderate compared to some -- I see abortion as being an area that involves so many first-principles such that reasonable minds will always disagree on its morality. As such, I don't think either side has a slam-dunk civil rights argument to justify a constitutional mandate legalizing (or banning) the practice. This is really a "right" that needs to be created by state legislative mandate. However, we should have plenty of opportunities in the future to fix Roe. Trying to stack the court now would be disasterous to Bush.
Posted
4:24 PM
by Dan Kelly
Jonathan: I don't see why the GOP should be timid in nominating Garza because of his strong pro-life views. If the Dems want to make this an issue at his potential hearings (which surely they would do), it would have extremely positive political repercussions for the GOP. The Democrats would be seen as trying to block the first Hispanic Supreme Court Justice and the Hispanic community (which overwhelmingly favors traditional family values) would be further alienated from the Democratic party. A win-win for the GOP. Also, I just have a quick logistical question: If Estrada is indeed confirmed in the D.C Circuit in (say) the next few months, would that be (in practical terms) enough time for him to be sitting to be considered as a potential candidate for a possible Supreme Court opening this summer?
Posted
4:12 PM
by Jonathan Skrmetti
Susan Konig has a great piece on abortion in today's NRO (which also features an ad for Season One of The Shield on DVD, which everybody should buy and watch and watch again). Konig discusses the difficulty in explaining abortion to children, who find it difficult to recognize any difference in kind between a baby inside her mommy's tummy and a baby outside her mommy's tummy. Eight year old children have a much clearer vision of right and wrong than those taught in later years to equivocate. Anybody who's an older sibling, for instance, who watched as his or her mother grow as the baby inside her grew, must have a difficult time rationalizing support for abortion. To take a more extreme example, I can't imagine how families that have seen a pregnancy end in miscarriage can ever view the intentional termination of a pregnancy with anything but deep sadness. This is a far cry from the big smiles on display yesterday at the Roe v. Wade birthday party at the Hark.
The goal of pro-life activistis should be to encourage people to remember the joy and wonder with which as children they experienced a mother's, or aunt's, or sibling's pregnancy. Once that's done, it's not a very big step to push them toward applying those memories to their understanding of abortion.
Posted
3:44 PM
by Jonathan Skrmetti
Dan, bad news for you and other Domers: it seems like the gossip mongers are only willing to keep one Hispanic alternative to Gonzales in mind at any given time, and right now that spot is occupied by Gibson, Dunn superstar and D.C. Circuit nominee Miguel Estrada. In addition, Garza's outspoken opposition to Roe v. Wade probably renders him unconfirmable for the time being, despite his efforts to couch that strong opposition in rhetoric that is fairly palatable to the left.
Posted
3:27 PM
by Austin Bramwell
Greg: I can't say whether better nutrition has quickened our libidos, but I can say that contraception has made in (apparently) more convenient for young people to put off marriage until later in life. Were this not so, premarital sex would be much less prevalent, despite that boys and girls reach adolescence earlier (which, btw, is itself a quite a shame).
Posted
2:38 PM
by Dan Kelly
I completely agree regarding Gonzales. We do not need another Souter on the Supreme Court. By the way, whatever happened to Emilio Garza's name being thrown around as a possible nominee. Before the 2000 election, Randall Kennedy was predicting that Garza would be one of the leading contenders. (See also this link for pre-election 2000 possible contenders) After the election, Garza's name was also being thrown around, but now all I hear about is Gonzales. Additionally, it seems to me that Garza would also be more attractive because it would be easier to portray him as less of a Washington insider (or one of "Bush's guys") than Gonzales.
Posted
10:15 AM
by Kevin Plummer
And, if you scroll down a bit in Mickey Kaus's blog, there is an interesting look at Hillary Clinton and her potential vote on Michael Chertoff. In fact, you should read the whole blog because there is some other good stuff in there as well. Anybody who takes Paul Krugman to task is good enough for me.
Posted
10:10 AM
by Kevin Plummer
Jonathan: Regarding Al Gonzalez, Robert Novak is right there with you. According to him, Mr. Gonzalez watered down the University of Michigan brief as well.
Wednesday, January 22, 2003
Posted
11:15 PM
by Jonathan Skrmetti
In more nominations news, Assistant Attorney General Michael Chertoff is apparently in line for the Third Circuit. Chertoff has been a key figure in the war on terror and a good AAG absent his historic role. Mr. Chertoff would by all accounts make a terrific judge, and I am always in favor of adding more former prosecutors to the bench. Hopefully Mr. Chertoff's exceptional and distinguished service in a time of national crisis will forestall a Democrat ambush. And even if it doesn't, hey, Republicans are in the majority now.
Posted
11:05 PM
by Jonathan Skrmetti
Souter Redux?
Volokh conspirator Philippe DeCroy suggests that White House Counsel and former Texas Supreme Court Judge Al Gonzales will be tapped to replace a retiring Chief this summer. Such an appointment would be disastrous. Gonzales is a very capable jurist, but his apparently minimal commitment to conservative principles makes him an inappropriate replacement for one of the Court's four conservative Justices. The balance of power in the Court would swing leftward far enough to allow a repeat of the excesses of the Warren, Burger, and early Rehnquist Courts, something that America must avoid at all costs. Were Mr. Gonzales to replace Justice O'Connor or one of the Court's four liberal justices, particularly if a solid conservative were to replace another of those Justices and secure a majority, that would be fine. Mr. Gonzales would no doubt distinguish himself over a long career. But tipping the balance of the Court in favor of judicial legislators at the height of Republican triumph is folly of the most destructive kind.
Of course, we could always be pleasantly surprised by a rightward shift were Justice Gonzales to sit on the Court, but history, both personal and institutional, suggests that such a happy metamorphosis would be unlikely. In the absence of evidence that Mr. Gonzales will stand firmly for conservative principles, conservative activists must exert as much pressure as we can possibly bring to bear on the President to ensure continued conservative control of the judiciary. And were we to fail in such a task, America would be in for decades of judicial lawmaking. No matter how many brilliant dissents this would give Justice Scalia the opportunity to write, such a situation would be unacceptable.
Posted
6:44 PM
by Greg Weston
Austin, sex can be both a means to gratification, and an expression of love, or both. But the rise of premarital sex, while certainly it can be partially "blamed" on contraceptives, also has to do with the fact that better nutrition is leading to earlier and earlier sexual maturities. The average age of menarche in developed counties has gone from around 17 in 1900 to 12.5 today. Better nutrition, more leisure time, and improved general health have also increased the strength of our libidos over those of our more sickly ancestors. At the same time adolescents are sexually maturing at earlier ages, the age when they end their education, become financially independent, and contemplate marriage is increasing. It is one thing to expect women to refrain from sex if they sexually mature at age 17 and will probably be married by age 19, it is another thing to expect them to wait from age 12 to their mid or late 20's before having sex.
Patrick, have another look at the paper. You say "it appears very likely that the percentage of women having had an abortion is at least close to 44%." Actually the 43.3% figure wasn't the percentage of woman who have had an abortion, but the percentage of women who have had one or will in the future according to the study. As I mentioned before, the 43.3% figure was already wrong the day it was calculated, because the number of future abortions turned out to be much lower than the authors thought. The study said that the percentage of women aged 15-44 who actually ever had an abortion is 29.9%, nowhere close to 44%. And again, that was based on 1992 data, the figures are definitely lower now.
One more thing to mention about the statistics, which is because the most dramatic decline in abortion occurred among the younger cohorts, we can infer that the number of first abortions declined even more dramatically than the number of abortions overall since the older the woman is getting an abortion the more likely it wasn't her first. And since the statistic in dispute is the percentage of women who will ever have one abortion, that too should have declined even more than the abortion rate in general.
As to why this decline happened, I agree that abortion protesters blocking clinics had something to do with it. But don't forget that also single teenagers and young adults are also less sexually active than they used to be, and are more likely to use contraceptives than in the past.
Posted
5:26 PM
by Austin Bramwell
Btw, the locus classicus warning of the woes attendant on the contraceptive ethic is, of course, the Bishop of Rome's Humanae Vitae. For a very commonsensical treatment of the issue, I recommend the works of Janet E. Smith.
Posted
5:21 PM
by Austin Bramwell
Josh: You are right that different people oppose or support abortion and contraception for different reasons, if not different principles. Nevertheless, if we assume that the intellect is influenced by the passions (which is not to say that the intellect is the slave of the passions), we can expect that when restraints on our more peremptory passions are removed, the intellect will tend to rationalize their exercise. Consequently, the intellectual principle that justifies a maximum of self-indulgence will become increasingly influential.
Consider what has happend since the advent of effective and sociall acceptable contraception: premarital sex became normal, abortion a right, divorce widespread, homosexuality tolerated, pornography ubiquitous, "bastard child" a slur, in vitro fertilization common, the nuclear family obsolescent. The principle that justifies all of these developments is in fact twofold: 1) sex is properly no more than a means to gratification rather than, say, an expression of eternal love, and 2) childrearing is properly a personal choice and a means to self-expression rather than, say, a sacred gift and holy obligation. As these principles advance, I predict that cloning will remain legal, genetically-enhanced "designer babies" will be born, and the definition of marriage will become so attenuated as to lose its meaning entirely.
If you dread these trends in any way, you must arrest them at the beginning--with contraception. Otherwise, we will continue to be increasingly alienated from one another, and uncertain of our ties to others; we will become either vastly more unhappy human beings, or else, through therapeutic means, satisified but soulless animals.
Posted
5:02 PM
by Patrick Lewis
Avigael: this story (linked from the Lopez NR article you linked to) contains a comment I can expand upon based on personal experience:
ABC's "20/20" interviewed Dr. Brian Finkel in 1999. Although Dr. Finkel himself performed abortions, he admitted that the majority of abortions are done by doctors who have "as marginal a facility as possible to maximize profit."
Later, Finkel himself was charged with 67 sex crimes against his patients.
In a prior life, I was helping my employer research various pieces of commercial real estate for an expansion. Among those we visited was a former abortion clinic: for whatever reason, the abortion people split almost overnight, leaving a lot of their equipment behind. (Nothing nasty, I swear). The place had a very eerie feel to it. It was laid out in almost an assembly line fashion (front waiting room, surgical suites, recovery suites, rear waiting room). Plus, the place looked dingy (the wallpaper was sort of faded, etc. etc.). I know I left with the definite sense that I would feel very uncomfortable dropping a girl off at one of these places for an abortion, or for any medical treatment, really.
Does anyone have any statistics as to how often these guys get sued? Since most OB's seem to get sued daily, it would be interesting to see how frequently these little "mishaps" ever get attentions called to them. The article seemed to suggest those statistics were not readily available, but I have a hard time believing that. This "abortion malpractice specialist" attorney whose site I found claims that there are complications in 10% of abortions. If so, that is not particularly high.
Posted
2:47 PM
by Avigael Cymrot
At least according to the proponents of the sexual revolution, abortion and birth control are almost one in the same in that they allow women to share in consequence-free sexual activity. So those who oppose abortion on the grounds that it has corrupted traditional sexual mores would likewise share concerns that contraception has had the same effect; at least, that's what I'm assuming Austin is alluding to. Additionally, both abortion and contraception would contradict the biblical duty to "be fruitful and multiply" and thus some religious traditions oppose both on those grounds. However, those who oppose abortion, or at least favor reducing the number of abortions because 1) abortions are not as consequence free for women as we've been led to believe or 2) because they think that abortion is murder (or if not murder, a devaluation of potential human life) might not think that contraception is similarly problematic.
Posted
2:28 PM
by Patrick Lewis
Greg: In fact, as I read the JAMA article that you cite, it appears very likely that the percentage of women having had an abortion is at least close to 44%. They're basing it on surveys; the 433 prevalence figure does include a bit of an extrapolation, but looking at the raw data in Table 3, I'd say anywhere beteeen 35-40% is probably accurate.
One of the reasons for the decline in the number of abortions has been the effect of the abortion protestors in reducing access to clinics. That is why you see the feminists acting with such alarm, seeking to lock them up with RICO and getting special laws passed by Congress to forbid protestors from doing just about anything. Do not assume that the dropoff you see with abortion rates is the result of any kind of preference change among women. Also remember that you need to look at this as a survival function, in a way; as age increases, the percentage of women who have never had an abortion decreases. So it isn't surprising that 40% of women aged 35-39 have had one, compared to 7.0 for women 15-19.
Point is, pro-lifers should not become complacent in light of the decrease in the abortion rate that was reported in this article and elsewhere. I know a few women who have had an abortion and shared that fun-fact with me; the only reason given was, "it wasn't the right time for me." Funny how life has a way of deciding when the time is right and when it's not. Then again, I guess if you're a pro-choicer, you can just ignore life and go about your day.
Posted
2:12 PM
by Josh Pater
Perhaps this column on abortion in Sunday's Boston Glob shouldn't have surprised me, but it did. How does she go from saying that physical attacks on doctors who perform abortions have given way to political attacks on the procedure, and then imply that the reason one cannot get an abortion in 86% of this nation's counties is that doctors fear attacks? Could she come up with no other explanation for that statistic?
Austin: your trademark inflammatory "aside" has reeled me in. I'm not so sure the principle behind the two positions really is the same. First, I think it's a bit simplistic to assume that there is just one principle binding those opposed to the legalization of abortion. Person X might want to ban it for completely different reasons than person Y. Also, if you're going to assert the existence of such a principle, then, let's have it. The only one I can come up with right now is: families should be as large as possible. Surely, that's a bit simplistic as well, but can you do better in finding one principle that covers both positions?
Posted
2:10 PM
by Patrick Lewis
More from the "fair and balanced" Time about how Bush is, in fact, an affirmative action baby. I'm having an argument about this merit-in-college-admissions topic on another forum. Except, my understanding is that Bush did well in school. Perhaps I'm wrong.
Posted
2:03 PM
by Jonathan Skrmetti
The vigor of the pro-abortion movement comes in large part from their religious belief in a world without consequences. People really want to have sex; all those nasty consequences of sex are nuisances against which we should direct the full power of the government. Pregnancy is just an unnecessary obstacle between Americans and their hedonism, and the law ought to do everything it can to overcome God's inconvenient design. Hopefully the decrease in abortion rates indicates that Americans are beginning to return to reality and to understand that dreams of free lunches should not be allowed to guide policymaking.
Posted
1:19 PM
by Austin Bramwell
I'm surprised that the pro-abortion crowd would ever want to inflate the numbers of women who are having abortions. Part of the pro-abortion mythos is that abortion is used only by women in dire circumstances (hence all the tales about "back alley" abortions); if 45% of all women are having abortions, however, it would suggest that abortion is being used primarily as a contraceptive pis aller. The wantonness towards the value of life this betrays is quite striking. As an aside, I can't understand how anyone opposed to abortion could at the same time not at least be ambivalent towards contraception. The principle behind the two is really quite the same.
Posted
12:40 PM
by Adam White
I stopped by the Roe v. Wade "birthday party" en route to the library. They're having a bake sale. They didn't serve "angel" food cake. No party hats, either..
Posted
11:48 AM
by Greg Weston
After I bit of research I think I found the source of the statistic, and I was correct that it was pure balderdash. It comes from an article in JAMA's Family Planning Perspectives Volume 30, No. 1, January/February 1998. It is an extrapolation from 1980-1992 numbers, which concludes that 43.3% of women will get abortions in their lifetimes. So the article not only rounded 43.3% up to 44% instead of down to 43%, but did so with very old numbers.
Abortion rates since 1992 have plunged, down 23% in the US between 1992-2002. So a more reasonable estimate for 2003 is something like 43.3% * (1 -.23) = 33.3%. The largest decline in abortions was among girls aged 15-17, whose abortion rate declined by 39% between 1994 and 2000. More recent statistics are not available, but there are a lot of reasons to think the trend will continue. Abortionists are retiring at a rapid clip and not being replaced, and the generational group that has been most likely to get abortions, the baby-boomers, are rapidly exiting their child-bearing years and being replaced by a younger, more conservative generation of women, who even if they weren't more conservative still have access to gradually improving contraceptive technology. If the trend continues as I suspect even my 33.3% estimate is way too high.
One more thing to emphasize, which is the figures from 1992 were wrong even as the study was published because they were partially forward-looking and did not contemplate the large drop in abortion rates that occurred in the 1990's. So the Post used statistics that were already wrong when they were published (but innocently so), and are vastly wrong now.
Never doubt the mendacity of a leftist with an agenda.
Posted
10:39 AM
by Greg Weston
About abortion, I can't say I have a strong opinion one way or another on the question of its legality, the procedure is awful, but banning it represents a large increase in the size and power of government, and wouldn't be very effective anyway. For me that argument is not conclusive, but creates a very strong presumption against outlawing the procedure. I share however an absolute disgust for pro-abortion radicals. The flyer Adam posted was bad, perhaps even worse were all the revolting comments in this WP story. The highlight had to have been the paragraph that mentions the group called "Medical Students for Choice ... is lobbying for mandatory abortion education in medical schools and in residency programs."
There was plenty of good news in the article, the number of both abortions and abortionists are rapidly declining. One other thing in it caught my eye, which was "Abortion rights advocates, however, said that in a nation in which 44 percent of women will have at least one abortion, the dwindling number of trained providers is tantamount to a denial of basic health services."
That statistic had my junk-science detector buzzing off the hook. I really don't see how 44% of 140 million women could get an abortion if there are between 1.2-1.5 million a year, especially considering many of those abortions are second, third, or fourth abortions. It also jibes poorly with my own experience, as I don't know anyone who has ever gotten an abortion, though admittedly I come from a Catholic family, and many women keep their abortions secret. I'll look into the statistic more later.
Posted
1:30 AM
by Greg Weston
Adam, here's another political reporter better than Drudge, Charlie Cook.
His excellent column is at http://nationaljournal.com/members/buzz/2003/races/ but I've discovered that I can't access it from outside Harvard for some reason, perhaps only .edu domains can enter for free.
Posted
1:27 AM
by Greg Weston
Austin, I am no expert on Victorian literature, perhaps evidenced by my previous misspelling of Jane Austen's name. In fact, avoiding having to read all the bad literature considered classic is one of the many, many reasons I got one of these instead of going to high school, something I'd encourage any young person trapped in a bad government school to do. But by my taste literature was better both before and after that era. If you want an example of awful Victorian literature that's widely and wrongly considered good, here's the first few paragraphs of David Copperfield:.
I am Born
Whether I shall turn out to be the hero of my own life, or whether that station will be held by anybody else, these pages must show. To begin my life with the beginning of my life, I record that I was born (as I have been informed and believe) on a Friday, at twelve o’clock at night. It was remarked that the clock began to strike, and I began to cry, simultaneously.
In consideration of the day and hour of my birth, it was declared by the nurse, and by some sage women in the neighbourhood who had taken a lively interest in me several months before there was any possibility of our becoming personally acquainted, first, that I was destined to be unlucky in life; and secondly, that I was privileged to see ghosts and spirits; both these gifts inevitably attaching, as they believed, to all unlucky infants of either gender, born towards the small hours on a Friday night.
I need say nothing here, on the first head, because nothing can show better than my history whether that prediction was verified or falsified by the result. On the second branch of the question, I will only remark, that unless I ran through that part of my inheritance while I was still a baby, I have not come into it yet. But I do not at all complain of having been kept out of this property; and if anybody else should be in the present enjoyment of it, he is heartily welcome to keep it.
I was born with a caul, which was advertised for sale, in the newspapers, at the low price of fifteen guineas. Whether sea-going people were short of money about that time, or were short of faith and preferred cork jackets, I don’t know; all I know is, that there was but one solitary bidding, and that was from an attorney connected with the bill-broking business, who offered two pounds in cash, and the balance in sherry, but declined to be guaranteed from drowning on any higher bargain. Consequently the advertisement was withdrawn at a dead loss—for as to sherry, my poor dear mother’s own sherry was in the market then—and ten years afterwards the caul was put up in a raffle down in our part of the country, to fifty members at half-a-crown a head, the winner to spend five shillings. I was present myself, and I remember to have felt quite uncomfortable and confused at a part of myself being disposed of in that way. The caul was won, I recollect, by an old lady with a hand-basket, who, very reluctantly, produced from it the stipulated five shillings, all in halfpence, and twopence halfpenny short—as it took an immense time and a great waste of arithmetic to endeavour without any effect to prove to her. It is a fact which will be long remembered as remarkable down there, that she was never drowned, but died triumphantly in bed, at ninety-two. I have understood that it was, to the last, her proudest boast, that she never had been on the water in her life, except upon a bridge; and that over her tea (to which she was extremely partial) she, to the last, expressed her indignation at the impiety of mariners and others, who had the presumption to go “meandering” about the world. It was in vain to represent to her that some conveniences, tea perhaps included, resulted from this objectionable practice. She always returned, with greater emphasis and with an instinctive knowledge of the strength of her objection, “Let us have no meandering.”
---
This, to my ears at least, is absolutely awful writing. By volume it's mostly meaningless asides, the passive voice is used constantly, and if there's anything meaningful or interesting in all this verbosity I couldn't find it. Of course I might be wrong and the narrator's afterbirth might actually be the part of a key plot twist, but I don't have much desire to find out. Now contrast that with the opening to one of Tom Wolfe's books:
That's good thinking there, Cool Breeze. Cool Breeze is a kid with three or four days beard sitting next to me on the stamped metal bottom of the open back part of a pickup truck. Bouncing along. Dipping and rising and rolling on these rotten springs like boat. out of the back of the truck the city of San Francisco is bouncing down the hill, all those endless staggers of bay windows, slums with a view, bouncing and streaming down the hill. On after another, electric signs with neon martini glasses lit up on them, the San Francisco symbol of "bar" - thousands of neon-magenta martini glasses bounching and streaming down the hill, and beneath them hundreds, thousands of people wheeling around the look at this freaking crazed truck we're in, their white faces erupting from their lapels like marshmallows - streaming and bouncing down the hill - and god knows they've got plenty to look at.
---
In less than half the words than the awful Charles Dickens takes to bore you with the details of the birth and afterbirth of his character Wolfe practically transports you to his setting. I've never been to San Francisco but from this one paragraph I have a good idea of what it was like to ride in the back of an old pickup truck through that city in 1967.
Since I said writing was better before the Victorian era here is how Samuel Johnson begins one of his stories:
Rasselas was the fourth son of the mighty emperour, in whose dominions the Father of waters begins his course; whose bounty pours down the streams of plenty, and scatters over half the world the harvests of Egypt. According to the custom which has descended from age to age among the monarchs of the torrid zone, Rasselas was confined in a private palace, with the other sons and daughters of Abissinian royalty, till the order of succession should call him to the throne.
The place, which the wisdom or policy of antiquity had destined for the residence of the Abissinian princes, was a spacious valley in the kingdom of Amhara, surrounded on every side by mountains, of which the summits overhang the middle part. The only passage, by which it could be entered, was a cavern that passed under a rock, of which it has long been disputed whether it was the work of nature or of human industry. The outlet of the cavern was concealed by a thick wood, and the mouth which opened into the valley was closed with gates of iron, forged by the artificers of ancient days, so massy that no man could, without the help of engines, open or shut them.
From the mountains on every side, rivulets descended that filled all the valley with verdure and fertility, and formed a lake in the middle inhabited by fish of every species, and frequented by every fowl whom nature has taught to dip the wing in water. This lake discharged its superfluities by a stream which entered a dark cleft of the mountain on the northern side, and fell with dreadful noise from precipice to precipice till it was heard no more.
The sides of the mountains were covered with trees, the banks of the brooks were diversified with flowers; every blast shook spices from the rocks, and every month dropped fruits upon the ground. All animals that bite the grass, or brouse the shrub, whether wild or tame, wandered in this extensive circuit, secured from beasts of prey by the mountains which confined them. On one part were flocks and herds feeding in the pastures, on another all the beasts of chase frisking in the lawns; the sprightly kid was bounding on the rocks, the subtle monkey frolicking in the trees, and the solemn elephant reposing in the shade. All the diversities of the world were brought together, the blessings of nature were collected, and its evils extracted and excluded.
---
Again in contrast to Dickens, Johnson is direct yet beatiful in his phrasing. He'd never waste his ink with wordy drivel like "An aunt of my father’s, and consequently a great-aunt of mine" when he could just say "My great-aunt." That's not to say a good writer can never be wordy, but Dickens is always so, which again is one of the reasons he's so bad.
Tuesday, January 21, 2003
Posted
11:20 PM
by Jonathan Skrmetti
Two things: first, not surprisingly, a friend tells me that the HLS Democrats are co-sponsoring the Roe birthday party. Second, I just returned from a caffeine/carb run to Harvard House of Pizza (my section of a group outline is due tomorrow morning), and on the local news the pro-life movement was described as "the fight against the right to choose." Gotta love that unbiased journalism.
Posted
9:38 PM
by Avigael Cymrot
Patrick: That website is so sexist. Where is the Rich Lowry pinup?
Posted
9:17 PM
by Patrick Lewis
For all the single conseratives out there. :-)
Posted
9:10 PM
by Adam White
I scanned the notice, to keep a copy of this bizarre bit of propaganda.
Posted
6:23 PM
by Jonathan Skrmetti
Adam White, currently of White Noize and once and future anchor poster of Ex Parte, has an interesting observation about HLS.
[edit: Curses! That sneaky blog retiree beat me to it; pardon the redundancy of this post.]
Posted
6:21 PM
by Adam White
Although I intended to go into "retirement" from Ex Parte, please pardon one last post. I just put this up on my blog, but I wanted to make sure that a chunk of the HLS community saw this. I think I've found my first RECORD column topic of the spring, even if it's weeks from now. This is sick.
CRUEL IRONY: On my way back from dinner in the student cafeteria, I found a flyer in my student mailbox. See if you can spot the irony:
"Celebrate Roe v. Wade's Thirtieth Birthday!" That's right: the Harvard Civil Rights - Civil Liberties Law Review is celebrating legalized abortion's birthday. I'm scared to think that I pay $40K every year to go to school with Left-wingers too thick to notice the disgusting irony in this "birthday invitation". Worse yet, though, is the notion that the reference was used on purpose. You tell me which is a more comforting thought: the fact that they are so ignorant or so sick?
I've shifted from pro-life to pro-choice (to the extent that I think abortion liberties should be decided by state legislatures that could either legalize or criminalize), not by judicial fiat. Especially not by the most poorly-written judicial fiat since Dred Scott.
CR-CL's announcement doesn't stop at this disgusting "party", however. It follows that up with the following gem:
Thirty years after Roe v. Wade, women's reproductive freedoms are under zealous attack.
The Bush administration will try anything it can to impede access to abortions, contraceptives, adequate sex education, condoms to prevent the spread of AIDS and STDs, and medically accurate health care services. What a curious bit of propaganda. "Adequate sex education"? I suspect that that doesn't include a reminder that the only guaranteed way to avoid STDs is to avoid sex altogether or to only have sex with someone of whom you are absolutely sure is not carrying an STD. "Accurate health care services"? I'd like to see how President Bush and the GOP are promoting "inaccurate" health care services. Especially with a SURGEON running the Senate.
Bizarre antics like this are what is turning the Left into a farce whose lunacy can only be matched by that of the far right. The Left is becoming a caricature of itself. I'm beginning to think that Peggy Noonan was spectacularly prescient. But perhaps only at HLS would students "celebrate" this "birthday". Nothing deserves a "birthday party" less than that 30-year-old miscarriage of justice. Pun fully intended.
Posted
6:08 PM
by Jonathan Skrmetti
Four years ago I would have thought this was the coolest thing ever. Now I just think it's pretty darned cool.
Posted
5:59 PM
by Jonathan Skrmetti
Patrick, perhaps one reason for the abbreviated arguments is that given the flood of amici briefs, I doubt there are any arguments the justices need elaborated.
Posted
5:22 PM
by Patrick Lewis
It seems that the oral arguments for the affirmative action case have been scheduled for April 1st. (We'll just ignore the April Fools day piece to this...) They have scheduled two hours of oral argument total; one hour for the law school case and one hour for the undergraduate case. Such a short argument for such an important issue. I remember Professor Fried and Judge Starr estimating a four hour oral argument because that was the length of the argument in Bakke. What do you all make of this abbreviated schedule? Have the Justices already made up their minds on how they're going to go?
Posted
4:49 PM
by Brooks Eubank
Jonathan: TESTIFY!
Posted
3:53 PM
by Jonathan Skrmetti
Austin, it's because our viscera are right and theirs are corrupted by decadence, atheism, and a pathological aversion to individualism.
Posted
3:52 PM
by Jonathan Skrmetti
Bill, I admire your plunge into novels full of rich, multi-dimensional characters. I just read Jeffrey Eugenides' The Virgin Suicides, the basis for Sofia Coppola's brilliant adaptation. The book is largely defined by limited access to the characters - Eugenides seems to place great weight on solipsism. Sometimes it's nice to be able to climb into the characters' heads, though, and the pre-post-moderns are more comfortable letting us do that.
Posted
3:49 PM
by Austin Bramwell
Jonathan: But why, in this case, do European and American viscera churn in opposite directions?
Posted
3:41 PM
by Jonathan Skrmetti
Austin, I think resistance to cloning is viewed as a conservative cause in the United States because most of the vocal and organized opposition is religious in nature. In Europe, on the other hand, I suspect that the same people who get worked up about cloning are even more worked up about genetically-modified corn. Europeans seem to have an irrational fear of applied genetics (there are certainly bases for rational fears, but my experience in England was that the vast majority of the public hysteria over genetically modified foods was visceral and had not been thought through).
Posted
11:51 AM
by Austin Bramwell
Here's an anomaly: Can anyone explain why resistance to cloning is a "conservative" cause in the United States (oft dismissed--rather stupidly--as religious prejudice), while supposedly more progressive Europe finds cloning abhorrent? This is one instance in which Americans' restless and naive faith in the new--mellontolatry, as C.S. Lewis called it--is very much to their detriment.
Posted
11:43 AM
by Austin Bramwell
Victorian prose "stilted" and "ornate"? In fact, Greg, the novel came into being only after Austen, et. al. (not that Austen was a Victorian!) abandoned the latinate prose of earlier writers, thereby producing works not only more realistic but more readable.
Posted
9:53 AM
by Greg Weston
Patrick, it shouldn't surprise you too much that Fuhrman was able to rehabilitate his reputation. What exactly did he do besides lie under oath and utter a racial epithet? I'm just surprised that he doesn't become a Democratic politician. A perjuring bigot should feel right at home in the party of Jesse "Hymietown" Jackson and Bill "That Woman Miss Lewinsky" Clinton.
Posted
9:39 AM
by Greg Weston
Bill, your first premise is wrong, that "nearly everyone in America condemns arbitrarily favoring individuals of ones own race over those of other races." Though I'm not sure what "arbitrarily" means in this context, but most Americans don't condemn favoring individuals of their own race when it comes to lovers or barbers. I also disagree with you when you say that racial favoritism is "constant." Most people in the United States are not even in a position to engage in any meaningful racial favoritism, if only because they have no opportunity to do so, either because they live in mono-racial areas or because they they aren't doing anything important enough that people of multiple races seek their favor.
As for Jane Austin, you have a stronger stomach than I do. I find the Austin/James/Dickens type Victorian novelists to be so stilted and ornate in their prose that they're unbearable to read.
Posted
9:26 AM
by Jason Sorens
Both. When the two conflict, it's called "hypocrisy," which can itself be a norm in some societies. I heard it once said, in fact, that "hypocrisy is the mark of a good society. Only societies altogether without standards of behavior lack hypocrisy." (Believe it or not, Austin wasn't the person who said this, but I suspect he might endorse it!)
Monday, January 20, 2003
Posted
11:50 PM
by Bill Korner
Do the actually existing social norms in a society comprise (1) the maxims that are widely endorsed in that society or (2) the actual patterns of behavior that a social scientist studying the society would find (or both)? That's a question at least as old as methodological disputes about the social sciences. If the answer is both, then the case of racial discrimination would seem to illustrate the potential for conflicting norms within a society. Though it is clear that nearly everyone in America condemns arbitrarily favoring individuals of ones own race over those of other races, it is equally clear that such favoritism continues to take place constantly.
Posted
11:32 PM
by Bill Korner
Like Johnathan, I have been trying to read some literature lately. After reading "Emma" and "Persuasion" this summer, I recently finished "Sense and Sensibility". Austen and Orwell aren't really writing comparable genres, however. For instance, the characters in "Sense and Sensibility" are so complex and rich that the only ones whom I can really claim to understand and identify with are Mr. and Mrs. Jennings. On the other hand, Orwell's characters more or less represent roles in the archtypical social structures that he examines/creates. And, as Johnathan and I discussed, I would like to write a "Goldstein's book" but only if, contrary to the actual plot of 1984, that would not mean that I had to be an O'Brien.
Posted
11:03 PM
by Patrick Lewis
I'm personally very surprised that Fuhrman was able to re-establish his credibility such that Fox hired him to commentate, and one of his books was used as the basis for the prosecution that brought down Skakel (sp?).
Posted
10:52 PM
by Avigael Cymrot
Brooks: It's not quite "O.J., the Musical," but VH1 just aired an episode of "Where Are They Now?" featuring major players in the trial of the century . . . Mark Fuhrman is hosting a radio show, Denise Brown is hosting a TV show and wants to run for the Senate, etc.
Posted
9:31 PM
by Brooks Eubank
Avigael: I too adored "Moulin Rouge," but, really, what self-respecting law schooler doesn't love "Chicago"? It's like they're two steps away from making "O.J.: The Musical." (That haven't made "O.J.: The Musical" yet, have they?)
Posted
7:01 PM
by Jonathan Skrmetti
The legacy/affirmative action issue discussed below came up in this USA Today editorial. Roland Martin argues that it is intellectually dishonest to support legacy admissions while opposing affirmative action. Frankly, as someone from a relatively modest background, with both my parents first-generation college attendees (and graduates) who attended state universities, I've always felt that both legacies and affirmative action were rather unfair, because they both get in the way of someone trying to achieve social mobility through merit alone. On the other hand, I was lucky enough to attend an institution that remains near and dear to my heart and I'd love to inflict a similar experience on my children (assuming I can first find some hapless bachelorette on whom to inflict myself). If I could buy my children's way into said institution, I would have no compunctions against doing so. I guess the legacy system probably isn't fair, but that won't stop people in positions to take advantage of it from supporting it.
Posted
2:47 PM
by Avigael Cymrot
Last night, watching the Golden Globes I couldn't help but think that it's been a rather lousy year for movies. The success of "Chicago" means that the revival of the Hollywood musical will probably continue, but last year's entry, "Moulin Rouge", was a far better endeavor (the rendition of "Smells Like Teen Spirit" alone was worth the price of admission). And "The Hours" looks so dreadfully contemplative of the suffering of women that I don't know if I could force myself to sit through it. I actually found myself rooting for the most annoying celebrities to win, just so they would make some ranting political statement that would give me something to write about. Unfortunately, Susan Sarandon and Martin Sheen lost their categories, so all we were granted was director Pedro Almodovar's somewhat incoherent speech in which he related a call for peace to the "do not disturb" signs on hotel room doors.
Posted
2:32 PM
by Avigael Cymrot
Speaking of "Orwellian," Andrew Sullivan takes on the New York Times' coverage of Saturday's "peace" protesters.
Posted
11:59 AM
by Jonathan Skrmetti
Robert Bork has quite a good piece in today's WSJ. (thanks to Howard Bashman's How Appealing for the link)
Posted
11:35 AM
by Greg Weston
He's a guy who would make a fine governor of Indiana.
Sunday, January 19, 2003
Posted
10:12 PM
by Jonathan Skrmetti
As I may have mentioned, I engaged in a mini-Orwell re-readathon recently, plowing through Animal Farm and 1984 in an attempt to keep my brain from ossifying into a lump of legalthink impervious to the humanities. "Orwellian" is one of the most overused adjectives in the language these days, but the absurdities spewed by totalitarians in Orwell's books reminded me of the absurd state of modern First Amendment jurisprudence.
The First Amendment protects, among other things, freedom of speech. The corruption of the First Amendment has occurred in two steps. First, acts that were not speech became protected by the First Amendment because they were expressive. Non-speech speech came within the purview of the First Amendment. While I am not a fan of this approach, the extension of protection is not in itself a terrible thing. However, by decoupling the First Amendment from speech, the first step paved the way for the second step, which is saying that certain speech acts are not speech. This is the argument advanced by the speech code (a.k.a. the "it's not a speech code, it's a racial harassment code") crowd. They say that saying certain things contributes nothing to the conversation, and thus should not be protected as speech. The tripod of rights necessary to American liberty are private property, the right to bear arms, and freedom of speech. All three are being undermined, but perhaps none moreso than freedom of speech.
[Addendum - freedom of the press may be essential too, assuming it is not incorporated into freedom of speech. I'll leave that one for the intellectual heavy lifters to sort out.]
Posted
5:03 PM
by Adam White
Great piece by Mickey Kaus, criticizing "Justice Greenhouse's dissenting opinion" in the Michigan Affirmative Action case. See ___ NYT ___ (2003). Kaus really goes for the jugular -- it's nice to see someone put her in her place. Now if only someone would shine a brighter light on the NYT's front-page editorials. *Cough* Sorry, I meant "News Analyses".
Incidentally, as I see I've pretty much done all I can, unintentionally, to dominate the discussion on this site, I've decided to cut back my posts. If I can show enough restraint, I think that this will be it for me for a while. Having been invited as a guest, a post every couple of days would be much more appropriate, I believe. [If I feel compelled to run at the mouth, I'll just have to learn to do it at my own site.] Regards. Adam.
Posted
4:20 PM
by Patrick Lewis
Adam: Zip code affirmative action would create a perverse incentive though - further segregation. One of the civil rights movement's biggest missions has been the integration of communities through changes in zoning laws and integration of schools through various means. But if you do AA based on zip code, only segregated communities would be able to leverage it. Minorities living in an integrated commuity would, presumably, enjoy no benefit from such a program. And remember, even in extremely well-funded integrated school systems, minority achievement will lag without the support and backing of the minority students' families and community. That cultural component seems to be the key, and I'm not sure that any amount of protests, reparations, affirmative action programs, quotas, set-asides, anti-white discrimination, or related policies will serve as a surrogate.
Posted
4:14 PM
by Adam White
Incidentally, I think I may have said this before, but I want to repeat: Why has no one publicly pushed for ZIP-code based affirmative action? ZIP codes are pretty much the best proxy for not only race but also income, political preference, education, and practically every other socioeconomic demographic classification. If the Michigan ruling cuts very deep (Eleanor Clift predicts it won't -- the Court will knock down the policy while reaffirming the role of diversity, even race, in admissions -- and at first glance I'd agree, but I digress), ZIP-based affirmative action would seem to achieve the same goals as pure race-based AA. It would, really, but a much better system if schools truly want to achieve better "diversity". Of course, the system could be "gamed" in the long run, but there might be something to it. This might make for my first column in this spring's Record, until I wake up and realize that it's a rather dull topic.
Posted
4:06 PM
by Adam White
The LA Times took a long look at possible grassroots shifts in the law of abortion [free registration required for the story]. While a full frontal attack on Roe is still untenable strategy, anti-abortion groups are going backdoor. Good strategy:
"In as many areas as we can, we want to put on the books that the embryo is a person," said Samuel B. Casey, executive director of the Christian Legal Society, a public interest group in Virginia whose clients include abortion opponents. "That sets the stage for a jurist to acknowledge that human beings at any stage of development deserve protection -- even protection that would trump a woman's interest in terminating a pregnancy."
* * *
Last year, the Bush administration allowed states to define embryos and fetuses as children eligible for medical coverage under Medicaid. And the administration defined embryos as "human subjects" when it directed a panel to study protections for people who participate in medical research.
Administration officials said those actions were unrelated to abortion, but abortion rights advocates said the intent was to upend Roe.
"If you can get enough of these bricks in place, draw enough examples from different parts of life and law where embryos are treated as babies, then how can the Supreme Court say they're not?" said R. Alta Charo, a professor of law and bioethics at the University of Wisconsin. "This is without question a conscious strategy." Much of the new thinking about embryos is a result of medical research.
When Blackmun wrote the Roe decision, developing life was always viewed in tandem with the mother's body. Then in 1978 came the first birth through in vitro fertilization -- the technique of merging egg and sperm in a laboratory dish to produce a human embryo.
"Now, for the first time, you had the opportunity to ask what is the moral and legal status of the embryo sitting in a lab dish, separate and independent from the woman's right to control her own destiny," Charo said. "You saw the embryo as a distinct thing."
Posted
3:59 PM
by Adam White
Greg: I only mentioned the Bush/reporter/legacy exchange to illustrate the political reality that the Affirmative Action/Legacy debate will in fact happen, and that it will not be circumscribed by political niceties, policy rigor or jurisprudential examination. It will be a fistfight, and even if conservatives can distinguish the cases on the facts, the outcry for an end to legacy admissions will be dominated by only two forces: Pro-status-quo donors who will threaten to hold back cash, and an upset liberal class who will not sit idly as conservatives crash down on pro-minority affirmative action while sending their sons through open, Ivy-laden doors courtesy of "pro-white, pro-rich affirmative action."
As for the journalism issue -- I would let have let that drop had you not cited as an exemplar of "journalistic excellence" the worst example of journalism. Novak could not be a better living, breathing depiction of bloated, out-of-date journalism. He breaks about as many cutting-edge stories as Sam Donaldson. While he rarely holds back on predictions, he always batted roughly .550 in the old Brill's Content pundit scorecards (putting him, if not in the basement, then at best atop the cellar stairs). As a person he is a disgusting example of self-styled gravitas. In my short time as an intern in the West Wing, Novak was the only reporter who, instead of personally calling to score interviews with the President's inner circle, would have his secretary call. Bob Novak calling for [insert name of the President's counselor]. Only two regular callers had the gall to do so -- Novak and the good Reverend Jackson. A fitting pair -- nearly as fitting as the Carville/Begala-Novak pairing we're treated to nightly on CNN [no one in the world, not even Ms. Matalin, deserves Carville more than Novak]. Novak's best work is 30 years behind him, and even then he was the weak-link in a two-man chain, behind Evans. I've long thought that Novak is one of the reasons why conservatives have such a hard time putting forward a credible public face. When casual-viewing America sees politics, they (well, until two years ago) saw it on CNN. And they saw Novak. And they voted for Clinton.
Posted
2:00 PM
by Jonathan Skrmetti
Not only was Hubbard a science fiction author, he said, shortly before he founded Scientology, that the best way to make a lot of money was to start a religion. As an aside, Steve Martin's underrated classic, Bowfinger, includes, in the guise of the "Mind Head" cult, an amusing depiction of Scientology's Hollywood zaniness.
Haven Co., the data haven located in The Principality of Sealand, is hosting Scientology's secret inner documents (previous attempts to put these on the Web have met with severe legal response from the Religious Technology Center, one of the leadership groups of the Church of Scientology, on the grounds of copyright violation). For more information see Operation Clambake.
Posted
1:41 PM
by Jonathan Skrmetti
Greg, while there is no doubt that the President's admission to Yale was because of his family connections, I'm not sure this is true for HBS. At the time the President went to Harvard Business School, not many people were applying to business schools and Bush had a Yale education. He may well have been admitted to business school purely on his merits (though of course his merits owed largely to familial influence).
Posted
10:41 AM
by Greg Weston
Adam, there are plenty of reporters who don't engage in Matt Drudge's excess, Bob Novak to begin with. As for Bush, I don't think there is any doubt he was admitted to Yale College and Harvard Business School because of his family and their connections, and of course the same can be said of Al Gore and Harvard College. That's not to say that he is either stupid or undeserving, he's not, but there's no point in questioning something obviously true because it might make someone in politics you like not look good.
Posted
10:39 AM
by Brooks Eubank
Well Austin beat me to the historicity of the Resurrection argument. Suffice it to say that, to my knowledge, L. Ron Hubbard has not risen from the grave or done anything suitably miraculous to lend some potentially helpful credibility to his movement. I'm going to go out on a limb and say that poor Rael won't be achieving immortality or resurrection of any sort with his ghola-creation project.
I shall go one step further. There is special reason to add an extra dollop of incredulity to both Scientology and Stuttaford's "UFO cults" like the Raelians: the rise of science fiction and its prevalence at the time of these cults' inceptions. Even if you balk at the "strange stories" surrounding generally-accepted religions, they do not seem to be blatantly ripped off from any separate source material floating around at the time and recognized as pure fiction. I hope I don't need to point out that Hubbard himself was a writer of pulp science fiction before and during his creation of Scientology. Oops, I just did.
Posted
10:33 AM
by Greg Weston
George Will has written the best column yet on the commutations of the capital sentences of Illinois prisoners.
And here is Deroy Murdock on why DC school need vouchers now. There's also more detail on stylin' DC Teachers Union President Barbara Bullock and her "$6,800 crystal ice bucket, $17,000 in furs, a $57,000 288-piece Tiffany sterling-silver service set."
Even more detail is found in the Washington Times:
The FBI searched the homes and businesses of the three in December and seized paintings, electronic equipment — including a 50-inch plasma flat-screen television from Mrs. Hemphill's home — numerous fur coats belonging to Miss Bullock and artwork from the Ramee Art Gallery in Mr. Baxter's home. Also listed among items seized by federal agents were a $5,500 Baccarat vase, handbags ranging in price from $690 to $2,200, $20,000 worth of wigs purchased from Orreon Styles...
Posted
12:31 AM
by Austin Bramwell
Adam: You are right that the doctrines of Christianity are fantastic, but, then again, so is the existence of the hippotamus. Nevertheless, just as the available evidence leaves the probability of the hippopotamus's existence quite high, so it also leaves the probabiliy of the Resurrection having occurred quite high--97%, to be exact, as calculated by Oxford philosopher Richard Swinburne. If the doctrine of the Resurrection also makes sense of our experience of who we are, where we come from, and where we are going, then so much the better.
Saturday, January 18, 2003
Posted
7:32 PM
by Adam White
Harkening back to our Affirmative Action - Legacies debate from a few days back: I'm half-listening to C-SPAN's re-run of Ari Fleischer's Wednesday press conference, and a reporter (whose voice I didn't recognize) asked how appropriate it is that the same President who calls for an end to Michigan's affirmative action admissions program is the same one whose door to Yale was opened (allegedly -- although I'm willing to buy it) by his legacy status. It's starting already ...
Posted
7:21 PM
by Adam White
Brooks: Honest question: At risk of sounding "intolerant", what exactly is it that sets the Scientologists and Raelians apart from other generally-accepted religions in terms of the strange stories underlying them? Having been raised Catholic (water to wine, bread to body, raising from the dead), I've got to say that Christianty -- as well as Islam, Judaism, and the whole lot -- require a pretty major "leap of faith". What exactly sets, say, Catholic Eucharist apart from "drinking the Kool Aid" in terms of the believability of the underlying theories?
Incidentally, I just turned on America and the Courts, and it's about Affirmative Action. Sorry for the prior misinformation.
Posted
4:46 PM
by Brooks Eubank
Stuttaford notably (wisely?) left out the Scientologists. After all, Xenu, as well as the murdered legions that comprise our body thetans, are hardly originally of this world. Perhaps he was only looking at cults with an utopian slant, rather than those that seem more like a capitalist enterprise.
And, by the way, never underestimate the power of a local Babylon 5 fan club. It is without compare.
Posted
3:51 PM
by Jonathan Skrmetti
I just read NR Online, specifically Stuttaford's piece on alien cults. What has come to perplex me most about the Raelians - and there is much about that group to perplex - is the gravity with which the media treated their initial announcement. Frankly, the fact that reporters covered the announcement of cloning at all is a bit ridiculous. Of course it's easy to understand how they could have been duped, seeing as how no reasonable person could reject the possibility that a former high school chemistry teacher in a UFO sex cult could overcome the technical problems with cloning that occupied the minds of brilliant (and legitimate) scientists for decades. Of course the Raelians will live on forever as the butt of jokes, in the grand tradition of Jim Jones and the Heaven's Gate cult, but the serious news pieces on the group and its claimed discovery were not relying on the comedic elements of the story. The way things are going, I keep expecting The Simpsons to be interrupted by breaking news that the president of a local Babylon 5 fan club has announced his group's discovery of workable cold fusion. Given the relative capabilities of the Raelians and the local Babylon 5 fan club, I suspect that such a story would be more plausible than Baby Eve.
Posted
2:54 PM
by Adam White
In case you missed it, yesterday Ramesh Ponnuru took a look back at 30 years of Roe v. Wade, including the SCOTUS power-play of Casey v. Planned Parenthood. Even for pro-choicers, Roe is a tough bit of SCOTUS logic to "swallow". Imagine the intellectual heartache of a Republican pro-choicer, who has to live with both Roe AND Bush v. Gore.
Posted
2:26 PM
by Adam White
Incidentally, tonight's "America and the Courts" [C-SPAN] is focused on the debate over the death penalty. 7 PM tonight.
Posted
2:25 PM
by Adam White
I was pleased to see that OpinionJournal finally ran a free version of the latest installment in the WSJ's "American Conservativism" series, this one penned by Christopher Hitchens. The incomparable Hitch holds up as a strong contrast to all that's wrong with today's Left:
When viewed from any objective standpoint to its immediate left, the American conservative movement manifests one distinct symptom of well-being. It is fairly conspicuously schismatic, and it possesses the confidence to rehearse its differences in public. (One can see the corollary of this point by examining the state of the liberal left, which is overanxious to present a facade of spurious "unity," and meager in its reluctance to concede anything that might redound to the credit of the president.)
If we take only the most pressingly topical issues of war and peace and intervention, we can select from at least three, and perhaps four, well-articulated conservative positions.
* * *
Since American liberalism shows no sign of abandoning its comfortable role as an essentially status quo force, at home and abroad, the right may hope to continue passing Hegel's test of political vitality--the readiness for a split. I have to say that I was impressed, during the Trent Lott business, by the way that his conservative critics conducted themselves. They wrote and spoke as if this was a matter of principle, not of damage-control, and they were suitably ruthless and unsentimental when it came to phony appeals about "loyalty" and "unity." They made their opponents look like Clintonoids. I hope I needn't overdo the contrast.
The rest is great. Take a look on this fine Saturday afternoon.
Posted
2:12 PM
by Patrick Lewis
A voice of dissent in the Boston Globe today about the Bush Administration's stand on affirmative action. The histrionics and ad hominems in this editorial greatly overshadow any actual content -- but, it is useful to understand the full extent to which the Left will go to keep its failed public policies in effect.
Posted
11:39 AM
by Adam White
Patrick: That's some funny stuff. My favorite headline was "U.S. urged to stop making fuss about nuclear issue".
Friday, January 17, 2003
Posted
10:52 PM
by Austin Bramwell
A moment of inspiration: Ought not the combined reigns of James I, Charles I, Charles II, and James II (with the interregnum in the middle) be called the "Chiastic Era" of English History? Just a suggestion.
Posted
10:50 PM
by Austin Bramwell
From reader Damon Haas: "There was a question by Patrick Lewis about what percentage of admissions turn on legacy status. I don't know a percentage but I can give a reference for the undergraduate admissions. Being a member of an ethnic minority (except for asians) was worth a 20 point bonus. Being a legacy student is worth a 4 point bonus. I'm sure I can come up with a link if people want it. Keep up the great work on the site."
Posted
6:21 PM
by Patrick Lewis
In case you were worried about receiving biased media reports about North Korea, the reports of their news agency are available online.
Posted
4:55 PM
by Adam White
Apologies if that last post sounded overly snide. It wasn't meant to be, but I see that it reads like it does. Securities doesn't exactly bring out my warm, cuddly side.
But to back up assertion that Kerry is going there to raise cash, let me point out that on Wednesday HOTLINE reported that Kerry would attend Saturday night's Linn County Democrat Banquet in Marion, Iowa. If you click on over to http://linndems.intranets.com and navigate around, you'll find that tickets to the dinner (which is now sold out) range from $25-$30. Gephart and Dean are also attending -- the event is being referred to as a "mini cattle-call". Hotline also reports that Kerry will attend three other meals that weekend with "activists". No admission prices are reported, but methinks those omelets won't come cheap.
Incidentally, if you're really upset that the fundraiser sold out before you could get tickets, fret not: C-SPAN will broadcast it Sunday evening, at 6:30 and 9:30 PM.
Posted
4:14 PM
by Adam White
Greg: Of course he goes to Iowa to raise awareness for the caucus (not to mention this summer's Iowa Straw Poll). Cash to Kerry may not be the primary concern (although Drudge report he's raised a whopping $10K from Iowans so far). But if you don't think he's going there to raise money for or at least bring attention to local Democrat power brokers (e.g. Iowa Rep. Pat Murphy) in order to garner a power base amongst elected Iowans, then you don't have much of a future ahead of you as a campaign manager!
A Kerry trip to the Hawkeye State WILL raise cash to be sent in a wide variety in directions -- not to the Kerry Koffers alone. But in these January junkets the real political capital -- as opposed to Bush tax benefits -- trickles UP, not down. Kerry's in Iowa, and he's raising cash. Raising cash and campaigning for office are still not mutually exclusive -- no matter WHAT McCain and Feingold say to the contrary.
Incidentally, I'm curious to know which news sources you prefer -- if you've found a reporter whose work product isn't a mixture of truth, lies (assuming, arguendo, that Drudge's report involved a lie), sensationalism and bad grammar, I'm impressed.
Posted
2:01 PM
by Greg Weston
Adam, that's a very typical Drudge Report fake-news item, a mixture of truth, lies, sensationalism, and bad grammar.
He writes: "Senator John Kerry of Massachusetts holds hatred for having to travel through heartland spots like Iowa to raise cash, it can be revealed." But Kerry doesn't go to Dubuque to "raise cash," I'd wager more than 90% of the campaign money he raises comes from California, Florida, the Northeast, and Chicago. He goes there to campaign for the Iowa caucus.
Posted
12:55 PM
by Adam White
I called my representative in the Senate -- John Kerry -- to ask why he hates my hometown so much. I was disconcerted by the fact that not only does he hate coming to Dubuque, but he hates it so much that he felt compelled to tell reporters about it. His staff promised to "convey" my concerns. Great! Democracy really does work!
Posted
10:44 AM
by Greg Weston
Lavish lifestyles: Rock star, publishing mogul, international super spy, teacher union president, teacher union president's personal chauffeur.
$2 million in union money was misspent, much of it on luxury items such as furs, art, jewelry, silver and custom-made clothes.
The AFT's audit and lawsuit mention such purchases but also provide far more details of the alleged scheme. Forensic auditors said they uncovered a long trail of altered checks, evidence of forged signatures and an operation geared to converting checks to cash. The documents also provided a breakdown of how much each participant in the alleged fraud received.
Bullock, who was elected union president in 1994, made unauthorized and personal charges of at least $1.8 million to the union's corporate American Express cards and used an additional $381,000 for her personal benefit by writing checks to herself or others, the lawsuit said.
The suit alleged that Hemphill diverted at least $492,000 through unauthorized credit card charges or checks written to herself. Baxter is accused of diverting at least $537,000 to his personal use by making credit card purchases for art, clothing, theater and sporting tickets and other items, and by writing checks to himself, including some designated as "pension payments."
In addition, Bullock's chauffeur, Leroy Holmes, allegedly received more than 200 checks totaling more than $1.2 million from Hemphill. He cashed the checks, sometimes depositing the funds in Bullock's account and sometimes providing proceeds to Hemphill, who returned a portion to him, the audit said. It said Holmes believed that his 2001 salary as a chauffeur was $105,000, an amount higher than the salary of any other union employee besides Bullock.
Posted
8:38 AM
by Adam White
The Washington Post went Page One with Condoleeza Rice's efforts to move the Bush Administration to weigh in on the Michigan cases, drawing on her experience at Stanford Provost. But my meager investigation turned up information that would seem to make Rice's stance against race-based targeting and quotas a little less, well, black-and-white. I posted a bunch of it to my web site, but it turned out to be quite lengthy. Rather than post a gargantuan pile of excerpts here, I'll just link over to my site for the benefit of those intereted in reading about it.
Posted
2:42 AM
by Greg Weston
Adam, though I don't have very warm feelings about legacy preferences I don't think they are ever going anywhere. Did schools in Texas, California, Georgia and Washington State eliminate them when racial preferences were discontinued? Ultimately I think this would have to be legislated, certainly every current student and alumnus who may ever have children is a potential beneficiary of the legacy bonus. While my non-legacy status may have been a minor strike against me when I applied here, I immediately upon enrolling gained an interest in continuing the system that once disadvantaged me, and not very many people are willing to sacrifice a potential advantage for their children for nothing more than a more abstractly fair admissions system. Plus there are other arguments for a legacy bonus, it adds to the sense of community in a school, and also children of alumni are more likely to attend if accepted, and schools will always cling to a device that improves their "yield," which is the percentage of students accepted who decide to attend.
Posted
1:18 AM
by Adam White
Patrick: Point granted. In terms of the number of applicants affected by the "bump", I don't think that that will play in the debate. If race is off the table, I think that legacies will get a hard look regardless of their relative impact. I don't think, really, that any of this will be a legal battle. I don't think Legacies run afoul of the 14th Amendment -- rather, in the court of public opinion, it will be hard for school to publicly sustain preferences for "rich whites" when they are no longer allowed to offer countervailing preferences for "disadvantaged minorities".
Whoops. I meant "disadvantaged non-Asian minorities."
Whoops. I meant "non-Asian minorities." But I digress ...
Posted
1:15 AM
by Adam White
Tomorrow morning (well, technically today morning) the WSJ will feature an editorial on Team Bush's decision to take on Affirmative Action. It raises an important point:
The harder legal question is whether race can ever be a legitimate factor in order to achieve admissions "diversity." Administration officials have suggested on background that its brief will be "narrowly tailored" to condemn only Michigan's policies, but somehow try to finesse the question of whether diversity can ever justify racial preferences. That would only encourage the Court to continue its Bakke muddle, and let colleges continue their creative racial favoritism in other ways.
I too am curious to see if this case will turn solely on the import of race, or if Bakke's focus on "diversity" will go out the window. I've predicted before that if "race" is taken off the table, schools will next look to ZIP codes which, thanks to a combination of both gerrymandering feedback loops and natural sociological and economic tendencies, are a pretty good proxy for race (as well as economics and other demographic data).
The exclusive focus on "diversity" is an interesting quirk of history. Dahlia Lithwick -- who seems to have gotten plenty of free promo today from me -- took a look at that not too long ago.
Thursday, January 16, 2003
Posted
10:34 PM
by Patrick Lewis
Adam: Serious question, not rhetorical. I ask only because, according to this description of the Michigan admissions system, being a minority gets you 20 points, whereas being a legacy gets you 4 points. So it seems to me that the race-based "bump" is substantially greater. The only remaining question, then, is for how many candidates are the 4 points decisive? While I would need to see empirical findings on this marginal analysis to be sure, the fact that the "legacy" bonus is only 4 points shows me that either (i) the legacy students don't need as large a bump as the minority students to get in, or (ii) the school only cares 1/5th as much about admitting the legacies. Interestingly enough, if you are the *grandchild* of an alum, you only get 1 point.
Finally, a legal point. I'm sure you can make policy arguments going both ways on whether legacy bonuses are desirable or undesirable. But, do any of those arguments implicate constitutional principles in the same way that race-based preferences do? Can you imagine the Court applying strict scrutiny to a legacy preference, for example?
In short, I think the legacy argument is a bit specious, and we'd do best to not allow the Lefties to divert us from the true issue, namely, their sick racial gerrymandering of our schools.
Posted
8:00 PM
by Adam White
Patrick: Was that question rhetorical? If not, then "I'm not sure." If so, then "What of it?"
Posted
6:17 PM
by Bill Korner
The Perkins Coie Student Fellowship is offered "to first year law students who are members of racial, ethnic, and sexual orientation minority groups." First, I suggest that questioning the wisdom of endowing a grant with such discriminating provisions is a different matter than questioning diversity as a criterion in law school admissions for a number of interesting reasons. Consider: Some people would never raise an eyebrow if there was a privately endowed grant offered "to whomever my grandson/daughter thinks is cutest." Curious. (Who on the right distinguishes between Harvard Law School's admissions policies and those of a university like Michigan that is entirely publicly financed?)
But second, I cannot see how "sexual orientation minority groups" can be a criterion. Suppose I am bisexual and bisexuals are a minority. If I want to get this grant, do I have to prove to the grantors that I've had sex with a man at least once? Does that depend on what the meaning of is is? Maybe the important consideration is that the recipient represents the "sexual orientation minority group". But I think it is clear that who represents such groups is more problematic than who represents racial and ethnic minorities... and that is plenty problematic itself. I hereby question the wisdom of endowing such a grant.
Posted
5:34 PM
by Patrick Lewis
Adam: What percentage of admissions turn on legacy status? Is it as large as affirmative action, or a smaller percentage?
Posted
5:24 PM
by Adam White
[With all my posts today, I hope that I don't push out of sight my only post of interest and relevance.]
Posted
5:23 PM
by Adam White
Re Affirmative Action: As the WSJ discussed on page one yesterday, the defeat of Affirmative Action at Michigan and other schools may bring about the end of "legacy" admission preferences. Schools will face increased pressure to eliminate legacy preferences that are viewed as conferring added benefit upon students that are predominantly (1) rich and (2) white.
While this is obviously a big deal at private schools (which would seem legally unanalogous to the U of Michigan), it is a factor at public schools, like my alma mater (see page five if you're really interested).
Interestingly, the WSJ account mentioned that school counselors typically face similar problems among legacies and affirmative action benefactors -- fears that they aren't qualified, that they don't deserve to be there.
Personally, I would be neither sad nor glad to see legacy programs go. At public schools, I'd rather see them go (I have no interest in subsidizing the education of the idiot son of an alum). Private schools, of course, should be allowed to pursue their own prerogatives regarding affirmative action and legacies; then again, if my son or daughter thinks he/she can EVER try to skate by on the reputation/efforts of myself or my (hypothetical) wife, they'll be sadly mistaken. Children of privilege already have plenty of open doors. If my kid can't get through a college's admission screening on his own merits, then he doesn't belong there. It's a bit duplicitous to criticize race-based aff-act without considering name-based.
Posted
4:46 PM
by Adam White
Great headline from this week's Onion: "Harvard-educated Texan not sure which place to mention first".
Posted
4:30 PM
by Adam White
Dahlia Lithwick's got some pretty entertaining play-by-play from yesterday's oral argument in Nevada Department of Human Resources v. Hibbs. Lithwick -- a fan of Justice Scalia's temperment (though not necessarily his jurisprudence) -- suggests that perhaps Scalia's courtroom demeanor is wearing thin among his colleagues:
Justice Antonin Scalia is my favorite character on the Supreme Court in part because there is just no hiding the ball with him. Scalia doesn't come into oral argument all secretive and sphinxlike, feigning indecision on the nuances of the case before him. He comes in like a medieval knight, girded for battle. He knows what the law is. He knows what the opinion should say. And he uses the hour allocated for argument to bludgeon his brethren into agreement.
The issue, well, at issue, in this case is whether Nevada is immune from a federal suit under FMLA regarding its treatment of a state employee. But that's wholly irrelevant to the story, as focus of Lithwick's account is the singers, not the song.
Justice Scalia begins to grind into counsel, cutting off a line of questioning by Rehnquist and O'Connor. Ginsberg takes exception to Scalia's question and rebuffs him. It's gets hairy. And then, my favorite part:
Then Souter asks Taggart a question and, while Taggart is still responding, he asks a follow up. Seemingly shocked by his own rudeness, Souter apologizes: "I'm sorry. I was trying to get another question in before Justice Scalia."
Scalia continues to dominate the questioning of all three attorneys (including local favorite Viet Dinh). Here's another priceless exchange:
Finally, Viet Dinh gets 15 minutes to argue for the Justice Department, taking the position that the states are not immune from FMLA under the 11th Amendment. Again, Scalia doesn't let his colleagues get a word in edgewise. Again, Ginsburg offers an uncharacteristic speech as opposed to a question, and Justice John Paul Stevens prefaces his own question with: "Justice Scalia should probably ask this question but ..." Scalia interrupts him to say, "Pass it to me."
All in all, a funny account, although it's a bit disconcerting. As much as I enjoy the Court's passion, and the philosophical fisticuffs of oral argument, there are other depictions of the Court that have their own charm. Will the Court ever come together?
Posted
1:59 PM
by Adam White
Austin: Off the top of my head: James Cramer (journalist for CNBC, former hedge fund trader). Sumner Redstone. Then again, my admiration for them hardly has anything to do with jurisprudential insight. Surely some readers would suggest Scalia. I would, too, on his good days (which is most of the time).
Posted
1:59 PM
by Austin Bramwell
My question about "socratic method" as practiced in law school: The idea behind it is to confuse you enough so that, in the end, you learn to "think like a lawyer," which means, of course, seeing legal rules as infinitely malleable. I don't get it, though: would a professor teaching absurdist theater convey his points better if he spontaneously started reading his lectures background? I doubt it. The Republic would have been better off, and we would have been better lawyers, if law students read nothing but Blackstone.
Posted
1:54 PM
by Austin Bramwell
Your suggests an interesting question, Adam: are their *any* Harvard Law luminaries that we admire? Perhaps Joseph Story, or Roscoe Pound. In any case, the fact remains that Harvard Law has been the fons et origo of nearly all pernicious jurisprudence in this country--beginning Holmes and Langdell, whose "socratic method," amazingly, becomes ever more entrenched as a pedagogical method.
Posted
1:43 PM
by Adam White
You know what's great about HLS? Getting to study Securities Regulation in the library, under the watchful eyes of the immortal Louis Brandeis. It's quite a motivator, the drive to quash all that he stood for.

*Sigh*
OK, back to the books.
Posted
1:22 PM
by Austin Bramwell
Kudos to the Bush administration--in candor, I did not think that they had it in them. A decision againt Michigan, I predict, will move the debate on race in this country in significant ways. The power of the Supreme Court not only to decide constitutional cases but to announce definitive interpretations of the American political tradition is awesome. How many debates on the desirability and morality of legal abortion have been quelled by appeal to the so-called "Constitution"?
Wednesday, January 15, 2003
Posted
8:42 PM
by Adam White
Let me make your day, Mr. Skmetti and those similarly situated: The WSJ Editorial Page ran a puff piece on Eugene Scalia.
Posted
7:55 PM
by Jonathan Skrmetti
And thank heaven the amicus is on the right side, Dan. Mr. Gonzales's push for a pro-Michigan brief kept me a bit anxious.
Posted
6:30 PM
by Dan Kelly
It's official . . . The administration will file an amicus. (The text of Bush's announcement and accompanying article.)
Posted
5:03 PM
by Austin Bramwell
JR: Michael Lind is basically a jerk (you can tell as much from the title of his first book ), but he wrote a rather good book on Vietnam. At least it can be said that he has introduced liberals to the conservative intellectual world, which I suppose is commendable (although, to be sure, in that regard he is only following a recent trend).
The most galling thing about Lind, however, is that he is at the forefront of those who argue that, hey, liberals were right all along about the Cold War. This claim has more chutzpah than merit. Communism would never have fallen without the efforts of Reagan, Thatcher, and Wojtila--all of whom liberals continue to despise. Whatever anticommunism liberals entered the Cold War having was dissipated in their cockamamie worries about McCarthyism.
Posted
4:58 PM
by Bill Korner
Speaking of Governers, Romney is apparently assuming the power to cut budget items at will, or something like that, in the face of decreased revenues. Precious few people in the Massachusetts Legislature voted against giving him this power. Now those state funded public schools, the pride of our federal system, can get the ax as he sees fit. But, for anyone in Mass who stands to get lots of stock dividends, praise be to Bush.
Posted
4:08 PM
by Adam White
Austin: I didn't know you were an atheist.
Posted
3:14 PM
by Austin Bramwell
Here's some fun revisionist history on the Salem with trials. As the witch trials have become an allegory of the supposed repressiveness of American society, it is worthwhile to remember that the trials were not altogether irrational. Moreover, unmentioned in the piece cited is the fact that belief in spectral influences in every day events represented advanced scientific thinking at the time (Isaac Newton, for example, spent his later years researching the very subject). Thus does another supposed morality tale on the evils of the past in fact turn out to teach the very opposite lesson. I might add that one cannot read about the Raelian Cult without thinking that superstition is a quintessential ill of modernity.
Posted
10:45 AM
by John Parker
I link to this this article from the Boston Globe with great hesitation, since it is sloppy and dishonest. The author's misunderstanding of the post-war conservative movement in the U.S. is staggering. Among his more outrageous claims are that the neoconservatives are allies of "Southern fundamentalists." Assuming, pace David Frum, that neoconservatives even exist, I know them to be no friends of Dixie. If the fundamentalism the author references is nut-job premillenial theology, then perhaps he has a point. But I don't see anything particularly "southern" about said theology, except perhaps in the paranoid fantasies and tired stereotypes of someone who writes for the Boston Globe.
However, the subject of the article, James Burnham, is worth considering, especially since far too few intellectually-directed "conservatives" have even heard of the man. Also on the upside, the Boston Globe writer stumbles out of his confusion to take a well-deserved shot at Leo Strauss.
Posted
10:06 AM
by John Parker
Some important points highlighted by Paul Craig Roberts about Governor Ryan's recent decision:
"Gov. Ryan’s blanket commutation is not without injustice as some of those whose lives he has spared are clearly guilty. On the other hand, his stand is consistent with the highest principle of justice as exemplified by famed jurist William Blackstone’s dictum that it is better that ten guilty men go free than one innocent be imprisoned (much less executed). Gov. Ryan is correct that the criminal justice system must be refocused on justice and turned away from the emphasis on conviction at all cost, regardless of innocence or guilt.
For good to come from Gov. Ryan’s controversial action, it is important that two points be kept in mind:
(1) Wrongful conviction is not limited to capital crimes and is more prevalent in lesser crimes, and
(2) the justice system must return to Blackstone’s concept of law as a shield of the innocent and abandon Jeremy Bentham’s concept of law as a weapon in the hands of prosecutors."
Posted
9:56 AM
by Adam White
As Matt Drudge is proud to commemorate, today is the fifth anniversary of the day his site shook the world: On January 15, 1998, the Drudge Report broke the news of Clinton and Monica. Here's a bit of Matt's assessment:
Five years is hardly a long time in God's wild and wonderful world, unless you're in jail, if you're starving or lonely, or if you're Harvey Weinstein making GANGS OF NEW YORK.
* * *
What began exclusively in this space on January 17, 1998, and continued exclusively for more than 72 hours, launched a million headlines and directly led to an impeachment count of a sitting United States president. [After reading the DRUDGE REPORT, Clinton called in his secretary Currie to match stories, igniting an obstruction charge.]
While the mainpress legacy media will continue to mark the moment the WASHINGTON POST printed their version of the story on January 21 as the start of the Lewinsky news cycles, those who were on the internet, and President Clinton himself, know and lived a different truth. In fact, the mainpress continuing to ignore the internet timeline of those yesteryear events is proof of their inability to reflect a reality that is not of their own making.
The intern, the investigation, the tapes, the dress, the cigar; nearly every aspect of the drama was first introduced to those who wanted to know in this space.
Speed beat the spin. Computer beat the newspaper. The magazine. The TV show. The staticy radio broadcast, and all the ships at sea.
If you're really feeling nostalgic, you can go to DrudgeReportArchives to track the headlines from those heady days of 1998:
There's plenty more there, if you want to track it.
Tuesday, January 14, 2003
Posted
10:16 PM
by Bill Korner
Adam: Yeah, those ads are brilliant.
The CATO institute is so cool precicely because of quotes like Ivan Eland's in the Boston Globe today. He ridicules as yet another form of corporate welfare the U.S. government's sending two F-16s to Poland to fly prime minister Leszek Miller around as part of Lockheed-Martin deal to sell them some fighter jets. The article said that flying those jets from here to Italy to Poland and back could well have cost in the hundreds of thousands of dollars. As if the defense industry is not subsidized enough with its overpriced contracts! Grrr!
Posted
9:16 PM
by Josh Pater
On the Proclamation for the Separation of School and State: I do not support its mission, nor do I buy the notion that such a proclamation will "build[] a groundswell that will eventually do the political job of ending government involvement in schooling." But even if I did, I don't think I could sign a Proclamation with a "survey" as absurdly simplistic as this one.
Posted
9:08 PM
by Adam White
I'm hardly a member of the anti-SUV set [I crave a fuel-inefficient SUV in much the same way that I crave a fuel-inefficient yacht], but I am thrilled to see the new TV ads by The Detroit Project. The ads -- modeled after the ridiculous "I bought drugs/I supported terrorists" ads introducted by Team Bush during the last Super Bowl -- tie fuel-inefficient SUVs to terrorism.
I've joked all year for the need for such ads. The link between drug use and Middle East terroist groups is tenuous, and it CERTAINLY pales in comparison with the connection between oil money and Saudi-funded terrorism. For some reason, however, Bush and Cheney chose not to pursue that link to terrorism through scare ads.
Likewise, if the Bush Administration DID believe that American drug use was linked to Middle East terrorist groups, and also considering that, in the short run, drug use is a relatively inelastic phenomenon, wouldn't it have been more pragmatic to dillute the super-normal profits of Middle East drug sources by dilluting their market power? In other words -- if Team Bush's goal was to hamper terrorists -- instead of running ads that didn't work, shouldn't it have been subsidizing American drug sources? In the name of anti-terrorism?
OK, I'm kidding, of course. But I joke about drug subsidization for the same reason that I love the Detroit Project ads: not because of their substantive value, but because they highlight the absurdity of the least-effective anti-drug campaign since Drew Barrymore's endorsement of "Just Say No">
[Incidentally, if you buy the whole SUVs-fund-terrorism, then you'll love Gregg Easterbrook's take on the "Axle of Evil".]
Posted
8:18 PM
by Jason Sorens
Patrick: In 19th century Britain, the state required parents to send their children to school, but the government did not fund schools. This solves, to some extent, the principal-agent problem in education. If one wanted to be a real paternalist about it, one might argue that schools would also need to be somehow licensed by the state to fully solve the problem. This idea I would reject as a cure worse than the disease. P.S. The FSP has been promoting the Proclamation for the Separation of School and State recently. Some of you here may wish to sign the latter.
Posted
7:32 PM
by Austin Bramwell
Adam: You are assuming that Kennedy School actually provides "education" of some kind. For most Kennedy school students, the Kennedy School's program is quite well-tailored to their needs.
Posted
7:30 PM
by Austin Bramwell
Patrick: What you fear is that parents might not do the best thing for their children. I fail to see, however, how government intervention is likely to improve matters. It seems to me that by relieving parents of their burdens (by, say, forcing students to attend public school for the better part of the day), the government discourages active parenting. I am willing to bet that if the parents in Kaplowitz's tale had to deal with their children's discipline problems themselves, they'd be much less complacent.
Posted
7:18 PM
by Avigael Cymrot
Incidentally, I am also a graduate of a private school, so I'm familiar with both the strengths and the weaknesses of such institutions. While it's true that private schools can teach morality from a faith-based perspective, when schools espousing a religious perspective have a fair number of students whose parents choose the school more based on its college preparatory nature than for its moral values, parental lack of support can wind up undermining the school's attempts to inculcate a value system. Vouchers could wind up magnifying this effect, as more students whose families might support the educational aspects of the private school but might not support any "religious coercion" of their children will make themselves heard in greater numbers.
Posted
6:58 PM
by Patrick Lewis
Austin: A basic education has been a necessity in this country since the Industrial Revolution. I agree with you that a college education may not be necessary, but surely an education to some degree is a requirement. As to paternalism, the question really turns on for whom the choice is irrational. in some cases, it may be perfectly rational (from the parent's perspective) not to provide an education. Of course, the same might be said for food, shelter, and basic medical care. But at some point one must recognize that what may be rational from the parent's point of view is not rational from the child's point of view. There lies the agency problem, and that is a quite legitimate hook, I think, to hang some form of government regulation of the parent-child relationship. (That said, I am a fan of keeping that regulation as minimalist as possible.)
Posted
6:24 PM
by Adam White
Austin: I'm sorry, but I need a clarification. By "preponderance of mankind," do you mean only law students, or both law and government students?
Posted
6:20 PM
by Austin Bramwell
Patrick: What's wrong with some children not receiving an education? Education is rather overrated, and quite useless for the preponderance of mankind. Besides, isn't a little paternalist to suppose that a parent's choice not to provide for his children's education is irrational?
Posted
6:04 PM
by Adam White
Bob Novak wrote a nice tribute to outgoing WSJ editor Bob Bartley today:
Without Mr. Bartley and his newspaper, supply-side economics would have been stillborn. His muscular foreign policy sounded the death knell of isolationism on the right. His relentless assaults on Bill Clinton's ethics set the standard for Republicans. He has not permitted conservatives to forget such unpleasant issues as tort reform and school choice.
According to Novak, Bartley "arguably established himself as the most influential editorial writer of any time." Now, I've got to disagree -- there's been at least one better writer -- but I can't say enough good things about what Bartley did for the WSJ Ed-Op page -- the last bastion of rational thought in print journalism.
Bartley's exit (well, he's not really going anywhere, as he'll still write as Editor Emeritus) has brought about a barrage of tributes, but what I've enjoyed are his own reflections. Here are his final reflections on his work at the Wall Street Journal, but better still is his Valedictory Address, from last November.
The Journal Editorial Page (and that first cup of morning coffee) often make my day. As Bartley points out, the WSJ ed-op page is the only ed-op page that actually sells newspapers. I'm pleased daily that their OpinionJournal serves up such excellent content. To me, it comes closest to the ideals posited by Mencken in his wonderful essay on the craft.
Posted
6:03 PM
by Avigael Cymrot
In contrast to Kaplowitz's piece, in In the Classroom, Mark Gerson describes his experience teaching in an inner-city Catholic school. It's been a few years since I read the book, but it had enough of an influence on me that I remember it and I'd recommend it for anyone interested in debates over education policy. Although Gerson faced many of the same disciplinary problems that Kaplowitz had to deal with, he was able to have more success in gaining control of his classroom and getting through to his students because of the involvement of parents and the disciplinary efforts of administrators. I've heard the argument that school vouchers are problematic because they'd only be utilitzed by the parents that are most involved in their childrens' educations anyway, and thus would not do much to improve the education of those whose education needs improving the most; certainly the litigious mother in Kaplowitz's article doesn't speak too highly for the notion that giving parents control always leads to better results. However, I think we ought not let the perfect be the enemy of the good, and given the sorry state of education in much of our country today, I'm in favor of providing more support to institutions that actually seem to be working. Anyhow, probably part of the reason that our education system is in such shambles is that smart women started going to law school instead.
Posted
5:59 PM
by Patrick Lewis
Brooks- the school serves, imo, two separate but equally important functions: (i) to impact knowledge about the sciences, arts and letters; and (ii) to teach morality and socialization skills. I posit that, because public schools are required to respect due process and must accept all students in a given community, they are severely compromised in both of those goals. What can a public school do about a negligent parent? You might be tempted to say to sue her, or to ban the child from the classroom, but I for one wouldn't want to entrust a public school administrator with that power. They are just as likely to use it wrongly as rightly.
Keplowitz's piece is actually a great lesson in the collective action problem. Because of legal and political constraints on the teacher's ability to enforce discipline in the classroom, the cooperation of every parent is required. If only a few parents refuse to discipline their children, the learning environment disintegrates.
Private schools (of which I am a proud graduate) don't have this problem. The fact that the parent must pay money to send her child to the school coupled with the fact that the private school has an almost unappealable right to exclude a problem child, create an environment where the SCHOOL can have the power and authority to create an environment to teach both (i) and (ii). Moreover, private schools may also teach morality and social skills from a faith-based perspective.
I've debated my antipathy towards public education with Jonathan a few times. The one point he always gets me on is the basic notion that you have an agency problem as between the parent and child. Namely, the parent may choose not to (or, depending on income, may not have the ability to) pay for a school, resulting in the child not receiving an education. For obvious social reasons, this outcome is unacceptable.
Thoughts on how to bridge the divide?
Posted
5:45 PM
by Patrick Lewis
Adam: Mr. Skrmetti has been scheming about the purchase of a faster computer for quite a bit of time. Of course, his motives may be somewhat other than the more efficient posting of erudite conservatism to the blog. :-)
Posted
5:12 PM
by Brooks Eubank
Patrick: Thank you for posting that link about teaching. I don't know how many readers familiar with Yale we have here, but I'm sure that those present will agree with me that it is not a little surprising, ironic, and commendable that this particular author's excellent piece can be found on, of all places, www.frontpagemag.com.
I can't speak to charter schools, but I certainly do agree (based on hearsay evidence from my declarant mother, a teacher at an alternative school) that "alternative" schools, as they are called, are not only a needed safety valve for regular schools, but also, when supplied with the necessary teacher control and parental cooperation, a truly preferable alternative for some kids to that unproductive bedlam Mr. Kaplowitz deftly shows many of our regular public schools have become.
Posted
2:12 PM
by Adam White
Austin: The deafening silence is only evidence of efficient resource allocation. Were the crowd to rise up in arms every time I went out of my way to needle libertarian/conservative purists, Ex Parte would need a lot more bandwidth. Mr. Skrmetti would have to buy a faster computer!
Posted
2:12 PM
by Bill Korner
Adam: McWhorter's point seems well taken, but the fact that it is reaching conservatives through Reason magazine suggests that something is wrong and that may be what R. Kennedy was anticipating when he called it irresponsible. Such a message does no good whatsoever if its main effect is to allow us privilaged people (whose cultures luckily do not tell us to be anti-intellectual) to rationalize our complacency about a problem, by dismissing it as endemic to another culture that we are not a part of because of our race. Is this a reason for the Federalists not to go here him at Wordsworths? I don't think so, not if the point is to find out what we can do about it.
Posted
1:43 PM
by Austin Bramwell
I'm surprised that nobody since Adam's post has leapt to the defense of Austrian economics. Whither all you Mises Institute confreres?
Posted
1:40 PM
by Austin Bramwell
What makes poetry great? I recommend Dorothy Sayers's theory that great poetry manifests the features of the Trinity. As for vers libre, she makes the excellent point that modernism's ambivalence (or, rather, outright antipathy) towards representation echoes Plato's--that is to say, it is thought that representation is both disengenous and arounses passions that interfere with true understanding. Indeed, just as Plato banned (most) poetry and art from the city, so has modernism consigned them both to oblivion. Puerile postmodern attempts to revive the arts have only made the situation worse.
Posted
1:38 PM
by Patrick Lewis
In a 6-1 California Supreme Court ruling, a man may be found guilty for the rape of a woman if, after having received consent, the woman revokes the consent during the act by means of an ambiguous statement, and the man does not immediately thereafter desist. It's truly a sad story and indicative of a judiciary so full of Leftist activists that they shatter all bounds of reasonableness.
The case involved a 17 year old woman involved in what can only be described as an orgy at a party. During her sexual encounter with the second of two men that night, she said thta "she needs to be going" or words to that effect. 90 seconds later, the sexual encounter stopped. California's Supreme Court held that consent had, in fact, been revoked, and that the man had taken an unreasonably long time to cease and desist following the revocation of consent.
As the Erin O'Connor blog I linked to suggests, this is just one more step on the road to making rape a strict liability offense. O'Connor writes, "this ruling neatly dispenses with the idea that rape necessarily involves force, and replaces it with a definition of consent that is as uncertain and shifting as the woman who wields it." With this context in mind, it'll be interesting to see how tomorrow's discussion in Evidence about rape shield laws goes.
Posted
3:04 AM
by Patrick Lewis
An absolutely horrifying story coming out of the Teach for America program in Washington, D.C. While this story does seem a bit extreme, the point about a total lack of discipline and mistrust between teachers and administrators is an epidemic in inner-city schools.
Posted
12:37 AM
by Greg Weston
Jonathan , I agree with your assessment of what makes great poets great, it is a shame that few these days write anything more ambitious or inspiring than vague free verse batherings about their feelings and emotions.
Speaking of meaningful I.P., here is one of my oldest favorites, from Pope's Essay on Man:
1 Awake, my St. John! leave all meaner things 2 To low ambition, and the pride of kings. 3 Let us (since life can little more supply 4 Than just to look about us and to die) 5 Expatiate free o'er all this scene of man; 6 A mighty maze! but not without a plan; 7 A wild, where weeds and flow'rs promiscuous shoot; 8 Or garden, tempting with forbidden fruit. 9 Together let us beat this ample field, 10 Try what the open, what the covert yield; 11 The latent tracts, the giddy heights explore 12 Of all who blindly creep, or sightless soar; 13 Eye Nature's walks, shoot folly as it flies, 14 And catch the manners living as they rise; 15 Laugh where we must, be candid where we can; 16 But vindicate the ways of God to man. ... 77 Heav'n from all creatures hides the book of fate, 78 All but the page prescrib'd, their present state: 79 From brutes what men, from men what spirits know: 80 Or who could suffer being here below? 81 The lamb thy riot dooms to bleed today, 82 Had he thy reason, would he skip and play? 83 Pleas'd to the last, he crops the flow'ry food, 84 And licks the hand just rais'd to shed his blood. 85 Oh blindness to the future! kindly giv'n, 86 That each may fill the circle mark'd by Heav'n: 87 Who sees with equal eye, as God of all, 88 A hero perish, or a sparrow fall, 89 Atoms or systems into ruin hurl'd, 90 And now a bubble burst, and now a world.
91 Hope humbly then; with trembling pinions soar; 92 Wait the great teacher Death; and God adore. 93 What future bliss, he gives not thee to know, 94 But gives that hope to be thy blessing now. 95 Hope springs eternal in the human breast: 96 Man never is, but always to be blest: 97 The soul, uneasy and confin'd from home, 98 Rests and expatiates in a life to come.
99 Lo! the poor Indian, whose untutor'd mind 100 Sees God in clouds, or hears him in the wind; 101 His soul, proud science never taught to stray 102 Far as the solar walk, or milky way; 103 Yet simple nature to his hope has giv'n, 104 Behind the cloud topp'd hill, an humbler heav'n; 105 Some safer world in depth of woods embrac'd, 106 Some happier island in the wat'ry waste, 107 Where slaves once more their native land behold, 108 No fiends torment, no Christians thirst for gold. 109 To be, contents his natural desire, 110 He asks no angel's wing, no seraph's fire; 111 But thinks, admitted to that equal sky, 112 His faithful dog shall bear him company.
Posted
12:12 AM
by Greg Weston
Gentle fun at an Iraqi stooge's expense:
Top Ten Signs Your Wife Is Having An Affair With U.N. Weapons Inspector Hans Blix
10. You notice little shampoo bottles from Baghdad Hilton
9. She comes home reeking of Swedish meatballs
8. Parakeet's cage is lined with documents on Iraq's nuclear weapons program
7. Hears about Hans Blix meeting with Condoleeza Rice, she mutters, "Bitch"
6. She has "U.N Approved" tattooed on her ass
5. Always gets her hair done whenever the general assembly is in session
4. It's a good bet, considering she had affairs with every other chief U.N. weapons inspector
3. She complains about your unilateral decisions when renting a movie
2. She's on the phone: from the next room you hear the words, "...threesome" and "Kofi Annan"
1. Your kids look sort of Blixy
Monday, January 13, 2003
Posted
11:54 PM
by Adam White
HLS'ers: John McWhorter is reading at Wordsworth's Tuesday, February 11? Perhaps we can organize a field trip of some sort.
Posted
11:31 PM
by Jonathan Skrmetti
Bill, the education reply was in iambic pentameter. Let me assure you, it is quite difficult to say anything meaningful or coherent in iambic pentameter. That's what makes the great poets great. I think, however, that the more the federal government involves itself with education, the dimmer our hopes for the future become. Large bureaucracy leads to poorly served students. Even close state supervision of education seemes to place too much power too far from the actual classrooms. Local autonomy should be the watchword of any school that aspires to provide a quality education.
As for the withholding thing, I guess I was too busy anticipating tonight's Joe Millionaire to think (incidentally, Evan proved his good tase this evening and crushed the hopes of monarchical Heidi partisans).
Posted
11:18 PM
by Adam White
Here's a nice diversion from Winter Term: A great writer reviews a book by a great author about a great author: Richard Posner reviews Christopher Hitchens' "Why Orwell Matters". Posner gives it a reasonably favorable review -- as well he should. He's a smart guy, and it doesn't take an idiot to figure out that Christopher Hitchens is brilliant. Hitch had an interesting ed-op in the WSJ today, discussing the victories of modern conservativism over Liberalism; likewise, Commentary currently features an interesting take on Hitchens "move to the right". Hitchens is no Righty -- but if they want to claim him, I suppose it won't hurt anything.
Posted
8:09 PM
by Bill Korner
The National Law Journal portrays the SEC's proposed attorney requirements for reporting corporate misconduct, as dividing professors, who largely favor them, from practitioners, who are opposed. The weak requirement would require attornies to report a clients misconduct "up the ladder", perhaps as far as the corporate board of directors. The stronger one, would require them to report misconduct to the government and, thus, to effect a "noisy withdrawl" from the case. This strong requirement would only apply if the company had not set up its own special compliance committee to report violations to the SEC.
It seems questionable whether inside reporting alone is going to do any good. We all know how dismissively directors respond to shareholder suit proposals when they contradict their own interests. It hardly improves matters when such decisions are made by litigation subcommittees appointed by interested directors. This might seem to indicate that "noisy withdrawls" (exciting as they sound) are not likely to happen. Nonetheless, lawyers seem worried. The article describes one attorney (from Dechert) whose diligent search through the legislative history of Sarbanes-Oxley turned up a Senator's statement that "There is no obligation to report anything outside the... corporation." As a lawyer, I would be worried about violating client privilage whether or not word gets outside the corporation.
Posted
7:42 PM
by Adam White
There's a new book out, arguing that the Earth is a mere 7.5 billion years away from being engulfed by an ever-expanding sun. I don't have any problems with that basic theory, but I did get a chuckle out of the way one of the authors thought to apply his theory:
''The disappearance of our planet is still 7.5 billion years away, but people really should consider the fate of our world and have a realistic understanding of where we are going,'' said UW astrophysicist Donald Brownlee. ''We live in a fabulous place at a fabulous time. It's a healthy thing for people to realize what a treasure this is in space and time, and fully appreciate and protect their environment as much as possible.''
Yep. The planet is going to be obliterated by the sun. But while you're still hanging around, would you mind stopping along the highway and picking up some styrofoam?
Then again, that's not the strangest part of the article. This is:
''If we do begin to slide into the next glacial cycle, there probably are grand, planetary-scale engineering projects that might stop or lessen the effects,'' Ward said.
''The big unknowns are whether we can afford to do such projects and would we really know what to do. If the planet was cooling, we could, in principle, begin painting the surface black to collect more heat. Could we afford it? And what would be the many possible ramifications of a planet suddenly covered in black paint? Any planetary remediation project would always run the risk of making things worse.''
Fret not! Ted Turner's already planning for the inevitable. If only all of us were so forward-looking.
Posted
5:00 PM
by Jason Sorens
Austin: Recall also the Númenoreans from The Silmarillion, who strove relentlessly after wealth, power, and long life but progressively became shorter-lived and morally impoverished, before their ultimate, cataclysmic defeat. (For Tolkien novitiates: the men of Gondor and Arnor, including Aragorn, are ultimately descended from the Númenoreans.) Of course, you may not want to take the whole story of Akallabeth as a political allegory, given that one of the impeti for their downfall was their brutal acquisition of colonies in Middle-Earth. ;-) Just teasing.
Posted
4:47 PM
by Bill Korner
Jonathan: Dude, come on!! I mentioned the sixteenth amendment. And what kind of reply was that about the education post.
Posted
4:18 PM
by Jonathan Skrmetti
Bill, your discussion of withholding ignores one rather important fact: the Sixteenth Amendment was ratified in the interim.
Posted
4:11 PM
by Bill Korner
This is mindblowing! In the Wall Street Journal Marketplace section today (Monday, January 13), Leslie Chang discusses the use of imagery from the Cultural Revolution in new commercials on a Chinese regional TV music channel owned by News Corp. Read the article. Draw your own conclusions.
Posted
3:46 PM
by Bill Korner
On the relation between war and taxes: The first time that the U.S. government used a mandatory withholding program for employees was during the Civil War (for its own employees). It was found unconstitutional. Then, after the 16th amendment, the U.S. government did the same thing during WWII, again in order to raise much needed revenue. This time it was found constitutional. Check out the whole story in Richard Doernberg's article "The Case Against Withholding" from the Texas Law Review, December 1982.
Posted
3:21 PM
by Patrick Lewis
Bill: I'm not one to doom and gloom, but, allow me nonetheless to doom & gloom on the idea of a massive voucher system. I like vouchers. As some of you know, I had the opportunity this past summer to see first hand what a really neat public policy vouchers are. That having been said, let me suggest that massive reallocations of school funding (particularly to a voucher type system) is a hugely radical shift in funding for schools. That alone should give us pause.
Off the top of my head, I see two major problems with vouchers en masse:
1. It is bound to create price competition as between schools. Just as with the private school system, where the "better" private schools charge more for tuition, so too will better public schools charge higher prices. What this has the effect of doing is pushing a great many students many miles from their homes to go to school. A wealthy child will be placed in a better public school -- unless that "Better" public school happens to be in his town (admittedly, this will often be the case), he's gotta go far away. Poor children will have to be bussed to the schools offering lower tuition. One can only surmise that those schools will be of inferior quality. But, nonetheless, sending the kids away to school makes socialization more difficult and tends to cut against building a sense of community in your child.
2. With federal dollars comes federal rules and regulations. Your funding proposal would take quite a bit out of the hands of the people. I happen to think that, overall, it's good that local communities be able to choose how much they spend on education, and what type of education they want to pursue for their population. (whether it be community colleges, or high schools with different foci, magnet schools, etc.) Big government solutions always have a tendency to create a culture of mediocracy.
Posted
3:15 PM
by Bill Korner
Austin: If modernity brings me longer life, I'm all for it. As for being ruled by passions, I think that you have a point. But to my mind, its not being ruled by passions that's per se wrong... the good life is largely about being ruled by the right ones (and if you understand what's going on, then all the better).
Posted
3:11 PM
by Austin Bramwell
I hope everyone saw Jonah Goldberg's latest column, which discusses inter alia the myth that Galileo was a martyr for science. For further reading, I also recommend Paul Feyerabend's brilliant essay, "Galileo and the Tyranny of Truth", arguing that the Church was in fact more right than Galileo.
Posted
2:58 PM
by Jonathan Skrmetti
To federalize the nation's policy in educating youth from early age would set a course with dire certitude to ultimate American decline.
Iambic meter five feet to the verse (except in tiny doses) is perverse.
Posted
2:52 PM
by Bill Korner
James Pinkerton of the New America Foundation writes in this month's Atlantic ("A Grand Compromise" p. 115) that American education should be federalized with a Pell Grant program that would give a $7,000 voucher (America's approximate per pupil spending) to each student in lieu of current funding. This is supposed to appeal to "the left" because it would equalize funding between rich and poor districts. (Personally, I doubt that it would win "the left" over, but that question would probably be determined by the following...) There is no discussion of the stings, if any, that would determine where that could be spent. But the author formerly served as domestic policy advisor to presidents Reagan and Bush. What do you all think?
Posted
2:39 PM
by Jonathan Skrmetti
Austin, you are quite right that the dismissal of Tolkien's neo-Luddite tendencies as escapist rather than a thoughtful and intentional attack on modernity and technology are unsupported by the texts. Tolkien's views become clearer upon examination of The Hobbit. In that precursor to the Lord of the Rings, Tolkien is explicit regarding the relationship between evil and technology: the goblins use technology. He is also exttraordinarily explciit about materialism; Smaug hoards a pile of riches and does nothing with it; Thorin is corrupted by his greed; Lake Town is hindered by the master's greed; the greed of the wood elves and the people of Lake Town, combined with Thorin's greed, very nearly leads to war - had the goblins and wargs not attacked it would have led to war.
Alas, my work has stymied my attempts to versify Ex Parte monologues. Betwixt the Scylla of my duties and Charybdis of the hours in the day, I lack the time to redirect my thoughts to fit my syllables into a scheme.
Posted
2:00 PM
by Austin Bramwell
Similarly, Adam, some on the right in the 80s opposed the effort to index income taxes for inflation on the grounds that failure to index would ultimately lead to a flat tax.
Posted
1:57 PM
by Adam White
My friend also relayed a funny quote, inspired by his trip to a recent economics conference in Washington: "The fact that Austrian Economics is now ignored proves that competition works." (quote from Sherwin Rosen; HLS' Kip Viscusi participated in a panel at the conference re Rosen).
Posted
1:53 PM
by Adam White
A good friend of mine (a professor at the Chicago Graduate Business School, if you want his creds), posited an interesting view on taxes. In light of the Bush tax cut proposals, attention has been redirected to the Alternative Minimum Tax, and the fact that (1) Bush doesn't plan to revise it, and (2) more and more taxpayers are falling under its coverage. Now, while many (including the so-silly-that-he's-mildy-charming Lew Rockwell) decry the AMT (Lew: "The evil Alternative Minimum Tax"), my friend suggests that since the AMT is essentially a flat tax, and that it's broadening scope actually raises hopes that one day it will be the dominant tax and the "main" income tax structure will become the "alternative" one, libertarians may soon be able to achieve, through the back door, the flat tax they've clamored for. What do you think? Should Steve Forbes be throwing a Flat Tax Fiesta these days?
Posted
1:41 PM
by Austin Bramwell
Another point on Tolkien: I am increasingly convinced that it is a little too glib to dismiss Tolkien's hostility to modernity and technology as escapist or irrelevant. Note that the ring gives Gollum "unnaturally long life" and reduces him to an infantile state in he is ruled by the appetites. I can think of no more vivid depiction of the end result of the modern project, as it strives for immortality while denuding us of any capacity for longing or love. Gollum is the creature that is left over after the "abolition of man" is complete.
Posted
1:21 PM
by Austin Bramwell
I saw The Two Towers again last weekend, and noticed that the nobler the character, the more likely he is speak in iambic pentameter. I therefore submit that it is mere demotic prejudice that some people find lines such as "Not idly do the leaves of Lorien fall" or "There is no curse in Entish or in Elvish / Tongue to match this foulest treachery" stilted.
Posted
12:58 PM
by Adam White
Since RealRacePolitick seems to be the topic du jour (or at least du morning/early afternoon), I thought some might be interested in the upcoming rivalry between the Rev. Al Sharpton and former Gore advisor Donna Brazile. Brazile, eager to quash Sharpton's run for POTUS, actually plans to encourage local African American leaders to run against Sharpton in the primaries. She hopes that the appearance of "favorite sons" in the primaries will raise the interest of young black voters in participating in the November elections; she also wants to see Sharpton get beat. She's not, however, endorsing any candidates at this time (except in the sense of "Al Sharpton is my second-favorite candidate; everyone else is my first."):
Brazile says that although Democrats in the South need whites, they also need to increase black participation in elections. She has a plan to simultaneously do that and prevent the rabble-rousing Rev. Al Sharpton from having a catastrophic effect on the Democrats' 2004 primaries.
Brazile, who made history with her managerial role in 2000, might support none of the major candidates in 2004. Instead, she might try to find blacks to run as favorite sons in various states' presidential primaries -- say, Rep. Jim Clyburn in South Carolina, Rep. Harold Ford in Tennessee, Detroit's Mayor Kwame Kilpatrick in Michigan, former New Orleans Mayor Marc Morial in Louisiana.
Who, she asks, is more apt to move young Tennessee blacks to be active Democrats -- white candidates like North Carolina Sen. John Edwards or Massachusetts Sen. John Kerry, or Rep. Ford? And absent black candidates, various primaries could be hijacked by Sharpton. "Kerry's going to surge and then sink," says Brazile, who in 1988 worked for Rep. Dick Gephardt. "Edwards just lost North Carolina. Elizabeth Dole" -- elected senator, in spite of Edwards' strenuous opposition -- "beat him."
Posted
10:26 AM
by Bill Korner
Patrick: I have no doubt about the fraudulent nature of the 861 position. However, the fact remains that (according to the article Johnathan cited) it has been used with remarkable success, not by tax protesters per se, but by inelligible people who just did not want to pay.
Posted
1:14 AM
by alina stefanescu
Patrick: Another interesting quagmire in the realm of racial insensitivity is the increasing hostility of African American immigrants towards black American culture, which they believe to be whiny and counter-productive. All I can say is that they must have missed Cornel West's CD...
Posted
1:11 AM
by alina stefanescu
Annoying political strategies.
The campaign contribution arguments continue to be amusing, as Democrats gear up to protest soft money contributions-- which, as it turns out, will probably hurt them more than it will hurt Republicans. Thomas Edsall reports:
"The sustained two-year effort by the party's national, senatorial and congressional campaign committees to strengthen "hard money" fundraising did not succeed in lessening their dependence on "soft money," which no longer is legal. Instead, the Democratic committees in the 2002 elections were even more dependent on soft money -- which national parties could raise in unlimited amounts until two months ago -- than in previous elections.
The new condescending brand of populism embraced by Congressional Democrats since the last election is disturbing, ineffective, and amusing, at best. When will the Democratic Party stop practicing masochism as a political strategy and then whining when they lose?
Posted
12:45 AM
by Patrick Lewis
I came across this story about Shaq making racially insensitive comments regarding an Asian player in the MBA named Yao Ming. I do enjoy how racial double standards work. Shaq has a history of making these racially insensitive comments. Yet, no firestorm at all. Barely a word uttered. Compare that experience to John Rocker, whose racially insensitive comments earned him round denunciation by everyone in the country and dogged him the rest of his career.
It's always nice to know that (presumptively) left-leaning black Americans get a "pass" on making these offensive and outrageous statements, yet white Americans in the same position as Shaq are devoured by the press and the public like a guppy thrown into a tank of piranhas. I wonder what motivates the difference. Is it that the left doesn't think black Americans are able to manifest their racism? That can't be it - the NBA is something like 80% black. Surely Mr. Yao is a minority in a black-dominated profession. Is it that the left doesn't impute the same culpability upon black utterers of racist remarks as they do white utterers? If so, is that not itself racist?
(Or, as I've argued elsewhere, do we just chalk it up as good old fashioned marxist identity politics?)
Bill: 861 is inapplicable. It's a rule that needs to be interpreted as analyzing the foreign income tax credit (I think is what it's called). The use of "source" in 861 is not descriptive of the definition of "source" as used in the definition of income in 61. Just ignore the silliness of these tax protestors. :-)
Sunday, January 12, 2003
Posted
7:21 PM
by Bill Korner
Johnathan: The 861 position sounds kind of kinky. But once I got over that distraction, your story warmed my libertarian heart. Now if only enough people would "take that position", then we wouldn't be able to afford this pesky war. The article would have been better though if it had told us the implications of the decision for those who had been evading/avoiding taxes under S. 861 for twenty years. Are we to assume that they will have to pay up now (including back taxes)?
Posted
6:01 PM
by Adam White
Mr. Rockwell's critique is a little odd. Lithwick's assessment of the Confederate Flag controversy asserts that "After all, the Confederate flag is not merely the proud symbol of the Ku Klux Klan." Rockwell, referring to Lithwick article as "a typical treatment" (of, I must assume, the Confederate flag controversy), points out that "In fact, the KKK – a US nationalist outfit if there ever was one – used the US flag exclusively in its days of power." He posts a number of photos of the Klan, from the 1920s to the 1960s, to back up his point. But I don't think that that in any way discredits Lithwick's point that the Confederate flag is TODAY (though maybe not 50 years ago) a symbol of the KKK. Current KKK movements make wide use of that flag -- a web site of one chapter clearly shows this. While the KKK years ago may have wrapped itself in the stars & stripes, today it appears quite ready to wrap itself in the stars & bars.
Lithwick's point was that our schools -- our laboratories of ideas -- should allow the flag shirts to be worn, in order to promote debate and dialogue. I'm surprised Rockwell goes after her. She characterized in a very critical terms those schools who attempt to ban Confederate shirts, especially since the liberal types that run schools would still claim to embrace the Tinker statement that anti-Vietnam armbands were a picture-perfect example of students bringing their first amendment rights past the schoolhouse gates.
Posted
5:01 PM
by John Parker
Speaking of the Confederate Flag (or not), here is something about the KKK's proud symbol of hate.
Jonathan: tax protestors are fun, but it gets much better. The internet is great if you want to find out about The Lawyer's Secret Oath, how the United States Government is actually a foreign corporation, that Queen Elizabeth controls and has amended U.S. Social Security, and what those gold-fringed flags in federal courtrooms represent.
Posted
4:21 PM
by Jonathan Skrmetti
My buddies in the Tax Division will be heartened by this news (thanks to Howard Bashman for the link). While I am not a fan of paying taxes, the law on the matter is pretty clear and there is no serious doubt about the general obligations of individuals to pay taxes. Despite this, the tax protestor movement, consistently advancing an assortment of occasionally hilarious unfounded arguments, takes up an excessive amount of time in federal courts around the country. The federal government spends a lot of time and money trying to put a stop to this nonsense, but it continues unabated alongisde other tax scams like the slavery reparations tax credit.
Posted
2:49 PM
by Jonathan Skrmetti
Has anybody seen the ads for Fox's Man vs. Beast? Is this just a plan to make Joe Millionaire look relatively intelligent and respectable? After seeing fifty little people competing against an elephant in a jumbo jet dragging competition, the chateau shenanigans will seem refreshingly civilized.
Posted
2:07 PM
by Jonathan Skrmetti
Greg, the worst thing about the Grope is not the accomodations - the rooms are small but liveable, and they have the supreme student virtue of affordability. The exterior, however, obliterates any aesthetic appeal HLS as a whole may have. The squat arms of the Gropius Complex devour the northern half of the campus. The grim facade of the building rejects any aspiration to beauty. Further, the division of the interior into what are effectively cell-blocks, with a plethora of bars and doors overwhelming any attempts to characterize the buildings as open or friendly. When my crim class visited the Concord medium security prison last year I was immediately reminded of the Gropius complex. The only on-campus housing that is not hideous is Hastings, a beautiful dormitory reminiscent of the staircases lining an Oxford quad. Everything else is horrid. North Hall has decent enough rooms, with attached bathrooms and ample closet space, but it is absurdly expensive and its past as a hotel means it is not suited for social living; North is a lonely place. I like my apartment. It's cozy, full of fun people, cheap, and just far enough from campus to provide some separation between school and home.
Posted
1:54 PM
by Adam White
Jonathan: YOU'RE red-faced? How do you think I feel now? Today, I'm the biggest conspiracy theorist on Ex Parte! I've already given up my argument. I blew that one in a manner most spectacular.
On my personal web site, I've sworn off blogging for the rest of the day. I spent way too much time reading on the Net this weekend. I should have spent more time trying to read the mind of Howell Jackson and the SEC. Terrorism might be scary, but Sec Reg is a nightmare.
Posted
1:21 PM
by Jonathan Skrmetti
Adam: if you're right, boy is my face red. However, CNN says theirs is a rush transcript and may be updated - if it is a rush transcript, they probably didn't do much cleaning up because there was not much time for editing. Anybody care to get a tape to settle things once and for all?
Posted
1:11 PM
by Greg Weston
In defense of the Gropius Complex, I have to say that it has been growing on me. I've now been in here for two years, and I plan to spend my third here as well. Its virtues? First, it's cheap, about $500/month right on campus, including partial furnishings and free utilities and a high-speed internet connection that is is faster than what other people pay $50 a month for. The hallways are wide, specious, and social, (in contrast to Wyeth's claustrophobic gerbil-tubes) and the rooms are small but not excessively so, with lots of shelf space, and a window that takes up nearly half the outside wall. The exposed brick walls inside the room came before their time, Boston yuppies pay big bucks to stay in lofts with this same feature. Plus the concrete and steel buildings appear to be indestructible, these are not buildings that will ever burn down.
I figure that the cheapest alternative off-campus would be to rent a room in Somerville for maybe $600 a month, plus $100 in utilities, plus the inconvenience of having to write rent and utility checks all the time instead of having them conveniently added to one's term bill, plus the inconvience of having to pay for summer months or find a subletter, plus the inconvience of having a much smaller bathroom without janitors to clean it, plus the inconvience of living so far off campus. I'd rather live in Gropius now, pocket the $6000 I save, and use it toward a downpayment on a house immediately after I graduate.
Posted
1:08 PM
by Adam White
TINKERING WITH CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS? Slate's Dahlia Lithwick considers the constitutional questions surrounding the debate over schools banning Confederate-flag t-shirts.
Posted
11:37 AM
by Bill Korner
George Will says that it is "jejune" to complain that Bush's tax cuts favor the wealthy. But if anything is jejune, its his repetition of the standard "the rich already pay more" trope. To be fair, he couches this in a citation of the fact that that the second wealthiest quintile (max income $82,000) pays more taxes than the bottom three combined. But he's ignoring the important view that, whether you're concerned with fairness or welfare, the issue is not relative tax burdens of income classes that matters, but rather the relative amount of (say) well-being given up in taxes by individuals in those classes. Maybe someone the second highest quintile does give up as much potential well-being in taxes as someone in the lowest. But it is unlikely that a multimillionaire is giving up as much potential well-being when he pays tax on his dividends as is forfeited by a taxpayer making $40,000/year.
Posted
11:23 AM
by Adam White
Kevin: Yep, you're right about that. My mistake. But the transcript seemed oklast night -- CNN's version was choppy as all hell, with Penn's rambling. I just instant messaged Drudge to see if he kept a copy of the original CNN transcript, to link to. [Hmmm ... should I "cancel" my original post and replace it with a "clean" version? It does have its appeal ...! CNN might be on to something!]
Posted
11:07 AM
by Kevin Plummer
Not that I like being in a position of defending CNN, but the point Adam is making about determining the creation and modification date seems to be wrong, because all pages checking in that manner seem to have the same creation and modification dates - here 12 Jan 2003. I think that is the date it was created and modified on the viewer's computer (i.e. the date that it was accessed - perhaps creation date is the date when the page was first viewed and modified was the date last refreshed but who know how Microsoft products really work). CNN may have edited the transcript, though I don't know how much because they seemed to leave in quite a bit of Penn's self-injected half-sentences. If Drudge was right, then I would have liked to have heard Larry King say "Gnarly, dude."
Posted
10:59 AM
by Josh Pater
Boston might have some ugly buildings. I write from one that was left out. Not one of his best buildings, you say? I should hope not.
Now, I'm sure there's something else I should be reading.
Posted
10:33 AM
by Adam White
Jonathan: I think you may have been duped by CNN. I read that transcript early last night, and it seemed accurate to me in terms of matching the CNN counterpart. As you'll notice atop the CNN transcript, it says up front that it may be "updated". But here's some VERY compelling evidence that it's been doctored: right-click on the CNN transcript, in Internet Explorer, and check out its Properties. That page was created and modified on 12 January 2003. Drudge's report came out at 10 pm ET, 11 January 2003! So the CNN page has DEFINITELY BEEN CHANGED since Drudge posted his report!
Hate to break the news Jonathan, but I will since you and I are friends: Sometimes CNN isn't exactly truthful. Shhh! Don't tell anyone! This'll be our little secret.
Posted
10:23 AM
by Avigael Cymrot
George Will has an interesting piece in today's Washington Post about Bob Graham's possible run for the Democratic presidential nomination. While it would seem to me that Graham (or Joe Lieberman), running to the right of the president on war and terrorism issues, will face a huge problem in the primaries in that the Democratic base isn't with them, if, G-d forbid, there is another massive terror attack on U.S. soil, it will be much easier to claim (and win the support of a fair number of moderates and conservatives) that the Bush administration isn't doing enough. Graham is correct, for example, in recognizing that Hezbollah may be just as operationally effective and dangerous as Al Qaeda has been in the past.
Posted
2:26 AM
by Jonathan Skrmetti
The Washington Post has reported that the Department of Justice Honors Program has come under heavy political control. However, the substance of the article suggests that the reporter's take on things may be exaggerated. I'll write more on this after a good night's sleep.
Posted
2:01 AM
by Jonathan Skrmetti
Just a quick observation - Drudge put out a butchered and inaccurate transcript of Sean Penn's interview with Larry King. While Sean Penn is eminently mockable, his failings as a comprehender of geopolitical events does not justify abandoning any shred of commitment to the truth. Drudge's rubbish is reminiscent of the editing in Rock Bottom in The Simpson's episode Homer Bad Man:
Homer and the rest of his family watch the report that night on "Rock Bottom".
Jones: Tonight on "Rock Bottom", we go undercover at a sex farm for sex hookers. Farmer: I keep telling you, I just grow sorghum here. Man: Uh huh. And where are the hookers? Farmer: [points] 'round back. [realizes] Whoops. Jones: But first: [photo of Ashley and her parents at graduation] She was a university honor student who devoted her life to kids, [slomo of Homer reaching for his car keys] until the night a grossly-overweight pervert named Homer Simpson gave her a crash course in depravity. "Babysitter and the Beast"!
"Aw, crap," laments Homer as the interview is shown.
Homer: Somebody had to take the babysitter home. Then I noticed she was sitting on [splice] her sweet [splice] can. [splice] -- o I grab her -- [splice] sweet can. [splice] Oh, just thinking about [splice] her [splice] can [splice] I just wish I had he -- [splice] sweet [splice] sweet [splice] s-s-sweet [splice] can. Jones: So, Mr. Simpson: you admit you grabbed her can. What do you have to say in your defense? Homer: [looking lustful in a clearly-paused VCR shot] Jones: Mr. Simpson, your silence will only incriminate you further. [paused shot of Homer grows larger] No, Mr. Simpson, don't take your anger out on me. Get back! Get back! Mist -- Mr. Simpson -- nooo! Man: [quickly] Dramatization -- may not have happened.
Posted
1:59 AM
by Jonathan Skrmetti
Adam, the allegations are not that damning. Plenty of court records in criminal cases are sealed, and because their was a juvenile involved Judge Pickering's excess of caution in protecting the privacy of defendants in the case and related cases is easily understood. The orders to the government to provide information on related sentencings constitutes a legitimate and reasonable request for a judge faced with the prospect of sentencing a defendant. At worst, Judge Pickering made a mistake, one mistake in a very long career. If it is a mistake, we can tell it's the only mistake because People for the American Way and numerous other ideological groups have combed through Pickering's record looking for ammunition with which to assassinate the judge's character. Judge Pickering's efforts to ensure fairness in sentencing in the case may have led to an excessive zeal in pursuit of justice, but a small mistake made with noble intentions should not bar the man from appointment to the Fifth Circuit. The widespread support of Pickering across all barriers of color and partisan affiliation in Mississippi is more than sufficient to assuage any legitimate doubts about his capacity as a judge. If Pickering was accused of amajor abuse of judicial power done for an ignoble purpose, things would be different. But as things are, even if his actions in that particular sentencing were inappropriate they are still not groudns for rejecting his nomination.
Relatedly, it is amusing that the leftist opponents of Judge Pickering are suddenly hyperformalists, opposing a judge who acted in the interests of fairness and equity, when in general leftist scholars reject formalism at any point where their notions of fairness and equity are hindered by considerations of law.
Saturday, January 11, 2003
Posted
11:59 PM
by Adam White
Just a couple of parting shots for tonight:
Greg: While I am not myself a fan of mandatory minimums, I would hesitate to support Pickering in affirmance of "judicial nulification". His action in direct defiance of a constitutional extension of congressional power is (1) activist, and (2) an encroachment upon those lines devised in separation of power.
Jonathan: I agree that PFAW is hardly what I would consider a legitimate arbiter of jurisprudential excellence. But, as I said in my post, PFAW's reputation does not negate the factual allegations of an NYU law school dean, presented in the form of a letter to a U.S. senator. PFAW only features the letter on its site. It did not pen the letter; I'm not even sure that its author is affiliated with the group. While the author appears to be a Lefty, his enumerated allegations feature direct cites to DoJ memoranda and Judge Pickering's sealed order. I encourage you to check it out. It seems pretty damning.
Posted
11:54 PM
by Bill Korner
No C-SPAN in my house, sadly (or maybe not in this case). Judicial nominations are interesting, but I've got to learn a little more about Pickering. Does the discussion so far indicate that we all think ideology should play a role in appointments? (Well, not what Johnathan said I guess.)
I was happy to hear about the commutations in IL, but its partially because a friend of mine at Northwestern was working on one of the cases. I'm against the death penalty, but (generally at least) against exceeding one's authority.
Greg, you make me sound way more radical than I am or ever will be.
Posted
10:24 PM
by Greg Weston
Bill, I consider myself a pragmatic libertarian, and I vigorously support some redistribution of wealth, even as I disapprove of the way the government is currently carrying out this policy. For me a more interesting question is which of the two evils is worse, the current system or none at all. I'm not sure what my answer to that would be, they're both pretty bad, but I'd probably opt for the evil I know, that is the current system.
Jonathan, that sums up my view of both Pickering and PAW, very well put.
Posted
10:19 PM
by Jonathan Skrmetti
Pickering did press the limits of the judicial role in the cross-burning case, but the prosecutorial boneheadedness in that case was extraordinary. They cut a deal allowing the ringleader and avowed racist to get off with no jail time and sought rather severe penalties against oneo f his accomplices, who had basically been along for the ride and had never previously expressed strong support for racial violence. There were solid and legitimate equitable grounds for refusing to punish the less culpable defendant far more than the more culpable defendant. And while principles of fairness and equity are often abused by liberal judges in sentencing, the cross burning case clearly called for judicial action to prevent a grave injustice. In addition, Judge Pickering's noisy intervention doubtlessly deterred prosecutors from repeating such attempts at dramatically unjust prosecution.
Sentencing is tricky, and while the Guidelines cover a lot the Sentencing Commission unabashedly acknowledges that there are some situations where judges need latitude. Attempting to paint a judge as soft on crime based on one or even a half dozen sentencings will not lead to an honest assessment of the judge's attitudes, particularly when the facts and nuances surrounding the sentencing are not available to us.
As for People for the American Way (their name is the best example of example of doublespeak since "pro-choice" came into popular use), their views may be a little skewed. For example, here's what they have to say about us:
The extreme nature of the positions that have been advocated by the Federalist Society and its leaders . . . puts the Federalist Society far from the mainstream of beliefs shared by most Americans and enshrined in decades of constitutional jurisprudence and national policy. The leading voices of the Society share an ideology that is hostile to civil rights, reproductive rights, religious liberties, environmental protection, privacy rights, and health and safety standards, and would strip our federal government of the power to enforce these rights and protections.
So I think it's safe to say that anybody affiliated with People for the American Way is an ultra-leftist (never simply a leftist, just as they never call conservatives "conservative" but instead call all conservatives "ultra-conservative").
Pickering proved himself an extremely able and competent district judge, with an abnormally low rate of reversals from the Fifth Circuit. Democrats throughout Mississippi, black and white, have vocally supported his nomination. Medgar Evers' brother spoke on Pickering's behalf. The assault on Pickering is just another case, one in an unfortunately long line, of the national Democratic party ignoring the truth in favor of the politically advantageous position. We can at least take some small solace in the consequences of this political chicanery on the Democratic party's future in Mississippi.
Posted
10:14 PM
by Greg Weston
Adam, I didn't know Judge Pickering had pressed for lighter sentences for non-violent drug offenders, but now that I do I think even more highly of him than before. Mandatory minimum sentences for non-violent drug offenders are evil in theory, and both evil and racist in practice. I urge everyone here to spend some time browsing the site of Families Against Mandatory Minimums if you haven't already to see the effects of mandatory minimums in America. And as you're reading about how people with no serious prior offenses are getting 5, 10, and 25 year sentences, make sure you multiply those figures by $25,000 or $30,000 a year to see just how high one of the many costs of these unjust imprisonments can be.
For those who in cold blood take the life of another human being however, death is the only appropriate punishment, and I strongly sympathize with the family and friends of those the pardoned men murdered, and as well as those who will be murdered in the future if the deterrent of the death penalty is eliminated in Illinois. While life in prison may be bad, it sure beats being dead, as evidenced by the fact that hardly anyone who is sentenced to life in prison without parole goes and kills himself. It also leaves the killer with ample opportunities to kill again, both prison guards and fellow prisoners.
[Oops, I reread your post and realized that the sentence was for a cross-burning case. That makes me much less sympathetic to the plight of the defendant, but mandatory minimums are still bad to the extent they make the weakest of the three branches of government even weaker.]
Posted
10:07 PM
by Kevin Plummer
Adam: I agree under the words of the Illinois constitution he has the right to do that, my argument isn't there. Though I am not an expert in the history of the formation of the Illinois constitution (perhaps a goal towards which I can strive after finals), I doubt that the intent was to give de facto veto power to the governor over a whole set of crimes, or rather sentences.
Regarding your experiment, which I advise to everyone not to try, and assuming that a constitution is merely the enumeration of powers and rights, that right to speak freely has been narrowed so that a threat of a president is not acceptable. The intention of free speech did not extend to allow physical threats of the President; here I would believe that the intention of the commution provision in the IL constitution was not to allow the governor to commute all penalties of one sort or another.
Posted
8:35 PM
by Adam White
With all this talk of sentencing and of Judge Pickering today, I'd like to pose a question: Is anybody here against the nomination of Judge Pickering, not on grounds that he's "a racist," but on the grounds that his strong-arming of Federal prosecutors to drop the harshest charges against a defendant in order to circumvent mandatory minimum sentencing guidelines demonstrated that he is an "activist judge"? After all, shouldn't judges apply law, not -- in effect, make law? And his decision to seal his order -- hiding it from the People -- is arguably not appropriate action for a judge whose power is arguably derived from the People.
The web site of People for the American Way features a vigorous indictment of Judge Pickering's actions, written by NYU law school's Stephen Gillers, addressed to Sen. Edwards. The author of the letter is apparently a lefty, given that almost all of his political campaign contribution were directed toward Mark Green (courtesy OpenSecrets.org), but I don't think that that necessarily leaves his factual allegations devoid of applicability.
Or, in the alternative, does anybody here worry that Pickering might be "soft on crime" -- especially after his lenient sentencing of at least one drug convict?
I'm not saying that I agree (or disagree) with any of the above. But I wonder if anybody else in this forum does.
Personally, I am very much in favor of Judge Pickering getting a full hearing in the Senate -- Sen. Leahy's extended game of "hide the ball" was disconcerting, as would be the threatened Senate filibuster. But I am not yet in favor of the Senate's approval of Pickering's promotion. Leaving allegations of racism aside, there seem to be serious legal issues that need to be considered -- by Lefties and Federalists alike.
Posted
8:25 PM
by Adam White
Kevin: The purposes underlying the commutations are not at issue. Gov. Ryan has power under the constitution to "grant reprieves, commutations and pardons, after conviction, for all offenses on such terms as he thinks proper." It would be a "disregard for the separation of powers" for another branch of government to impede Ryan's power to any extent beyond that already provided for by law, absent a constitutional amendment.
Speaking as someone who worked in Chicago this summer and participated in the commutation/appeal work of a death-row inmate, I'd like to say that Gov. Ryan HAS appeared to have thought this through, given all of the press and debate that's happened in recent years. The moratorium went into on January 31, 2000. He seems to have put almost as much thought into this as possible. It's a weighty decision, worthy of much deliberation. I am happier that this decision came after as much deliberation as possible (save one day) than I would have been had he made the decision overnight. Aren't you?
As for the Constitution: Without wading too far into a meta-debate, I've got to disagree with your assertion that "a citizen's right to free speech is one that he does not give to the government, not one bestowed upon them by one branch of the government." That might be true "in theory" -- it certainly appeals to me as a priori principle, something that should be strived for -- but my characterization is correct on the facts. You are right on the Should, but wrong on the Is.
If you disagree with me, let's run a small experiment: You and I can call up the White House switchboard, and you can exercise your right of free speech by threatening the life of a President (former or current, take your pick). When the Secret Service shows up at your door, why don't you try reminded them that you haven't given them the power to quash your reserved right to speak. (I wouldn't recommend trying to assert your Second Amendment rights while they're on your doorstep, though!) I think that the results of such an experiment would prove to you that my analogization of a Constitution's enumeration of gubernatorial powers and a Constitutions enumerations of citizen rights is entirely appropriate.
Gov. Ryan certainly isn't a saint (there seems to be a reason why he didn't run for re-election), but he certainly hasn't exceed his powers.
Posted
8:03 PM
by Kevin Plummer
Yes, but here Ryan is commuting because of his complaint with the law written by the legislature - he isn't commuting a sentence or two because he isn't sure that they are gulity. He is commuting all death penalty sentences because he believes that the death penalty is wrong. It's this disregard for the separation of powers between the legislature and the executive with which I have a problem. The comparison that you make falls on this point. A constitution grants powers to the government given to them by the people, not by "the state." A citizen's right to free speech is one that he does not give to the government, not one bestowed upon them by one branch of the government. Perhaps I miss the point you are trying to make, Adam, but it seems to be comparing two completely different things that really have nothing in common. I certainly don't think Ryan should be sainted because he commuted all death penalty crimes as he is leaving office, especially since he clearly felt the law was wrong when he imposed a moritorium a year or two ago. If he was such a strong-willed politician, governed only by his view of justice and the power he wielded under the Illinois constitution, why wait until now?
Posted
7:58 PM
by Adam White
Patrick: I never said that the four pardoned from death row are innocent. In fact, I haven't said anything about the pardons; I don't know the facts in those cases. They were the governor's to deal with. I've only spoken to the matter of the commutations. Those men will be in jail for a long, long time. And don't worry -- if you think that Gov. Ryan is "letting criminals off easy", you can rest assured that their time in jail will quite possibly be broken up by a variety of physical and sexual assaults.
Governor Ryan has taken a long, hard look at the problem of the death penalty in Illinois. I can sleep soundly with his decision. Surely he can, too. And if Illinois can't, they can amend the constitution. Dissenters can move out of the state, if it really bothers them. Trust me -- across the mighty Mississippi lies a veritable wonderland.
Posted
7:44 PM
by Patrick Lewis
Adam: How can we be sure that the four gentlemen Ryan pardoned from death row are, in fact, innocent? Surely there is more to their claim of innocence than bald assertions that a confession had been beaten out of them by the police department?
I agree with you that wrongful convictions -- particularly those that are directly caused by police misconduct (whether planting evidence, coercing false confessions, etc.) -- are a very urgent problem in our criminal justice system. I guess my only hope is that Ryan did not let 4 murderers out of jail to make a political statement.
Posted
7:14 PM
by Adam White
TO EVERYONE: I want to apologize most deeply for my heinous offense: my having referred you to tonight's America and the Courts. To all of you who turned it on -- on my recommendation -- and had to endure 5 minutes of idiocy courtesy Chuck Schumer, I wish to extend my deepest, most sincere regrets.
Posted
7:12 PM
by Adam White
Kevin: Regarding your objections, I can only point you to the source:
ILLINOIS CONSTITUTION. SECTION 12. GOVERNOR - PARDONS. The Governor may grant reprieves, commutations and pardons, after conviction, for all offenses on such terms as he thinks proper. The manner of applying therefore may be regulated by law.
The State of Illinois vested this power with the governor. The state -- the people -- could have taken it away if they saw fit. To argue against the governor's commutative power on the grounds of "democratic control" or "legislative process" is akin to criticizing the individual citizen's right of free speech on the grounds of "democratic control" or "legislative process".
He may be "on his way out of office" (aren't all politicians, techically?), but he is IN office. How long ago should he have lost his commutative power? A month ago? At the election? When he announced he wouldn't seek office again? When he decided not to seek office again? When he started thinking that he might not decide to seek office again?
Posted
6:08 PM
by Kevin Plummer
I have the exact opposite reaction to Gov. Ryan's decision. I'm against the death penalty generally, but a blanket commutation seems to circumvent the whole legislative process. Plus, he did this on his way out of office - there doesn't seem to be any voter or democratic control over this decision. Ryan's action seems akin to judicial circumvision of legal legislation.
Posted
5:37 PM
by alina stefanescu
Adam: I, too, am relieved by Gov. Ryan's decision. And yes, the big questions are just beginning...
Posted
5:32 PM
by alina stefanescu
A large check might buy legal immunity.
When Bush signed the Homeland Security Bill in November 2002, he made possible the largest bureaucratic reorganization in American history. As usual, however, the bill had a couple of free-riders, including a provision which might allow the pharamaceutical company Eli Lilly to hamper or get dismissed lawsuits by parents who claim that the preservative thimerosal, used in Lilly vaccines, caused autism in their children.
Eli Lilly spokesman Rob Smith feigns pleasant surprise when asked about the provision-- "It's a mystery to us how it got in there." Yet it doesn't take a Sherlock Holmes to know that the answer to the mysterious origin of this provision might be found in records of Lilly's campaign contributions to the last congressional elections. Oy vey... why must political science seem like a degree to do nothing more than study official corruption? Tell me guys, how's the integrity of the law holding up these days?
Posted
5:25 PM
by Bill Korner
To libertarians: If you had to chose between (1) more government invasions of privacy and curtailments of civil liberties or (2) coerced redistribution of wealth and power, which would you sooner let society suffer? That's too vague a question and not necessarily a choice with which we are confronted, but I think it bears thinking about nonetheless.
Jason: I don't think that it makes much since to object to the idea of divided selves on your grounds because, if we were ever faced with a totalitarian oppressor, we would not be able to keep our freedom by convincing "the party philosopher" that we did not in fact have a divided self. Moreover, whatever means such a party used to gain power and support, I doubt that it would involve overcoming the belief that people generally know what's good for them. Do you think that Russian revolutionaries drummed up support by convincing peasants and workers that they did not know their own best interests? More likely they convinced them that joining them was in their interest. Surely post-revolution propaganda did seek to justify heinous acts through divided-self arguments, but I doubt that these were widely believed.
It is true that repeated parroting (perhaps coerced) of any idea can lead one finally to adopt it. But this is actually an argument for taking unintuitive ideas seriously, i.e. so that we can reach a reflective equilibrium (part of the concept of a united self?) that minimizes our dogmatisms. The divided self can just be one that is out of equilibrium.
Posted
4:02 PM
by Adam White
What huge news coming out of Illinois today -- the commutation of all death sentences by outgoing governor Ryan. While I am not against the death penalty per se, I very much agree with Gov. Ryan's decision. I am curious to see, however, what will happen with murder cases in the near future -- what will judges and the new governor do?
Posted
3:49 PM
by Patrick Lewis
Bill: The "fear of difficult conversations" move is a political one committed by those who refuse to debate their positions on the merits due to weaknesses therein. In science you'd call it "hand waving." This fear is, IMO, conservatives' biggest Achilles Heel in the race and gender debates: they are afraid to challenge the Leftists on their failed race policies out of fear of being called racists; they are afraid to challenge the Left on the excesses of feminism (outside of the abortion context) for the same reason.
Bottom line: Have no fear. Learn and grow.
Posted
2:25 PM
by Bill Korner
I keep hearing about a certain sexist post that I made on this blog in the fall, so I'm going to say something else about it at the risk of digging a deeper hole:
I'm very ashamed that I wrote what I did especially because it may have seemed to reflect badly on my girlfriend (which I really did not intend but should have forseen). Remember, though, that it was a knee-jerk response to a post claiming that sex-inequality in the workplace is caused by maternity-leave issues. I still think that men's worries, like the ones I expressed, are a far more powerful explanation. Now, it may well be that broaching such difficult conversations does more harm than good. That's debatable. But, if you think that I, myself, am more sexist than other (more tactful) men, just because I happend to voice those worries, or even if you think that I believe what I said more than other (more tactful) men believe such things, then you're probably wrong (unfortunately). On the other hand, I do know lots of men who I consider less sexist than I am.
Posted
11:11 AM
by Adam White
Heads up! This week, C-SPAN's America and the Courts is devoted to "reaction to the renomination of Judge Charles Pickering of Mississippi to a seat on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit." Could be good stuff -- AATC is typically an hour well spent. Saturday night, 7 pm EST, on C-SPAN. If you miss it, the AATC will have it on the web site by next week.
AATC has featured the Senate judiciary battle throughout the year. Their web site still features footage of the Judiciary Committee's "debate" on Mitch McConnell, from the Committee's last session under Chairmain Pat..
[And, if you're looking for debate on Bush's tax plan this weekend, the punditry looks to be chock-full of it!]
Posted
9:59 AM
by Adam White
Yesterday -- in case you missed it -- the last bastion of rational debate in print journalism (and my dream employer) featured a great ed-op on the Judge Pickering smear campaign.
Friday, January 10, 2003
Posted
9:43 PM
by Greg Weston
Austin, having each state or locality decide its own drug laws I wouldn't have a much of a problem with, though in the long run were that to happen I think all laws against marijuana would ultimately become fairly ineffective.
Now remember it was Canadian brewers who helped undermine alcohol prohibition in the United States, and fifty years later American smugglers who undermined Canada's once-high cigarette taxes. If America can't police this international border, how could, say, Utah keep marijuana out if Nevada and California legalized it?
Speaking of Canada and marijuana, the country on the other side of that long porous border is now about 4 months away from decriminalizing marijuana, and in Vancouver marijuana seems to be tolerated better than Marlboro's in New York City.
Posted
9:26 PM
by Greg Weston
E.J. Dionne exposes what he calls “the worst-kept secret in Washington,” which is that judicial appointments “are the tribute Bush pays to his political base.” Well, now that he’s let that cat out of the bag, let me be the first member of Bush’s enthusiastic political base to publicly thank him for all those judges. I think I speak for a lot of us when I say that Miguel Estrada would make a superb member of the Supreme Court next time there's an opening.
While I’m nominating people, how about Peter Huber: He was only one of two HLS graduates to merit graduating summa cum laude in the whole of the 1980’s, is a libertarian who writes great books, and has the moxie to do his own website, which according to its hidden meta tags was done using an old version of Microsoft Word. None of that flashy Macromedia Shockwave stuff.
Posted
4:29 PM
by Jason Sorens
Austin: The argument against virtue-as-response-to-coercion is merely intended to argue against the positive aspects attributed to paternalistic coercion. I don't argue that indulging temptations is even more virtuous than fleeing them; however, I do argue that doing right under duress is not worthy at all. Consequently, the negative aspects of coercion then come under scrutiny, and on balance paternalistic coercion comes out an ethical negative.
Re the divided self: The notion I reject is that one self is more "true" or "socially useful" than another, and that outside forces can be employed to subjugate one self to the other, or remake the self altogether. This view is very much an artifact of 20th century psychiatric self-aggrandizement.
Posted
3:44 PM
by Austin Bramwell
Bill: If you liked Signs, there's a rather good discussion of the film in the September 16 issue of National Review, unavailable, alas, on the internet.
Posted
3:20 PM
by Austin Bramwell
On the drug war:
Greg:, the analogy to Singapore is actually quite relevant. Drug laws are typically enforced by the states; thus, it is quite possible that a state could raise the marginal cost of selling drugs so high as to vitiate any incentives to do business there. While the sensible thing to do, it seems to me, is to cease waging the war on drugs at the federal level, I see little reason why a willing state could not manage to eliminate the drug trade within its borders altogether.
Greg (part deux): marijuana may harm the body less than alcohol, but the latter is an indispensible lubricant of bourgeois life, while the former is an icon of counter-cultural rebellion. Even if these associations are in some sense arbitrary, the fact that they persist makes it perfectly justifiable for a community that seeks to maintain thrift and respectability to abjure marijuana use but tolerate alcohol.
Jason: You are quite right that virtue is a condition of the soul; to be specific, virtue is a habit, or a "second nature." However, while somebody who achieves virtue in difficult circumstances is more praiseworthy, this does not mean that we should make it any more difficult than necessary. By the logic of "true virtue must be chosen," we should encourage idolaters, hucksters, and knaves so that the people will have more opportunities to test their virtue! This discussion, of course, calls to mind Frank Meyer's "fusionism," the definitive response to which is contained in L. Brent Bozell's "Freedom or Virtue."
Jason: The notion of the divided self certainly accounts for a great deal of my own experience, and, moreover, is acknowledged by Christian religion, as nicely explicated in William James's Variety of Religious Experience
Posted
1:47 PM
by Jason Sorens
Austin: Virtue is a condition of the soul and can never be inculcated through coercion. Coercing people to act outwardly in accordance with virtue is not true virtue - at least, if one is a Christian. Children are perhaps a special case since they don't yet have the means to make rational decisions: some coercion is necessary to assure that children develop the means to become virtuous. Thus, I would favor banning selling marijuana or tobacco to children. But just watching someone smoke in public is not going to make a child become a reprobate. In fact, if these actions are truly reprehensible and destructive, then letting children fully observe their consequences should advance their right development.
With regard to the theory of the divided self, I completely reject the notion. While perhaps philosophically interesting, there is no way I can tell whether you have a divided self or not. If we truly took the doctrine of the divided self seriously, then we could say that anyone who did not join the struggle of the proletariat was not acting in his true interests and could be coerced for his own good. Likewise someone who did not become a Christian, or an atheist, or whatever the favored belief du jour may be. The theory of State as Psychiatrist that you apparently endorse is a peculiarly 20th century delusion, a form of totalitarianism in fact.
Posted
12:00 PM
by Bill Korner
Johnathan: Terroism scares the hell out of me too. I kept thinking about it while I was watching Signs the other night. But I actually found the movie kind of cathartic. I wonder if that's its purpose. In any case, it's amazing how we cope with these things, which is what I think the movie is about.
Posted
12:56 AM
by Jonathan Skrmetti
Students in my Terrorism class are having trouble sleeping. Many suffer from recurring nightmares, while I have simply not been able to get more than a few hours of sleep a night. However, most of us have attained through our travail a grim resolve to look at the face of evil and call it by its true name. Indulge me as I share with you some essential truths that Americans must embrace if our liberties and our lives are to abide.
The Israeli/Palestinian conflict is no longer a clash of civilizations; it is a clash of civilization against barbarism. Those Palestinians who belong to civilization are war-weary, disgusted by the exultant culture of death that has permeated the occupied territories, and desirous of quiet peaceful lives. Hamas, Hezbollah, Islamic Jihad, and the other thug groups have shed any vestige of civilization as they take orgasmic pleasure in butchering innocents. These extremists must be burned from the face of humanity if civilization is to prevail.
The Irish Republican Army, while a despicable group, generally elected to kill a smaller rather than larger number of civilians, usually targeting as few as they felt necessary to terrify Britain and garner media coverage. Al-Qaeda and the Palestinian/Lebanese terrorist groups reject any such constraints. Al-Qaeda's stated goal is to kill as many civilians as possible. Given the simplicity of buidling a nuclear weapon and the vast quantities of fissile material in the world, a terrorist attack with a nuclear weapon is not only possible but probably imminent. U.S. programs such as Nunn-Lugar could substnatially reduce the risk, but thus far we have been unwilling to commit necessary resources to such projects. My sister is matriculating at NYU next year and I will spend the summer in Washington, and many of my friends live in the two cities. I count as a small and morbid blessing that both my sister and I will live within the vaporization zones of the most likely attacks, and would thus be spared agonizing deaths from radiation burns. I'd rather a world in which I did not have to weigh the relative merits of a quick death against those of an agonizing one.
Regarding the relative possibilities of threats, I must add that those who pooh-pooh strategic missile defense as an untimely idea are idiots who should look to the future. If we had such a system in place our hand against North Korea right now would be substantially stronger. Any Morgenthauvian can see the coming confrontation with China, an event that will arive in our lifetimes; such a confrontation would be much more palatable if we had a high-tech umbrella to stop the rain of nuclear fire that would otherwise result.
The world is a dark place. The international community is the bastard child of Jesse Jackson's Rainbow Coalition and the Vichy regime; it is left to us and our few true allies to stay strong and sane. While our civil liberties should not be subsumed under the rubric of national security, the purest and most legitimate goal of government is the protection of its citizens. Our government must remain focused on securing the nation against a multitude of threats. At the same time, Americans must steel themselves for the trying times ahead. We can prevail against the evil in the world, as we prevailed against the last generation of evil and the generation before that. We must prevail. The attacks on September 11 forced Americans to pull their heads out of the sand and look at the world with clear eyes. Already memories of that cataclysm are fading and complacency is once again setting in. America must remain constantly vigilant and ever ready to use our strength against those who would do us harm.
As you may be able to tell, my focus has been largely on national security issues recently. I wonder if the intensity of winter term classes often breeds such single-mindedness. I suspect that both the literally visceral accounts in the terrorism class, combined with the revelation of horrors beyond the capacity of human fear, make Terrorism a particularly affective course.
Thursday, January 09, 2003
Posted
11:55 PM
by Greg Weston
Austin, as a matter of fact Amsterdam is affluent and safe, especially by the standards of large European capitals. Why does a city where marijuana is legal encourage sloth and disrespect for authority more than one that is full of bars selling an even more intoxicating substance, like your hometown for instance?
Have you ever smoked it before? There is nothing inherently anti-authoritarian about it, only the fact that it is illegal in most parts of the United States makes its use disrespectful of authority, and I imagine in some American subcultures (hippies, NBA players, writers for the Simpsons) refraining from smoking shows more disrespect for authority in the sense of rejecting those groups' authority to impose their values, one of which is that it is virtuous to smoke.
Posted
10:44 PM
by Bill Korner
I respect the civic virtue of Amsterdamers.
Posted
8:58 PM
by Adam White
After years of waging the War on Drugs, the conservatives finally suffered their own casualty ...
They shot a Federalist.
Posted
8:51 PM
by Greg Weston
Speaking of casualties of the drug war...
Police kill wrong man in drug raid gone awry
LEBANON, Tenn. -- A 61-year-old man was shot to death by police while his wife was being handcuffed in another room during a drug raid on the wrong house.
Police admitted their mistake in the death of John Adams Wednesday night. They said they intended to raid the home next door.
The two officers, 25-year-old Kyle Shedran and 24-year-old Greg Day, were placed on administrative leave with pay.
"They need to get rid of those men, boys with toys," said Adams' 70-year-old widow, Loraine.
John Adams was watching television when his wife heard pounding on the door. Loraine Adams said she had no indication the men were police.
"I thought it was a home invasion. I said 'Baby, get your gun!,' " she said, sitting amid friends and relatives gathered at her home to cook and prepare for Sunday's funeral.
Police say her husband fired first with a sawed-off shotgun and they responded. He was shot at least three times and died later at Vanderbilt University Medical Center in Nashville.
Loraine Adams said she was handcuffed and thrown to her knees in another room when the shooting began.
"I said, 'Y'all have got the wrong person, you've got the wrong place. What are you looking for?' "
Lebanon Police Chief Billy Weeks said, "We did the best surveillance we could do, and a mistake was made. It's a very severe mistake, a costly mistake."
Posted
8:42 PM
by Patrick Lewis
Just FYI: Singapore's solution to the war on drugs is to execute convicted drug dealers. That's the same basic strategy Mao used in China and is used in Arab countries. War is not pretty - but if you want to win, you have to be willing to incur casualties.
Posted
8:27 PM
by Greg Weston
Austin: What works in a small city-state with a servile population used to dictators I don't think has much relevance for our vast, diverse, freedom-loving republic.
Here's a story from the Washington Times about some of the costs of prohibition in Dallas, Texas: massive police corruption, civil-society-undermining payoffs to snitches, the unjust imprisonment and humiliation of dozens of innocent people, and millions of dollars of public money going to corruption investigations, litigation, and civil settlements instead of city services.
Posted
8:26 PM
by Patrick Lewis
Greg: I wouldn't put much stock in those so-called figures you see in the Netherlands. I haven't been to the country, but I know a number of people who have, and they all talk about how freely available and widely used it is there. From CCDC's I've spoken to who have treated marijuana-dependent people, they do exist, and it definitely has deleterious effects on one's concentration and other mental abilities. Moreover, I find this recent study very disconcerting: it seems to suggest a link between marijuana and clinical depression and schizophrenia, and moreover, it looks like it's getting the causal relationship going the way the pro-pot people don't want it: marijuana causes mental illness; not mental illness causes marijuana use. See also this survey [pdf] conducted by HHS. As for the "gateway" argument, there I will just throw up my hands and say I have no idea. Some people say there is, some people say there isn't. I've seen nothing to persuade me one way or the other.
It's a myth that our prisons are "full" of non-violent possessory offenders. Take a look at some of the BJS National Crime Reporting Program statistics and others. For example, in 1999, drug offenders (both traffickers and possessories) served a lower percentage of their sentences (37.3%; 35% for possessories) than Violent offenders (51.2%), Property offenders (41.4%), and Public Order offenders (46.3%). Moreover, the median sentence length of 15 months (for both possessory and trafficking combined) was the second lowest (next only to Public Order offenses). Finally, in 1995, for example, possessory offenses constituted 12.9% of the total felony convictions in State courts. [pdf]. Besides, the States are transitioning to more creative ways of dealing with possessory offenders, as you yourself have pointed out.
I believe someone here mentioned DUI laws. It's interesting to note that when you look at Sourcebook statistics for 2000 (table 3.59 [pdf]) you see that for years 1997-, the rates of automobile accidents among high school students following marijuana use are pretty much the same as for alcohol.
Posted
8:06 PM
by Austin Bramwell
Jason: I have two critiques of your appeal to freedom:
First, while you are prepared to limit freedom when it imposes certain kinds of costs on others, you seem to rule out ab initio the possibility that costs to public virtue can ever justify a limit on freedom. I don't see any reason for this limitation. Even if, say, Amsterdam were affluent and safe, I still wouldn't want to raise my children there, for the ethos of sloth and disrespect for authority engendered by prevalence of marijuana would make the cultivation of virtue altogether more difficult. The freedom of others to smoke marijuana thus impinges in a on my freedom to raise my family as I desire. Ultimately, the question is one of virtue, not of rights.
Second, it might be the case that I might be in a real sense *more* free if the government punished me for indulging in drugs. If, for example, I am tempted to smoke pot, but my "better half" tells me not to, I would be more able to act freely if the government raised the costs of doing so. This anthropology of the "divided self" is why I generally reject libertarian approaches to sumptuary laws.
Posted
7:52 PM
by Austin Bramwell
Let it never be supposed that we cannot win the war on drugs. Singapore's victory, by way of example, has been resounding.
Posted
7:45 PM
by Kevin Plummer
To add to Jason's point, comparing marijuana to drunk driving in the manner that you did, Tessa, is a bit hyperbolic - we go after drunk drivers because of the danger they impose upon other people, not the drivers themselves. I do agree that to determine the effects of marijuana, one must look at the long term effects rather than anedotal evidence of not knowing anyone who was adversely affected, but banning it should only happen if it is either addictive, rather than habbit-forming, or causes adverse affects upon other people. Patrick: The war on drugs has largely failed because of the government's inability to curry public support?? I think a far better argument for the lack of success is the huge amounts of money involved in selling drugs, from the poppy fields to the streets. The only way to win the drug war is to eliminate either supply or demand. In fact, every time that we eliminate a portion of supply, prices go up, bringing more people into the trade and forcing users to pay much higher prices; thus to win the war, we must eliminate the supply. A much better way to win the war is to eliminate demand, or rather lower demand so that more amounts of drugs exist in the "economy" than are desired. I agree that changing public support for drugs is one way to accomplish that, but there are other ways as well, ways that could have far more residual good for the country.
Posted
7:27 PM
by Jason Sorens
Tessa: Heavy marijuana can have adverse long-run effects on the body, but so can smoking cigarettes, drinking alcohol, and eating hamburgers. Should all these be illegal as well? The evidence that marijuana is a gateway drug is tenuous at best, from all I've read. But the fundamental principle here is one of freedom. If people want to ravage their own bodies, that is their business. If there were a substance that when ingested caused people to go berzerk and wreak violence and mayhem on others, then I would favor banning it. However, marijuana is not such a substance. According to many scientists, even PCP is not.
Posted
7:22 PM
by Jason Sorens
Bill: Yes, I meant competition among governments for taxes, but also competition among political parties within the EU structure. Integration makes it difficult for alternatives to the Christian/Social Democratic consensus to achieve a foothold in any EU country.
Posted
7:21 PM
by Jason Sorens
Adam - Yes, EU expansion has been favored by some "realists" (particularly in Britain) for exactly the reasons you give. However, I wonder if the paralysis of EU institutions that results would not give impetus to proposals to expand majority voting at the expense of unanimity rule? If that happens, we're all up a creek - because current EU opinion holds that there is no right to secede from the EU.
Posted
6:07 PM
by Greg Weston
Patrick, I can't say that I agree with your logic, which is that in China when drugs were legal a lot of people became addicted to opium, so a non-addictive drug such as marijuana should be illegal in the United States. In the Netherlands marijuana has been legal for about 25 years, and the percentage of the population who has ever used marijuana, or has used it in the past month, is about half of what it is in the United States. Here's the link to that information and more.
The average stoner you mention isn't addicted to marijuana, at least not in the clinical sense, because again marijuana isn't addictive, and its active ingredient (THC) has a chemistry wholly different from addictive drugs such as nicotine, caffeine, and opium. Certainly it can be habit forming, but so can biting your nails, eating chocolate ice cream, and nearly any other human activity. I don't know a single person whose life has been ruined by using marijuana, but I know many who have enjoyed its positive medicinal and psychological properties
You're right the the war on drugs doesn't have much popular support, but I think that has more to do with the fact that it is massively expensive, is used as an excuse to violate our civil liberties, and fills our prisons with non-violent offenders. Oh, and its been a complete and utter failure, more than half of all high school students will have used an illegal drug by the time they graduate, and drugs are cheaper, more available, and purer, and than they've ever been.
If you want you can side with J. Edger Hoover, Lyndon Johnson, and Chairman Mao on this issue. I prefer the sentiments of the father of our country, who in 1794 implored his people to "make the most of the hemp seed, sow it everywhere.” Washington was an able farmer of it too, though in his diaries he once reproached himself for not separating the male and female plants soon enough.
Jefferson was a big fan of the plant too. His first patent was for a device to process hemp, which he grew himself and consistently encouraged others to do. It is pretty inconceivable that he didn't smoke it too considering that he suffered from migraine headaches, and that cannabis was by far the most popular treatment for it in his time. While in France he even helped smuggle the seeds of a valuable strain from China to the United States via Turkey.
Posted
5:46 PM
by Bill Korner
Jason: Oh, you meant competition between countries (e.g. for having the lowest taxes or most favorable regulations).
Posted
4:20 PM
by Bill Korner
Jason: If letting Turkey into the E.U. is going to "prevent serious political competition" (with the E.U. I presume you meant) on the part of the Turkish government, doesn't that mean that it is going to constrain Turkey's ability to militarily intervene in its own politics or against the Kurds? Of course, it may be that the Commission would have, for example, just stood by and watched had Austria decided to expel all its Bosnian immigrants. But I doubt that.
Posted
4:17 PM
by Adam White
That being said, I'm glad the feds cleared this up, too. I've always been crippled by confusion over who the true "commander-in-chief" was.
Posted
4:16 PM
by Adam White
Jason: Quite possibly. BUT, consider another possible outcome: The integration of Turkey (and other non-traditional "European" nations) could do much to undo the power that the EU currently enjoys.
First and foremost, ANYTHING that serves to dillute the influence of France and Germany in the EU is a good thing! The inclusion of other nations could diminsh the EU's anti-American tendencies.
Second, by introducing new members into a voting bloc, you increase the "collective action problem". As the EU tries to expand its influence by bringing in new members, it actually risks PARALYZING itself as a deliberative body. [To illustrate: If the UN had twice as many voting members, would it be MORE unified and productive? How about 10% as many members? (Assuming that its current productivity rate is greater than zero. But that's another debate.)]
Thus, Turkey and other nations get at least a bit more Westernized, and the EU grinds to a halt. Not bad for upside possibilities!
Posted
3:22 PM
by Jason Sorens
Adam: The problem is that the EU is about anything but "positive engagement" or "economic integration." It's essentially a political cartel formed to prevent serious domestic political competition and to hold capital hostage in order to prolong European habits of confiscatory taxation. Admission of Turkey to the EU would simply ratify its tradition of military intervention in politics and quasi-genocidal treatment of Kurdish nationalism. Plus, it would reduce competition among governments for capital and strengthen an institution that is seeking to curb all critical speech and crush all decentralist/secessionist movements.
Posted
3:05 PM
by Patrick Lewis
Greg: Ah, good ol' Ohio. I would be in favor of legalizing drugs except for the experience of China following the Opium Wars, in which some 70 million people's lives were ruined by drug addiction. The communists fixed that problem by mandatory and aggressive "rehabilitation" of addicts and executions of drug dealers. While I don't necessarily advocate incorporating Maoist drug rehab strategies in America, this is one area where I think command and control regulation can produce some good.
Concededly marijuana does not have the same addictive qualities as heroin; but, its capacity for ruining lives is almost as bad. The descriptions of the lives of the Chinese opium addicts do not differ substantially from the lives of the average "stoner." Given the effects these addictions and lives lost have on the population and society as a whole, I'm entirely in favor of the drug war.
Incidentally, I'm also glad that Ohio's referendum to eliminate incarceration of first-time-offender drug dealers went down.
My own belief is that our "war on drugs" is not as effective as it should be because the government and people in the know in this area have been out-foxed by the druggies in terms of commanding popular support. That is to say, unlike the communist experience in China where drugs were widely demonized and stigmatized, here we view drug users with a sense of compassion, and even make motion pictures idolizing or treating as comedic those who use. A comparison of the war on drugs to the war on tobacco is useful. Until the public was convinced of the evils of smoking, all of the government's efforts at controlling tobacco use (tobacco taxes, restrictions on children smoking, warning labels, PSAs, etc.) were only somewhat effective. Now, however, smoking is on the decline, and I will just assert (though I can go into a explanation of why if need be) that the rise in cigarette taxes are not the primary reason.
Posted
2:39 PM
by Bill Korner
Adam: Wise words, but the long-term economic integration strategy can be undermined if the short-term "peace through strength" strategy is perceived rather as "peace through repeated failed interventions that install and remove new dictators always at the expense of the people." We're continuing to underestimate the importance of Arab public opinion. We have to stop them from thinking that we're a bigger enemy then their own corrupt governments.
Posted
2:29 PM
by Greg Weston
Bill, we'll have to agree to disagree on this issue, your moral intuitions are just different than mine. I personally don't want a single penny of the money I pay in taxes to go to providing better housing for people who would like to kill me if given the chance.
Posted
2:28 PM
by Bill Korner
Austin: I for one think that we would be better off if we upended many of those accretions, whether or not in the name of originalism. They seems to be proving easier to upend when the upending is done NOT in the name of originalism. I still don't know why you think that no true conservative can consistently believe in a written constitution. Is it because written constitutions, in theory, provide the (literate) masses with a way of challanging the consistency of secular authority's policies and doctrines? If so, I recommend to you Steven Holmes' book "Passions and Constraint: On the Theory of Liberal Democracy" which explains why the governments of Britain and the U.S. could never have achieved the incredible power that they now wield without having granted their constituencies freedom and voice. The cacaphony of multifarious opinions that I favor may indeed be hindered by separation of powers. But it probably needen't be. In any political coalition here there are enough members on all sides for some of them to be the consensus builders and others to be the voices of protest. That these systemic norms trickle down to academic discussion or, worse yet, freedom of thought may indeed be true... but needlessly so.
Posted
2:28 PM
by Greg Weston
JR: I don't much differentiate between being called a fascist explicitly and someone insinuating that I am. And perhaps you can answer the question about what "distasteful political philosophy" it was that Alina said I was espousing? It don't think it was Whiggism.
You are against government racial preferences aren't you? What if I said to you regarding this: "What kind of ethnic-cleansing do you want for Americans? Perhaps you should look into the history of apartheid in South Africa for a little more insight into the political philosophy you seem to be espousing."
Could you either tell me how that's a fair and just thing to say, or how it is different from what Alina said to me? That's all I'd really like to know. I should say that I was especially surprised to hear this coming from Alina, who has known me for a long time, and knows that most of the work that I've done in my life has been toward the cause of advancing individual rights.
As to how the Republican Party is becoming more libertarian, here's how:
1. It is in favor of across the board marginal tax cuts. In 1990 Bush I's Republican party (with some help from Democrats in Congress) pass what at the time was the largest tax increase in American history.
2. It is in favor of low inflation and sound monetary policy. Certainly that wasn't the case in the 70's, when the only opposition to destructive monetary policy was rhetorical.
3. The party no longer is seriously trying to pass a flag-burning amendment to the Constitution.
4. Bush is preparing a reform a the federal workforce and contracting rules that will privatize a large number of federal jobs. Previously the GOP pandered to and was with federal government employee unions.
5. While the party has backed off of expanding vouchers in the short term, this is for very understandable tactical reasons, such as that voucher ballot initiatives went down in flames in Michigan and California, and that there are currently more pressing issues. It wasn't that people in those states hate the idea of vouchers, it's that nobody could have guessed the mendacity and ferocity of the opposition the teachers' unions and the hard left would put up. In Michigan, for instance, the anti-voucher people exploited racist fears of those in suburban Detroit that it would mean that suburban schools would have to take in massive numbers of students from the city. Before the party can press further on vouchers, the international scene will have to die down a bit, and a more effective strategy will have to be thought up. In the meantime the continued failure of urban government schools and the continued success of vouchers in Wisconsin, Ohio, and Florida will make the case easier and easier to argue in the next round.
6. Increasing numbers of Republicans are advocating an end to the failed War on Drugs. They are starting by reducing the ridiculous penalties for possession of small amounts of drugs, most recently in New York State. In my home state of Ohio possession of less than 100 grams (3.5 ounces) of marijuana is a citable offense only, with a fine of $100. No criminal record is created by such citation. Possession of 100 grams or more is punishable by a fine of up to $250. That's all because of a laws passed by a Republican legislature and signed by a Republican governor.
7. The race-baiting and gay-bashing that was once considered acceptable in some circles of the party is now a thing of the past.
I could think of a few more, but that should get us started.
Posted
1:16 PM
by Austin Bramwell
Bill: It is true that those who advocate "originalism" in the end would decide cases in a way that favors conservativism. My point is threefold: 1) Those who advocate orginalism don't really mean it, for nobody is prepared to upend two centuries of counter-originalist accretions, and 2) originalism is not a conservative doctrine, for no conservative can (consistently) believe in a written constitution, so, therefore, 3) originalist jurisprudence is either a useful but specious device, or a vain and counter-productive conceit.
Posted
1:08 PM
by Austin Bramwell
Re: fascist conformity. In truth, conformity of opinion is necessary in any stable and peaceful regime. Does anyone think that Queen Elizabeth would have enjoyed such a fruitful reign had she not muzzled Puritan and Catholic disputants? In more recent times, communist forces questioned the very legitimacy of "bourgeois parliamentary democracy"--had their opinions not been held in check, history would have looked a lot different. Moreover, nobody who favors a cacophony of multifarious opinions could support a system of separation of powers and checks and balances, which are designed, in part, to foster consensus and harmonize competing interests and schools of thought. This is why Tocqueville found less liberty of thought in America than anywhere in Europe.
Posted
11:57 AM
by Adam White
John: I'd be glad to see Turkey continue to engage the West, to see it join the EU. It has been one of the only three relevant NATO nations. It offers us the best shot at making unroads towards the Westernization of the Middle East -- not by military conquest, but through economic and social integration.
If we want to reduce the threat of Middle East roguery (either at the national or individual level), the short-term strategy is surely "peace through strength." But for LONG-TERM, we have to engage these people. China is taking its first steps toward Westernization thanks to the influx of western political and economic influence. To do the same to the doorway to the Middle East would be, in my opinion, a wise move. Buchanan Brigades and Horowitz Hordes be damned.
And as soon as that's taken care of, I'd like to see Turkey become one of the next three nations in NAFTA, too (along with the UK and Chile). But one step at a time.
Posted
11:49 AM
by Bill Korner
Nels: I had absolutely no intention of equating treatment of prisoners taken in Afghanistan (whether Afghani or not and whether combatants or not) with the treatment of prisoners in U.S. jails. I was mentioning it to make the point that, if you want to talk about Cuba, then the relevant comparison is between U.S. treatment of prisoners it brought to the Carribean and Cuban prisons. On your other point, we have all seen pictures of the makeshift outdoor detention centers and I think that it should be universally agreed that they are very bad. I was also refering to the truckload of dead prisoners in Afghanistan for which I think, although admitting it to be contraversial, that we should take responsibility.
Greg: The standard for the humane treatment of prisoners cannot be based on "what we think they would do to us if they could". That's abhorent.
Posted
11:42 AM
by John Parker
Greg: As for whether or not you are a fascist, Alina never called you one, though you did say that she did. Then you say that she didn't, then you say that she probably did. I'm confused, but not interested. I am interested, however, in your answer to my question about how the Republican Party has become more libertarian in the last couple of years, as you claimed.
In other news, according to Monday's National (or is it International?) Review Online, what is the answer to Europe's woes? Create one big happy, "secular," multicultural European/Arab Empire! Let Turkey, Egypt and the four North African countries into the EU, along with all the nations of Europe who have heretofore refused to join (perhaps they will be "asked" to join under threat of force, sounds imperial enough for Mr. Taheri.) Sounds like a great idea.
Lastly, one has to love Cookeville Police chief Robert Terry's use of "to put an animal down" in place of "to blow off a dog's head with a shotgun for no good reason." Orwell was right about the English Language: "[i]t becomes ugly and inaccurate because our thoughts are foolish, but the slovenliness of our language makes it easier for us to have foolish thoughts."
Posted
9:18 AM
by Jason Sorens
Making a leftist spend a few years in Castro's prisons seems to be the most effective way yet devised for turning a leftist into a conservative. I suggest we encourage all our domestic detritus to take a vacation at "Hotel Habana."
Posted
1:38 AM
by Greg Weston
Bill, America doesn't owe its foreign enemies during wartime any more consideration that they themselves would grant, which is very little you must agree. The POWs who were sent to Cuba certainly weren't mistreated, they were coddled if anything by the standard of how most countries treat their POWs. And you speak of Afghani prisoners of war, but they are for the most part harmless and are being released as we speak. An entirely different matter are all the armed non-Afghanis captured in Afghanistan, many of whom came there just for the very opportunity to fight the Great Satan. Nels is right that they would kill their captors if given the chance, they'd kill you too if they could.
Posted
1:17 AM
by Greg Weston
Alina, I think responding to your posts has become a waste of time, but I have plenty of time to waste so here I go.
You're right, you didn't say "Greg is a fascist." You said "Perhaps you should look into the Oriental tradition of deifying the ruler for a little more insight as to what is so distasteful about the political philosophy you seem to be espousing" and that I expect a "fascist conformity" from Americans. You then suggest that I may not know the main tenants of fascist ideology. Your accusation then was that I am either fascist or else not knowingly fascist but advocating it unwittingly because I know so little about it and other totalitarian philosophies, hence your suggestion that I look into "the Oriental tradition of deifying the ruler."
If you weren't talking about fascism, what was that "distasteful political philosophy" that you say I seemed to be espousing?
I still am waiting for you to show me something I said here that would justify your accusations. Where did I call for "crushing all opposition who dares contradict the leader" or for any type of censorship at all?
And I'm not being "emotional" by asking you to provide me with this information, what I'm doing is calling you out on your careless and debate-chilling habit of insinuating those who disagree with you are totalitarians, perhaps a sign you've read a few too many of those Noam Chomsky books.
Wednesday, January 08, 2003
Posted
11:26 PM
by Nels Peterson
Bill: Why the red herring? The treatment of Afghani prisoners of war has nothing to do with criticism of the U.S. domestic justice system. That's comparing apples and coconuts, and you know it. Furthermore, the bald assertion that "everyone knows" the U.S. is treating prisoners (that are quite likely to kill their captors if given half a chance) in a disgraceful and inhumane manner is simply not true. I'd be interested in hearing support for your argument.
Posted
10:38 PM
by Bill Korner
Everybody knows that the way the U.S. military has treated Afghani prisoners of war (and allowed them to be treated by other forces) is inhuman and a disgrace. You all should be ashamed of yourselves for turning what should be a sober discussion of these black deeds into an occasion to ridicule your political opponents' dubious views on Cuban jails.
Posted
9:32 PM
by Avigael Cymrot
Adam: You get an A for effort. It's hard to see how the Left could really discredit Biscet; he's a Black doctor who drapes himself in the nonviolent tradition of Ghandi and Martin Luther King. But I guess he's just been brainwashed by capitalists or something. Certain members of the Left seem to prefer their dissidents violent these days, anyway.
Posted
8:18 PM
by Adam White
AVIGAEL: I actually fired an email off to Ms. Elijah, asking her about Oscar Biscet. But her email address that I found on the internet -- selijah@law.harvard.edu -- came back "user unknown." Pity.
Perhaps she's at an "undisclosed location."
Posted
8:07 PM
by alina stefanescu
Greg: To say that your ideas encourage a "fascist" conformity is certainly not the logical equivalent of saying, "Greg is a fascist". For all I know, you may not even have been aware that one of the main tenets of fascist ideology is crushing all opposition who dares contradict the leader. As such, I would prefer if you would be a little less melodramatic and sensitive and maybe buck up enough to be able to read the word "fascist" in a sentence without becoming overly emotional. And if you don't know about the doctrines of the divine right of kings, which applied in different variations both in the East and in the West, you should read it. I'm not really sure how "Orientalism", named after Edward Said's controversial book, Orientalism, came in to the conversation, but for those who have not read it, I recommend it as I recommend memorizing The Communist Manifesto. It is the most basic element of intellectual responsibility to know the enemy's dogma by heart, so that you can warn friends when they begin to sound a little bit like those infamous dictators or demi-gods which they abhor.
Posted
6:55 PM
by Adam White
BILL: Thanks. That's very kind of you to say (in public, even)!
Posted
6:37 PM
by Adam White
Incidentally, now that I've got Korea on the brain, I thought that this was pretty funny in light of current events: President Clinton's press conference on the Carter-Korea 1994 Summit [dated 22 June 1994]:
QUESTION [CNN's Wolf Blitzer]: Could I -- there will be critics, as you well know, who will argue that once again the North Koreans have succeeded in stalling and, clandestinely, this will give them an opportunity while their negotiators talk to U.S. negotiators in Geneva to pursue their nuclear ambitions, which they're not about to give up. How do you verify that they are sincere in this effort?
THE PRESIDENT: Well, that was a big part of the statement, of course, of the letter that we got -- not just that there would be an agreement to freeze the program, but that the agreement be verifiable. The Iaea inspectors and the monitoring equipment on the ground can be and will be used to verify the commitment not to reprocess and not to refuel. If we didn't have some way of verifying it, you and I wouldn't be having this conversation at this moment.
Posted
6:35 PM
by Adam White
PATRICK: I've had a change of heart, and I vigorously disagree with your last point. That's as ludicrous as arguing that the exact reason why Elijah et al. had unfettered access to the prison and prisoners (which certainly wasn't "cleaned up" before her visit) was that then she would come back to the States and write about the "humane" prisons. No way. Neither she nor the Castro Administration would ever pull that -- they're not ones to spread "propaganda."
Next thing you know, you Federalist types will start arguing that North Korea played Jimmy Carter like a Dixieband Banjo back in 1994. Oh. Wait.
Posted
5:56 PM
by Bill Korner
Adam, your discussions on the Bush tax plan are great.
Posted
5:37 PM
by Patrick Lewis
Hi Adam,
I also like this section of the article:
*** I was pleasantly surprised during the trip when the opportunity arose to visit a men's prison. A group of conference attendees traveled by bus to the prison and when we arrived we were not searched and our belongings were not checked. We did not sign in or out. Nobody asked to check our identification. Having visited numerous prisons in the U.S. I have never entered any of them without a thorough search of my person and my belongings. Government issued photo identification is always required.
Although we were given a tour of the prison we were free to wander off and talk with the prisoners unmonitored. We walked all around the facility and were allowed to go into cells, work areas, the cafeteria, hospital, classrooms, recreation area and any other space we chose. This we were allowed to do unaccompanied. The prisoners wore street clothing.
What is it about leftists that lets them be so easily fooled? Or, is it willful blindness? I can't really tell. In any case, I'd assert that the reason Elijah was not harassed or attacked in that prison is because the prisoners were well informed, in advance, that great violence would be visited upon them and their families and loved ones if anything bad happened. In the U.S., we don't do things like that, and so we have to control our prison population through more stringent physical security. Moreover, I wonder if Elijah had opportunity to interview all of these happy-go-lucky prisoners and ask simple questions like: did you have a trial? If so, was it a real trial, with procedural safeguards to make sure it was fair? Did you have a competent attorney?
I guess these issues touch on your more general point about prison reformers in communist countries failing to "get" the big picture, but nonetheless, it's amazing to see how a member of the hate-America left can be so blinded by her disdain for America that she fails to turn a critical eye towards what she sees in that veritable Garden of Eden 90 miles south of Miami.
Posted
5:33 PM
by Avigael Cymrot
Somehow, I suppose the likes of Oscar Biscet would disagree with Ms. Elijah's contentions about the quality of prisoner life in Cuba as compared to the United States. Dr. Biscet is currently being imprisoned in Cuba for committing the crime of flying the Cuban flag upside down. As demonstrated by the link posted by Patrick earlier, in this country, there is no need to be concerned about the treatment of those who deface an American flag. Unless they want to complain about the weather in Ithaca.
Posted
5:00 PM
by Adam White
By the way -- if anyone here has worked with Ms. Elijah and thinks I'm totally off-base, please let me know. I'm really curious what her deal is. But what weird stuff -- that article's pretty out-there. With such whacked-out thoughts on the prison system (I don't get "civil rights" types that push for prisoners' rights in the context of a totalitarian state and don't seem to notice the big picture), I'd think she'd have a higher profile. But I've never heard of her.
Posted
4:35 PM
by Adam White
The Fourth Circuit gave the green light to the "unlawful combatant" status-based detention of the other "American Taliban," an American-born Saudi who was captured in Afghanistan. Here's the full opinion, penned by Judge Wilkinson. Note that the approximately seven pages of amici for the prisoner-appellee included Jill Soffiyah Elijah, Clinical Instructor at Harvard Law School's Criminal Justice Institute. This is hardly new territory for Elijah, as he bio proudly states:
Soffiyah Elijah, a clinical instructor at Harvard Law School's Criminal Justice Institute, is the attorney for several political prisoners, including Marilyn Buck (the FBI alleges that Marilyn is a member of the Black Liberation Army) , and one of several lawyers who represent Sundiata Acoli (who is a member of the Black Liberation Army). Both Acoli and Buck were held incommunicado following September 11; Acoli remains in segregation.
I've gotta say, she has an interesting take on criminal rights. In one article attributed to her, she argues that America could learn a thing or two about civil rights from ... CUBA:
Since the island nation of Cuba experienced its successful revolution in 1959 its prison system has been evolving. Despite accusations of harsh human rights abuses from its neighbors to the North, Cuba today maintains a prison system that is in many respects far more humane than Western propaganda would have the uninformed public believe.
* * *
Prisoners are not obligated to work. Work is considered a right of the prisoner so that he can earn an income. Prisoners are allowed to work in the same sort of employment as they held prior to their incarceration if it is available at the facility where they are being held. They are compensated for their labor at the same wage that free workers are compensated. They are not charged room and board no matter how much they earn. Similarly, they do not have to pay for their education, medical, dental or hospital care or any other activities they experience. Social security benefits and pensions are available to all prison laborers. In the event of a prisoner’s death, his family will receive his pension. A portion of the prisoner’s earnings is sent to his family. Even if a prisoner does not work, his family will be cared for by the State.
Once a prisoner has served at least half of his sentence he can request a conditional release if he is a first offender. A positive conduct record is the primary factor considered in granting the request for relief. The request for conditional release is made to the sentencing tribunal. The district attorney is given an opportunity to be heard with respect to the request. All prisoners are released after serving two thirds of their sentences.
* * *
The conditional release program is very interesting. The defendant lives for twelve days in a residence located near a farm or industrial center. He works at the farm or industrial center during these twelve days. Then he has three days off where he can leave the residence and go home to his family. On the fourth day, the defendant returns to the work site and the residence. The defendant works side by side with non-incarcerated workers who are not informed of his status. He is paid the same wage as his co-workers and is afforded the same benefits and privileges. He works the same shifts and wears civilian clothing. Work alternatives can be revoked if the defendant fails to adhere to the rules and conditions of the program. The sentencing tribunal is informed if the defendant fails to meet the conditions and it can decide to return the defendant to prison.
The goal of the Cuban prison system is to return people to the community as productive contributors as soon as possible. Therefore the focus is not on punishment, but rather on rehabilitation and re-education. Perhaps this goal would be a useful addition to the prison system that has evolved in the United States.
Those are your tuition dollars hard at work, Skrmetti! On the bright side, Ms. Elijah has given me an interesting diversion from all the tax talk over at my own site.
Posted
2:41 PM
by Bill Korner
Greg: The Republicans also know who their constituency is. What percentage of voters do you think know about the "do not call" registry issue?
Austin: Your question about a hypothetical devil's bargain with "the left" is interesting. But I'll have to get back to you on that.
Posted
2:16 PM
by Greg Weston
It would be a real shame if this industry is favored over the general public by BIlly Tauzin, who is holding up the pittance of $16 million that would be used to establish a national telemarketing "do not call" registry.
Along with my praise for the general direction of the Republican party is a concern that it is at the same time becoming reflexively corporate. A sign of this is that the national party would allow a congressman to do the bidding of the justly reviled telemarketing industry. This is beyond wrong, it is politically stupid.
Posted
1:09 PM
by Patrick Lewis
The Castro cult expands. I'm unsure what's driving the love-fest for Castro that began anew with Jimmy Carter's visit in May, 2002, but it strikes me as deeply disturbing that so many on the Left are willing to look past his atrocities and his failed political system to blame us for the economic hardships of his people.
Posted
11:42 AM
by Bill Korner
Here’s are examples of what I have in mind in talking about distinct groups being lumped in a single American culture: If American intellectual culture is liberal consensus-seeking, pragmatic empiricism, and ironism about one’s own identity, it is not practiced by, for example, fundamentalist Christians and the various other devotees of identity politics. If American social/economic culture is assimilation and self-sufficient individualism, it is not practiced by new immigrant groups in major cities, like Koreans in Chicago for example, who rely heavily on social networks. If American work culture is the Protestant work-ethic, then it is not practiced by (even if it is endorsed by) leisured elites. If American political culture is loyalty-to-American-ideals-whatever-you-think-of- the-government, then it is not practiced by those who think such ideals do not exist independently of their always flawed implementation.
Posted
11:39 AM
by Bill Korner
Austin: I find it hard to know what to say to your suggestion that originalism’s implications would be non-conservative in practice. The choice of whether to conduct policy debates in constitutional terms and, if so, whether to discuss them in originalist terms, is a pretty abstract question. This is doubly so if what we’re discussing is how the way we frame the debate will effect practical policy outcomes. In any case, I can’t see what analogies with the thought of Rousseau or Protestants can tell us about the “cash value” consequences of constitutional originalism if it were (more fully) incorporated into modern American political discourse. But my point cuts the other way too. I know people who think that reviving the “Privileges and Immunities Clause” will revive nineteenth century economic liberalism. This seems to me an article of faith unsupported (unsupportable?) by empirical evidence. But maybe I’m just being waywardly positivist.
Posted
11:37 AM
by Austin Bramwell
*More* public discussion on an invasion or Iraq? Ye gads, the superabundance of such discussion over the past year has been nauseating. Let's get back to playground ethics and rid ourselves of Saddam already.
Posted
10:25 AM
by Bill Korner
Johnathon: I agree with you, but "criticizing their criticism" would mean actively engaging the ideas of various individuals (and intellectual agendas) that conservatives like Greg bemoan-- instead of lumping them together as anti-American and dismissing them as "dangerous". In my opinion, the critique of Middle Eastern studies Avigael cited is a moderately successful example of this, but still too polemical.
Posted
10:14 AM
by Bill Korner
Why I (relatively) love America: America is (relatively) democratic, (relatively) racially harmonious, (relativley) non-corrupt (its government that is, relative to most regimes), (relatively) civilized, and (relatively) non-expansionist. There is room for improvement, however. Lets start by not invading Iraq until we have some public discussion about it that does not sound like what you'd hear on a playground.
Posted
9:48 AM
by Avigael Cymrot
In academia, being accused of "Orientalism" is basically equivalent to being called a racist/imperialist, and has pretty much been adopted by much of the Middle Eastern Studies academic community to discredit anyone who disagrees with them, a pretty good indication of how disfavored the term has become in politically correct circles.
Posted
8:34 AM
by Patrick Lewis
Single payor healthcare may be coming soon to a state near you.
Posted
12:21 AM
by Patrick Lewis
This is just a general announcement and pitch and so forth --
As some of you know, Brian talked me into taking over the webmaster duties for the HLS Fed Society. So, in due course (once ITS officially "trains" me to upload files so that I am able to update our official site), you will see updates and hopefully some more substantial revisions to our website. For now we're basically planning on getting all of our announcements up-to-date as well as bios and pictures of our officers and 1L Class Reps.
If anyone has any suggestions for content to add to the site, stylistic changes, etc., please let me know by e-mail. I'm hoping we can build on the successes of Ex Parte and further enhance our Web presence. Just as a disclaimer, please note that I do not have administrative privileges on Ex Parte and am not in charge of it - my bailiwick is the official Harvard-hosted site.
Tuesday, January 07, 2003
Posted
11:44 PM
by Greg Weston
Patrick, I think you are still allowed to say "Oriental despotism," but maybe that too will soon be disfavored. There is a great paragraph in the article you linked to (about Washington state banning the use of the word in official documents):
Many Asian Americans are unaware that the term "Oriental" is offensive because the term is often used in their home countries to refer to its citizens, the Philippines included, especially because the Philippines is also known as the "Pearl of the Orient."
Doesn't that just sum up the politically correct attitude so well? I don't care if you people aren't offended by this word, if you were smarter it would offend you so we're banning it anyway. It reminds me of when I lived in Mexico I was supposed to be offended by the word gringo, a corruption of griego, the Spanish word for Greek. I can't say that I ever was.
Posted
10:32 PM
by Patrick Lewis
Greg, that's my understanding of "Anti-Americanism" as well. To dissent is fine, but this kind of sick hate-America tripe must be challenged whenever it rears its ugly head. The people who espouse these "Anti-American" viewpoints aren't conscientious people who are disaffected with policies of the government: they are people who are working from a radical, destroy-America-and-implement-{communism, Islamism, UN control of the world, etc.} agenda with ties to foreign regimes. They are a small, but very dangerous, wing of our polity.
One quick, general note - the term Oriental has been deprecated. The correct term is now 'Asian'.
Posted
10:02 PM
by Greg Weston
Alina, one of the nice aspects of this forum is that people can talk about politics without being called a fascist (or an Oriental despotist, which I have to admit is a new one for me.) I'd appreciate it if you could quote from me and show me the logic with which what I said could support your insinuations.
I accuse of being anti-American those who think "America as a whole is undemocratic, racist, corrupt, uncivilized, and imperialist." I agree with you that you can love your country and hate your government, but much of the American left hates both, and a good part of the rest is not so much hateful but embarrassed to live in the country that elected George W. Bush president. It's amazing to what extent some people consider this fact to be too impolite to mention.
Posted
9:25 PM
by Austin Bramwell
Finally, a question to all those conservatives who consider themselves "originalists" in constitutional jurisprudence: Does it trouble you that the idea of originalism, broadly conceived, is the first of modern revolutionary ideas--witness, in religion, the Protestants' appeal to early Christianity, in politics, Rousseau's belief in primeval paradise, and, in art, Picasso's primivitism? In fact, originalist jurisprudence would wreak revolutionary changes in American government, which is why nobody is a consistent originalist.
Posted
9:20 PM
by Austin Bramwell
Re: David Frum. From what I gather, his book argues that Bush is a strong leader whose advisors don't realize how popular he'd be if only they'd let him address the public more.
Btw, Frum made a brilliant point recently: As enemies tend to define themselves in opposition to one another (see, e.g., Carl Schmitt), conservatism will inevitable change its character as it confronts the challenge posed by the Islamic world. For example, just as conservatives tended to criticize the notion of equality in opposition to communism's egalitarianism, so they will tend to embrace it in opposition to the Islamic world's oppression of women and religious minorities. I think this idea has flaws--just as during the Cold War, opposition to egalitarianism took on both libertarian and traditionalist guises, so in this war opposition to Islamic civilization can come in a multiplicity of forms--but it is on the whole persuasive. I would say, therefore, that given this is the case, conservatives have an obligation to resist interpretations of their tradition that downplay its more unpopular aspects. It won't be easy, however. Perhaps Roger Scruton has made the best first attempt.
Posted
9:01 PM
by Austin Bramwell
Liberals, as we know, find the success of conservative media (talk radio, Fox news, the internet) galling, and have begun to argue that the conservatives now have more control than liberals over political discourse. To settle the dispute, I propose a thought experiment: Imagine that liberals and conservatives could "swap" institutions--viz., in exchange for elite universities with faculties that vote 95% Republican, liberals could have a network of privately-funded think tanks; in exchange for major network news programs whose journalists vote 90% Republican, liberals could have Fox News; in exchange for the editorial pages of the New York Times, liberals could have a farrago of internet sites; u.s.w. The question: would Paul Krugman, Al Hunt and their ilk actually go for this deal? Methinks not.
Posted
8:41 PM
by Austin Bramwell
Aboutpolitics.com has named us site of the day.
Posted
7:21 PM
by Jason Sorens
But politics today is not a contest between the perfect and the good, but between the Republican Party and the party where Bill Clinton is thought to be on the conservative wing.
Yes, the contest between the Republicans and Democrats is probably best described as one between the bad and the gosh-awful. ;-)
Posted
7:12 PM
by Kevin Plummer
It seems that what both sides, the Anti-anti-American group and the Anti Anti-anti-American group (I guess the squares versus the cubes), dislike is rejection of ideas simply because they are proffered by one group or another; that those ideas or beliefs can be discounted merely by association, rather than by any competant means of conjecture. We would have one sad-sack democracy if only one opinion could be espoused, but I think that Greg's point, and even more likely Jonathan's point, is that they feel any thought not advanced by an "anti-American" (for lack of a better term) is immediately discounted due solely to the fact that it originated from an American not in their "group." I think that attacking another's ideas on their merits (or lack of) is crucial to the market place of ideas - discounting something just because it does not meld perfectly to one's own opinions or because of the person who espoused it is just foolish
Posted
6:31 PM
by alina stefanescu
Greg: What kind of fascist conformity are you expecting of Americans? Isn't it proof enough that those whom you accuse of anti-Americanism would not trade being an American for anything in this world? And what is the point of democracy is the only thing we are free to say is, "Yes, sir. You are absolutely right, sir." Perhaps you should look into the Oriental tradition of deifying the ruler for a little more insight as to what is so distasteful about the political philosophy you seem to be espousing.
I am proud to be an American, Greg, because I am proud of the freedom and liberty our system of government considers so crucial to positive individual development. I am proud of the role that individual conscience plays in political discourse. I am proud of every single person in this country who stands up for what they consider to be just-- even if, 99% of the time, they are wrong. :) You can hate the Left for being contrarian or having opinions that you consider to be nonsense, but the tossing around of such terms like "anti-American" makes you look a lot worse than them.
Most of these so-called anti-Americans don't hate America-- they just oppose the policies of the American government. And you better believe that America is ALOT more than just the bureaucrats in DC! They are far from the best of this country. Political systems function most effectively when the market of ideas is broad enough to encourage adaptive flexibility, as well as the formulation of new ideas. So sit back, and enjoy your freedom to think or speak as you will. Forgive me for the cock-rock quotation here (the Southern influence comes back to haunt) but You don't know what you got till it's gone....
Posted
6:23 PM
by Adam White
In a note that may be of interest to Ex Parte's young lawyer types, AmLaw just posted its "45 Under 45" list. In case you're wondering, the youngest on the list was Thomas Goldstein, of Goldstein & Howe.
Posted
5:54 PM
by Jonathan Skrmetti
J.R., you are one hundred percent right about the Department of Education. Even worse, the No Child Left Behind legislation will further cripple municipalities with unrealistic spending plans that lead to literally unbearable property tax increases. While home over break, I had a chance to talk about municipal problems with my father, who serves on the Groton Town Council, along with my next door neighbor, who serves on the Board of Education, and a number of members of the Representative Town Meeting. I was shocked to learn that one third of our education budget and one fifth of our town budget is spent on special education, mostly on fulfilling unfunded mandates that the state and federal government previously promised to cover. The federal government has bullied and bribed its way into a position of supreme power over public education in America. Absurd and unfair mandates that benefit small special interest groups at the cost not only of the vast majority of students but also our nation's future economic capacity, have flowed with increasing volume from Washington. Perhaps at some point I will share anecdotes about the corruption and cronyism that this system promotes; in the meantime, just know that the cost is forcing older residents out of town. [Groton offers a program where those who cannot pay property taxes can instead assume a liability against their homes that will come due on death, which is better than simply forcing them out, but in a just world property taxes would not force anyone to make such a painful choice.]
While I am generally quite pleased with the Bush presidency, the President's commitment to increasing federal bureaucracy, particularly in the realm of education, disturbs me deeply. Such unprincipled political maneuvering undermines an otherwise exceptional administration.
Posted
5:20 PM
by Jonathan Skrmetti
Bill, just because people are free to criticize our society doesn't mean that we aren't free to criticize their criticism. Anti-Americanism, both at home and abroad, is a threat to our continued security and the vitality of the principles of freedom and opportunity in which I believe. Criticizing U.S. policy is healthy, but the knee-jerk anti-Americanism of the American intellectual left, the European elites (and thus a large portion of the populace), and the underdeveloped world serves no purpose but to poison minds against the U.S. Abroad, such sentiments lead to attacks on Americans abroad and, increasingly, attacks on American soil. At home, gloomy self-loathing undermines our democracy as well as our economy. America's success owes much to the confidence and optimism of most Americans; our record of innovation and creativity has made us mind-bogglingly prosperous. More importantly, a democracy turned against itself will not last long. Americans must have a certain level of faith in America for the whole thing to keep functioning. Without that faith, the liberty that allows anti-Americans to savagely attack the roots of our national identity without fear of repression will vanish.
Posted
4:43 PM
by Patrick Lewis
I believe that there are certain core values that are distinctly American; i.e., rugged individualism and national pride and the like. Layered on that are regional majority cultures (whether New England, Midwest, Southern, Texas, or Cali) which developed over a period of years when the geographic distances between people actually caused cultural differentiation. Over the past 40 years, due to mass media and so forth, those cultures are slowly homogenizing. (You can see this with accents, for example.)
What concerns me about the "American culture" is not that you get a certain refutation of that culture from immigrant groups; the 3 or 4-generation "cycle" of immigrant acculturation is documented in the sociological literature. What concerns me is the deleterious effect of cultural marxism on the dominant American culture. Too many people are literally ashamed of who they are as a people -- I blame the hate-America leftists David Horowitz labels the "Fifth Column." Tolerance of other people has translated into a silencing of one's own culture. For example, I can remember going to a few parties over the Christmas vacation and not hearing "Merry Christmas" uttered once, even though I don't think there was a single non-Christian in the place. We are so afraid of excluding others that we exclude ourselves.
So, Bill, I guess I would just have to ask you: when you speak of resentment of various minorities who don't see themselves as part of the "one" culture, why do you label such resentment just? Why does tolerance of minority cultures within ones own require that we deny ourselves our own culture? (Again, to the extent that we have a "one American culture")
Posted
4:30 PM
by John Parker
Greg: How has the Republican Party become more libertarian, as you claim? And what's so radical about criticizing the unconstitutional sinkhole called the "Department of Education," or expecting the party that supposedly represents lovers of freedom to at least check--if not reduce--federal bureaucracy, rather than expand it? A wiser man than I said,
"Compromise, hell! That's what has happened to us all down the line -- and that's the very cause of our woes. If freedom is right and tyranny is wrong, why should those who believe in freedom treat it as if it were a roll of bologna to be bartered a slice at a time?"
Posted
3:48 PM
by Greg Weston
Bill: I would call these subcultures. I don't think most members of racial and ethnic minorities in the United States would object to the notion that they are mostly products of a very large and diverse American culture, and to the extent they do object that their problem.
JR: Like radicals of all stripes, you are making the perfect the enemy of the good. But politics today is not a contest between the perfect and the good, but between the Republican Party and the party where Bill Clinton is thought to be on the conservative wing. And I don't think I've ever seen a tax cut that is measured in trillions of dollars, and will probably be increased some time this year, described as "milquetoast." By some measures it is the largest tax cut in the history of the world.
Posted
1:45 PM
by Bill Korner
How many cultures does America have, one or many? I think that the best answer is that America (maybe every country) has many cultures. These are uncountable (at least in our case), not because there are so many of them, but because they are so complexly overlapping and intertwining. Why not just call it one culture? To say that America has one culture justly provokes the resentment of various sizable minorities who do not see themselves as a part of this or that aspect of the "one" culture. You see it as a rhetorical advantage to speak of America's one culture, but such language is entirely inaccurate.
Posted
1:21 PM
by John Parker
Republican Party is becoming increasingly libertarian, I guess, if "increasingly libertarian" means promoting milquetoast tax cuts without reducing federal spending, expanding Medicare, passing the biggest farm subsidy in history, dumping vouchers (which aren't libertarian anyway--they promote government dependency) but spending billions of federal money on "education," and so on, and so on. I could go on about how "conservative" the Republican Party is, but that subject is getting a little tired...
Posted
11:58 AM
by Greg Weston
I should add an optimistic note to that last post, which is that I think our country is on the right track. The last few years has seen the country grow more Republican and the Republican party grow more libertarian, both trends which I enthusiastically welcome. I especially look forward to the next five years. Bush will be reelected in a landslide in 2004, along with a larger Republican majority in the Senate and more still state and local officeholders and a steady stream of conservative judges. It's fine that you and other elitists think he is dumb, such underestimations have only helped him in the past. In fact Bush is the most competent Republican politician since Ronald Reagan, and still has many years left to outdo him if he wants.
Posted
11:42 AM
by Greg Weston
Bill, I think anti-Americanism should be exposed as much as possible, not because it is a fringe movement, but because it so prominent in our culture. A large portion of the left, and sadly a small but growing portion of the far right, thinks the biggest problem with the world is the United States. The conventional wisdom among them is that America as a whole is undemocratic, racist, corrupt, uncivilized, and imperialist. You accuse me of Kulterkampf, Bill, but such a war began a long time ago, at least seventy years ago, when leftists first began to undermine America's public schools, urban governments, cultural institutions, and immigration policies.
America does have a culture, and it is certainly worth defending, especially against the anti-American left. And defending one's culture is not something you "accuse" people of doing, it is something one should do proudly if it is good culture, and I certainly don't begrudge the French from defending their own unique culture.
Posted
10:26 AM
by Bill Korner
Greg: Are you ever going to tire of your hyperbolic Kulturkampf against so-called "Anti-Americanism"! The point of having a free society is that we can criticize it, its culture as well as its government. Unlike in a country that takes itself to have a single culture that must be defended against all affronts, an accusation often leveled against France for example, the only way one can be truly Anti-American is to challange our freedom to speak (and well-known habit of speaking) our minds about whatever it is that we dislike about our country. Some of the greatest American literature, for example Dos Passos' "U.S.A.", expresses profound disillusionment with America, a sentiment that it is natural for any honest person to feel for any country at times.
And although Bush was, in some sense, elected that does not change the fact that every time he goes on TV he sounds like John Reese, sensei of the Cobra Kai dojo. "Mercy is for the week! You will find no mercy here!" (And if you do not get that reference, then maybe you should question your credentials as an American!)
Monday, January 06, 2003
Posted
11:37 PM
by Jonathan Skrmetti
Gene Scalia is stepping down as Solicitor of Labor. The AP report Bashman links to is pretty skeletal. Has anybody heard if Mr. Scalia will be returning to the friendly confines of Gibson, Dunn's Washington office? Perhaps he's simply preparing for the much-rumored retirement of the Chief Justice and plans on fulfilling my dream of a two-Scalia Court.
Posted
8:39 PM
by Jonathan Skrmetti
Any heat the White House is laying on Frum, deserved or not, ought to be offset by this gem of an exchange (quoted from the link Avigael put up):
Frum: "Look, I don't know about that. I'm no kind of expert on climate change. But, Miss Streisand, I strongly suspect that neither are you. For you, this is religion, not science."
Posted
8:35 PM
by Jonathan Skrmetti
Saddam is probably deterrable, having exhibited fairly consistent streak of rational behavior. Unfortunately, the world's efforts thus far seem to have failed to deter his WMD programs. And I for one would much rather not pursue a policy of nuclear containment with a man actively seeking to strengthen his ties to radical Islamism. Just because the man is theoretically deterrable doesn't mean Bush has done anything wrong. For all the naysaying regarding Bush's Iraq policy, I've yet to hear a plausible alternative approach.
As for conscription, there may be times when it is literally necessary, but those times, should they exist, will be very, very rare. Outside those instances we ought not sanction involuntary servitude. President Reagan, as usual, hit the nail squarely on the head.
Posted
7:50 PM
by Avigael Cymrot
The David Frum files keep getting thicker . . . apparently he's also managed to earn the wrath of none other than Barbra Streisand.
Posted
5:14 PM
by Greg Weston
And speaking of anti-Americanism, if you don't already dislike Paul Krugman, read this.
Posted
5:01 PM
by Jason Sorens
I certainly don't have any way to respond quickly & easily to your concerns; those obstacles are largely ones that simply must be overcome. We are of course doing a great deal of research on the cultures, economies, & politics of all our 10 states. So it's not as if we are unaware of the unique identities of each of the states. In fact, the authors of the Wyoming Report open with an interesting quote about Wyoming citizens and then note that most FSP members are probably similar. That doesn't mean we won't have opposition anyway, however. Even states without much of an identifiable tradition can be hostile to outsiders with political ambitions. (And a few decades of American mobility have already almost wiped out most local cultures in this country.)
Accordingly, our best strategy is going to have to be to integrate into our communities first before undertaking political campaigns. People won't vote for you until you've demonstrated that you're an asset to the community. So when we first move, our political activism will be limited to licking stamps and going door to door for those pro-freedom candidates who have lived in the state for a very long time and built positive reputations. Over time, those of us who migrated can begin running for local office, then eventually state office. It's a long-term project to be sure - we start first with a strong voting bloc and some pro-freedom candidates and twenty years later perhaps we will have a governor and a majority in the state legislature.
The interim steps are hardly a given, of course. We may not succeed in our stated goal of creating an essentially libertarian state. But for those of us who are not satisfied with standard Republican National Committee politics, something like the Free State Project seems our best chance for real political reform: the idea that libertarians and classical liberals will somehow take over the American national government at any point in the next century is extremely far-fetched. And it's not as if migrations have not had very significant political consequences before: take a look at what happened to Vermont. The Free State Project can succeed: the math is there. What will determine actual success is whether the participants turn out to be sufficiently sensitive, intelligent, & pragmatic.
Posted
4:49 PM
by Greg Weston
Jonathan: I agree with you and your friends' sentiments about double citizenship. The fact that double-citizenship has been allowed in the United States with no vote, no laws having been passed, and mass public opposition, should be a scandal.
The problem is with the anti-American culture of our elites, who largely dislike or are embarrassed by their country, and who will reflexively agree with any policy that undermines its traditions, such as allowing millions of people whose primary loyalty is to a country other than the United States to vote and exercise the other privileges of American citizenship. And I don’t think the label anti-American is inappropriate for those who are so careful to accept and “celebrate” the native cultures of America’s immigrants while at the same time bemoaning every expansion of American culture abroad.
Posted
4:37 PM
by John Parker
I'm glad the Free State Project article is now available online. I too was a little surprised at how favorable the article was. The Project is a very compelling idea. What bothers me about it, though, is the project's comitment to abstraction. The FAQ talks about how "[f]irst, once we've created a free-market economy with strong communities," statists will be less encouraged to move to the chosen Project State. That's a real big "first." I don't don't know about the former, but I think I know this about the later: strong communities aren't created from whole cloth; they are organic and historic. Although the Project will aim to select a State with a "native culture conducive to liberty," communities are drawn from people and families, parents and grandparents, uncles and aunts, soil and time. The Project seems a little artificial and ahistoric in its goal. Of course, as debased as our modern welfare(/warfare) state has become, that may not really matter. But I do think, however, that there will be more than a little opposition and accusations of carpet-bagging, no matter where you go. It is, after all, human nature to distrust outsiders, especially when they want to take over (or even, in this case, mostly eliminate) the political structure of your state! I don't mean to be glib; I've been wondering about these issues for a while, and feel privilaged that they might be answered by Jason himself!
Posted
4:09 PM
by Jason Sorens
Speaking of paleocons, the Free State Project got written up in Chronicles, the main journal of the paleocons (unless you count The American Conservative). I was surprised at how favorable the article was on balance, really.
Posted
1:58 PM
by alina stefanescu
Saddam, conscription, and the return of extravagant government.
New York Times writer Thomas Friedman also continues to believe that Saddam is "deterrable" or best handled through a continuation of our containment policy.
As I keep getting emails about the pros and cons of consciption, it seems necessary to bring out the oldies but goodies and remind some of the more neoconservative conservatives that conscription is a BAD thing. In an article for The South Atlantic Quarterly, (XLV, 3 July 1946), Russell Kirk condemns the "moral argument" for conscription (which we are seeing now in the form of mandatory volunteer programs and the like).
"....some people are declaring that we need conscription to make young men the pure and lovely creatures their ancestors "are alleged to have been - to teach them, among other things, to brush their teeth, scrub their faces, and cook their suppers. Abstract humanitarianism has come to regard servitude – so long as it be to the state - as a privilege. Greater self-love has no government than this: that all men must wear khaki so that some men may be taught to brush their teeth. Apologists for Negro slavery claimed for their peculiar institution, the virtue which humanitarians now ascribe to the draft: that it instilled a healthful discipline. A humanitarianism which believes that boys can be filled with sweetness and light, strength and joy, through living communally under military force in training camps or work camps is very abstract indeed. Few will deny that the humanitarianism of Fascism was nothing if not abstract; such were the premises upon which Fascist youth organizations were established. Most interesting is the ignorance of the motives and desires of the common man displayed by academic psychologists, and William James was no exception. When a man can maintain that the basis of morality lies in the satisfaction of desire and remark, according to Hutchins Hapgood, "So long as one poor cockroach feels the pangs of unrequited love, this world is not a moral world," it is not surprising that he can think the nation requires conscription to satisfy its soul. Only under a thoroughly muddled system of ethics could the drafting of young people be called a moral measure."
None other than Ronald Reagan wrote the following in February of 1979 (Human Events): "...it [conscription] rests on the assumption that your kids belong to the state. If we buy that assumption then it is for the state -- not for parents, the community, the religious institutions or teachers -- to decide who shall have what values and who shall do what work, when, where and how in our society. That assumption isn't a new one. The Nazis thought it was a great idea."
Posted
1:04 PM
by Avigael Cymrot
There's an interesting op-ed by Bill McKibben in today's Washington Post on human cloning, and how its implications go far beyond a question of mere self-replication. I've always thought that the most troubling aspect about reproductive cloning is not that there will be people out there sharing the same DNA (identical twins, anyone?) but that in trying to achieve human cloning there would inevitably be 'mistakes' in working out the kinks of cloning and I think it would be cruel and a devaluation of human life to create life in such a manner. As for therapeutic cloning, I am more inclined to favor it, because it seems to have potential for curing diseases (although I'd tend to think that this is probably overstated by cloning advocates), and because I don't think that a blastocyst is a human life yet, but McKibben raises several caveats as to why we should proceed with caution even in this area. Perhaps curing diseases and genetic defects seems more clear-cut, but genetically modifying away any human frailties is unlikely to improve the moral fortunes of mankind and seems to threaten notions of autonomy and free will.
Posted
1:14 AM
by John Parker
Saddam Hussein: though cruel and calculating, is he eminently deterrable? An article from the Janurary/Feburary issue of Foreign Policy answers in the affirmative.
Posted
12:25 AM
by Adam White
TOTALLY GRATUITOUS LINK: If you're looking for a Winter Term diversion involving (a) A trendy dating show, and (b) Ari Fleischer, hop on over to the new feature at Ammermania, a site run by a college friend of mine. How this guy hasn't scored a gig at The Onion is beyond me.
Sunday, January 05, 2003
Posted
9:06 PM
by Adam White
Uh oh: David Frum isn't just pissing off various members of Ex Parte -- he's starting to get under the skin of his old boss, too. Not that this is the first time.
Posted
7:49 PM
by Jonathan Skrmetti
Congrats to the Cardiac Kids for making it the playoffs and surpassing everyone's expectations; that game was a heartbreaker. Given the way the Steelers started their season, I would have never suspected Pittsburgh would make it to the postseason. Meanwhile, the team that took Pittsburgh to the woodshed opening week is nowhere to be seen, thanks to the accursed Jets and the Pats' own incapacity to win. The Giants/Niners game is as interesting as the earlier game, too, with the Niners in possession and five points down at the two minute warning. Yesterday lacked the competitive games of today, but it sure brought some surprises. All this good football almost makes up for the postseason absence of the reigning World Champions.
Posted
7:44 PM
by Jonathan Skrmetti
J.R., thanks for the birthday wishes. The great friends with whom I am blessed threw a terrific party and I enjoyed myself immensely. In spite of my place of honor at the event, however, several of my proclamations were met with much dissent - for instance, few at the party agreed that my high school football team (Go Falcons!) could beat the Cincinnati Bengals.
During the break, I had the opportunity to visit the midwest for the first time. The charm of the midwest won me over, and I am sure that over the next few weeks I will manage to relate various incidents from my trip by giving them the pretext of relevance. For instance, during the drive from my host's home back to O'Hare, we were discussing patriotism (they take that seriously in the Midwest), and I suggested that dual citizenship is generally a bad idea. People should have to commit themselves to America if they want to be able to chart the course of our democracy through voting. There are instances where U.S. citizens may be legitimately out of the country but retain their ties to the U.S. - military service, education, and even business may take a man overseas though his heart remains with America. But if a person is a citizen of the U.S. and another state and chooses to reside in the other state, then his involvement with the governance of the United States is asymmetrical - he don't have to live with the consequences of his electoral decisions. This can produce irresponsible single issue voting behavior - for instance, a voter may have voted for Al Gore solely to promote aid to his true native country without fear of suffering from the crippling economic effects of a Gore presidency. The benefits of American citizenship ought not be without cost - if someone wants to enjoy the privileges of citizenship, he should commit himself to the United States.
Posted
5:02 PM
by Bill Korner
Does anyone else think that maybe we should put future Sandy Weills and/or Jack Grubmans in jail for fraudulent research analysis? Prof. Babchuk's article in the New York Timesdiscusses such a scenario. I guess that the hard-core libertarian might say that if incessant buy ratings don't violate any contract between the investment firm and the TV network, then there is no problem. But even an elitist who thinks that Joe Average has no business buying stocks anyway should be concerned with the effects that such deceit has had on the credibility of our capital markets (where uninformed people do in fact invest money). Or do you think that these scandals do not shed doubt on the efficiency of capital markets?
In related news, did anyone else think it wierd that the New York Stock Exchange had a commercial during the Fiesta Bowl claiming that "Now, more then ever, the world puts its stock in us." Is there anything wrong with this blatant false advertising, or is the question just "What's the point?"
Posted
4:05 AM
by John Parker
Alan Dershowitz's utopia: "I guess if I had one wish for the world today—and this is going to make my mother very unhappy—it is that we become less religious." Harvard Magazine covers Professor Dershowitz's debut as a painter.
Posted
3:59 AM
by John Parker
Happy birthday to Jonathan Skrmetti. Sorry I couldn't be there, Jonathan.
Saturday, January 04, 2003
Posted
3:43 PM
by Austin Bramwell
Andrew Grossman of the Dartmouth Review reports that FIRE is taking up the cause of a Christian extracurricular group about to be banned from UNC for insisting that its leaders subscribe to Christian doctrine (I should add that Andrew's analysis of the case is rather good). I suppose that the case will largely turn on the hopelessly vexed question of what kind forum the State creates by allowing the creation of extra-curricular groups. One wonders: how is it that the courts got in the business of deciding university policy with regard to extracurricular groups--what in the words "Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech" authorizes them to do so? Whatever the answer, I cannot help but be reminded of the folly of a written constitution.
Posted
2:01 PM
by Jason Sorens
Not to mention a vociferously disputed call responsible for the ultimate result!
Posted
1:17 AM
by Greg Weston
The game turned out to be the college football game of the century. Two undefeated teams with storied histories headed by two new coaches, a historic 34-game winning streak broken, multiple fumbles, interceptions, Hail Marys, and fourth-down conversions, a field goal to tie the game in the final three seconds of the fourth quarter, and two overtimes in which 21 points were scored, ending with Miami unable to score despite two attempts within the 10-yard line and four attempts within the three.
Friday, January 03, 2003
Posted
8:22 PM
by John Parker
Greg: I guess I'll just have to disagree with you about the hidden "insatiably greedy Jew" subtext of the lines you have quoted twice, especially since "the Israeli government" and "Jews" are not the same thing. Good luck to Ohio State, though, moving to a much more important topic. I myself am pleased that one can't spell "sugar" without UGA. Go Dawgs!
Austin: Francis Fukuyama on our adminstration's foreign policy:
"The administration's new National Security Strategy of the United States lays out an ambitious road map for the wholesale reordering of the politics of the Middle East, beginning with the replacement of Saddam Hussein by a democratic, pro-Western government. A variety of administration spokesmen and advisers have suggested that a different government in Iraq will change the political dynamics of the entire region, making the Israeli-Palestinian conflict more tractable, putting pressure on authoritarian regimes in Egypt, Syria, Iran and Saudi Arabia, and broadly promoting the cause of democracy in a hostile part of the world that has proven stubbornly resistant to all democratic trends. The present administration, in other words, has articulated anything but a conservative foreign policy. It is embarking on an immensely ambitious exercise in the political re-engineering of a hostile part of the world."
I respectfully disagree as to whether the above is feasible or advances our national security, but that is neither here nor there. I prefer the label "reactionary" to "conservative" because I don't find much worth conserving that has occured in the past (one, two, three...) hundred years, at least. The paleo/neo split/debate/name-calling session is becoming tiresome, though, and I apologize inasmuch as I have belabored it.
As for Frenchmen, Italians, and Russians, I would argue that--at least when DeMaistre was writing--that they all had real, concrete, and, most importantly, shared histories, cultures, and institutions (religious and otherwise). Not so much "man," cf. Rousseau, et al.
Posted
6:31 PM
by Austin Bramwell
On another unrelated topic, many people cluck with approval at Joseph DeMaistre's comment that "I have seen Frenchmen, Italians, Russians and so on...but I may say, as for man, I have never come across him anywhere." But I don't get it: Isn't "Frenchman" just as much as if not more of an abstraction than "Man"?
Posted
6:15 PM
by Austin Bramwell
JR is right that the major--if not the sole--intellectual difference between those who identify themselves as "paleocons" and rest of the conservative movement is one of foreign policy. Paleocon efforts, however, to paint all other conservatives as heretics just won't wash, especially as the argument for what JR descries as "military adventurism" is couched entirely in terms of national security, which is hardly an unconservative goal. The effort to identify some kind of philosophical failing that accounts for the ostensible errors of the rest of the conservative movement has been ad hoc, incoherent, tendentious, and uninformed. That said, many of the themes that paleocons emphasize are sound; anyone who finds in them fecund ground on which to understand and argue politics, however, is much better off avoiding schismatic efforts like paleoconservatism and remaining loyal to the movement.
Posted
6:06 PM
by Greg Weston
On an unrelated topic, here are the 20 reasons why my alma mater is going to become the national college football champion in a few hours.
Posted
6:02 PM
by Greg Weston
JR: Most of your post focused on my parenthetical mention of the sloppiness of the article. How are you going to excuse the "insatiably greedy Jew" lines:
"The fact is that the Israeli government and its powerful lobby have taken advantage of the good-heartedness of the American people. The American people are generous, but never generous enough to satisfy Israeli demands for more of our people's hard-earned tax dollars."
Speaking of intellectual dishonesty, here is an article that begins to debunk Stauffer’s ridiculous figures, which among other things includes voluntary donations to charities that were spent in Israel.
Posted
5:47 PM
by John Parker
Austin: I stand corrected. Thank you!
Posted
5:47 PM
by John Parker
Let me break down the points Greg has made.
Thesis: There is plenty of "crypto anti-Semitism" in Reese's article (is Watson's charge of "crypto" anti-semitism the same as Frum's charge of "unavoidable" anti-semitism? Lord only knows).
Greg's basis: the article is an attempt to publicize an estimate (from the Christian Science Monitor) of how much money the U.S. gives to Israel. That sounds like an empirical question to me. The 600 billion figure was later corrected by the Christian Science Monitor later to 600 million. It is unclear whether or not that correction came out before or after Reese wrote the column. Typographical error or evidence of stoking the fires of anti-Semitism: you decide! Furthermore, as Greg points out, the column is critical of the Israeli government. That means it is part of an unmistakable strain of paranoia and obession about Jews in America. Therefore, the article feeds anti-Semitism. And, going back to David Frum, this "unavoidable anti-semitism" is all over the paleoconservatives. Brilliant. I can hardly concieve of a more back-handed way to label your opponents Nazis for argumentative convenience.
As for the "Israel lobby," I guess that would be the group of people who want the U.S. to do what the Israeli government wants. If you criticize the Israel government, it is hard not to criticize that government's supporters isn't it? But hey, maybe I shouldn't be taken seriously, either.
Posted
5:34 PM
by Austin Bramwell
JR: I think you meant to say that Irving, not Bill, Kristol lead the neoconservatives in the 70s.
Posted
5:17 PM
by Greg Weston
There is plenty of crypto anti-Semitism in Resse's article. First, the whole point of it is to publicize an extremely specious estimate of the cost of our alliance with Israel. (The article is also very sloppy in general. I really doubt that the United States has extended $600 billion in housing loans guarantees to Israel, as the article claims, which is more than five times that country's GDP, and would make the loan guarantee our largest government program. I wonder if he'll ever run a correction.)
Then there are "insatiably greedy Jew" lines like this:
"The fact is that the Israeli government and its powerful lobby have taken advantage of the good-heartedness of the American people. The American people are generous, but never generous enough to satisfy Israeli demands for more of our people's hard-earned tax dollars."
I would guess that few paleocons are anti-Semites in the sense that they hate or wish death upon Jews. There is, however, an unmistakable strain of paranoia and obsession with Jews and their status in America running through the movement, and this paranoia and obsession about "the Israel Lobby" or whatever euphemism they’re using today is the soil in which actual anti-Semitism grows.
Now the fact that someone like Charlie Reese has this paranoid obsession doesn't mean that he is wrong about, say, the impending war against Saddam's regime. He's wrong about that for other reasons. It does mean that he should be taken less seriously given that we know his positions may stem from this obsession.
Posted
2:51 PM
by John Parker
The intellectual dishonesty of David Frum is remarkable. In Frum's brief against the paleos, he links to a column by Charlie Reese as exhibit A of the "inescapable anti-semitism" among the paleos. Apparently, merely questioning the billions of dollars of aid which the U.S. gives to Israel, and/or questioning how Israel has ever treated the Palestinians, which is exactly all Reese's column does, is "inescapable anti-semitism." Amazing.
The "classical" neoconservatives, led by Irving Kristol (who wrote a book entiled, um, Neoconservativism) in the 70's were avowed former Trotskyites. Their ranks have now been swelled by "conservatives" also untroubled by The New Deal, if not the Great Society, who share the neocon devotion to a foreign policy of military adventurism that spreads western-style democracy or whatever around the globe. All of the above are generally lumped together as "neocons," especially on the foreign policy front, whether or not they are former communists. Sloppy or not, the distinction between the interventionist neos and the non-interventionist paleos is the most obvious one between the two groups.
In the meantime, I would direct anyone looking for what the label "paleoconservative" means to read what actual paleoconservatives have to say about the term, and to decide for oneself whether, as the esteemed Mr. Frum points out, the paleocons are flirting with the Left. (Of the previously cited discussion, I particularly like Paul Gottfried on Locke, maybe he can provoke a discussion marked by less name-calling:
"It is not coincidental that socialist John Rawls and mainstream welfare statists find it [Lockean contractualism] appealing. Although Locke treats property as a natural right that civil society might be required to defend, his defense of property per se was rather qualified. As the closing sections of the Second Treatise and the scholarship of Richard Ashcraft indicate, Locke was an embattled advocate of “the People” when it set out to overthrow tyranny and establish popular government. A tension, in fact, exists between Locke’s rights to life, liberty, and property and the majoritarian democracy that he evokes in his political pamphlets. As Ashcraft suggests, this tension can be resolved as easily in the direction of democratic collectivism, based on presumed individual consent, as it can by affirming the inviolability of property.
In the world of possessive individualism conceived by this late 17th-century Whig pamphleteer, the state comes into existence to ensure the individual’s right to material gratification. If the people see fit, the Lockean regime can achieve its purpose as plausibly by redistributing earnings and handing out entitlements as it can by protecting entrepreneurial profit. It can also enforce claims beyond the ones Locke fancied, if the majority comes to consider such claims as natural rights. Why limit rights to the short list Locke drew up when he was trying to dislodge the Stuart monarchs? It makes good Lockean sense to have the modern state guarantee claims that are more relevant today: e.g., a right to self-esteem or protection against insensitive white males, who don’t seem to mind being jerked around by the thought police. There is no Lockean requirement that rulers uphold natural rights in the form in which they existed before the rise of civil society. “Rights” mean what the majority takes to be a tolerable understanding of them on the part of those who rule. On this point, the late Willmoore Kendall, on the populist right, and John Rawls and Richard Ashcraft, on the socialist left, have interpreted Locke quite accurately.
Locke’s contributions to political theory can still be read with profit, particularly his strictures on the limits of political covenants. His critical observations concerning Robert Filmer’s defense of divine-right monarchy in the First Treatise on Civil Government make a brilliant polemic, even if Locke often misrepresents his opponent. But Locke’s contractualism is a slippery slope which leads to the political culture that dominates us; the connections between the two are too obvious to be missed. On balance, I agree with the thoughtful counterrevolutionary Joseph de Maistre, who both admired and feared Locke’s imaginative energies: “Le debut du discernement c’est le mefi de Jean Locke.”)
Posted
1:49 PM
by Avigael Cymrot
There's a debate among the post-civil-rights generation of conservatives/Republicans who are actually not neocons in the used-to-be-leftists sense, but who agree with the neocons on things such as free trade, the goal of a color-blind society, a strong American foreign policy, as to whether they should adopt the neocon label to distinguish themselves from paleocons, or whether they should view the neocon label as an attempt to hurt their conservative "street cred" and instead try to drape themselves with a more "mainstream conservative" label. Raimondo and North, who seem to be capable of quite a bit of smarminess themselves, simply try to label the entire neocon movement and its progeny as Trotskyite interlopers, ignoring the fact, as Frum points out, that it is the paleocons who have been doing the most flirting with the Left of late.
Posted
1:19 PM
by Adam White
The excellent David Frum has weighed in on the neo-/paleo- debate, too (a couple of weeks ago):
"Paleoconservatism” is actually the newest of all conservatisms. It reminds me of one of those red-brick neo-Gothic churches you find in the older suburbs of English industrial towns: discordant elements hastily thrown together to create a false appearance of tradition in a time of rapid change.
[There's a lot more to the analysis than just that. Don't take my word for it -- take a look for your own personal betterment.] Incidentally, Frum's personal web site is now up and running.
Posted
11:45 AM
by Austin Bramwell
I can't help but mention that a professor on Harvard's employ today confused "deontology" with "ontology."
Posted
9:46 AM
by John Parker
More on Boot and Goldberg's recent remarks on neocons.
Posted
9:22 AM
by John Parker
Avigael: I'm not sure how good Max Boot's piece on OpinonJournal is, unless "good" is defined as full of smarmy innuendo. Boot attempts the typical semantic dodge of identifying paleos with racism and anti-Semitism without any evidence. Maybe I'm over-reacting, but I find the implication that I myself am a peddler of poison a little hard to swallow. Read a good response and helpful neocon litmus test by economist Gary North.
Posted
12:25 AM
by Patrick Lewis
A wonderful (though poorly html-formatted) piece on Townhall.com by David Horowitz discusses both the liberal complaints about conservative media successes, and the Fidel Castro cult that seems to have crept up anew after Jimmy Carter's visit there. I view the left's complaints in this regard about as credibly as I view Jon Hanson's claims in my 1L Torts class last semester that law schools are bastions of conservative thought financed by large corporations.
Austin: JOLT hosted a symposium last year for which I hosted a panel on privacy and freedom (in a technology context) post-9/11. Our luncheon keynote speaker was Amitai Etzioni, who has a book out on a communtarian approach to freedom and privacy issues. If your friend is looking for a mix of different perspectives, he might be worth a shot.
Thursday, January 02, 2003
Posted
10:24 PM
by Avigael Cymrot
Max Boot had a good piece on OpinionJournal a few days ago about "Neocons" and whether the term continues to be useful anymore as a political label. Like Boot, I'd probably see myself as identifying with the label inasmuch as a lot of the people who have influenced my thinking the most are neocons like Norman Podhoretz and Charles Krauthammer, and because most Jewish conservatives seem to get called Neocons anyway. On the other hand, I never went through a leftist phase (I was the only non-Dukakis supporter in my entire 3rd grade class) so the "neo" moniker doesn't really fit. Boot argues that younger conservatives who agree with the neocons on matters of policy might as well adopt the neocon label, whereas someone like Jonah Goldberg rejects the label despite the he's called a neocon by others. I'm not sure which side I come down on, but I guess I'll propose a few alternatives. Youngercon? Xer-con? Neocon spawn?
Posted
9:59 PM
by Jonathan Skrmetti
Austin, regarding a speaker on freedom: how about Fidel Castro? Fidel may seem an unconventional choice, and I've not read any of his writings on the topic, but I'll let Barbara Walters set you straight:
For Castro, freedom starts with education. And if literacy alone were the yardstick, Cuba would rank as one of the freest nations on Earth. The literacy rate is 96 percent.
That's from her introduction to her interviewer with the not-so-great dictator (thanks to NR's Kathryn Jean Lopez for that one - I was not willing to watch the Castro love fest when it aired).
Posted
9:09 PM
by Jonathan Skrmetti
Apologies for my faux pas regarding the class. I hope that since the aspect of the class I mentioned remains unattributed and is relatively uncontroversial, it is not too serious an infraction. As to the guerrilla/terrorist distinction, I think groups can fit the criteria of multiple categories of armed conflict. For instance, Mao led a movement that dealt in both guerrilla warfare and conventional warfare.
Posted
6:47 PM
by Austin Bramwell
Mike Bloomberg signed his draconian smoking ban into law a few days ago, reminding me of Zarathustra's words, "Alas, the time is coming when man will no longer give birth to a star. Alas, the time of the most despicable man is coming, he that is no longer able to despise himself. Behold, I show you the last man." Is it any coincidence that modern man, having lost his longing for transcendance, mistakes the petty glow of physical well-being for happiness? I can only hope that while the rest of our species becomes nothing more than a race of satisfied animals, some remnant of us will still enjoy our drinks and cigars, not so much for the small pleasures they provide, but because we are making a last stand for humanity.
Posted
6:07 PM
by Austin Bramwell
A friend of mine is sponsoring a conference on "Freedom" featuring William Kristol, Corey Booker, and others, and he'd like to know who else to invite to speak. I suggested Leon Kass and Peter Augustine Lawler, but I was wondering if anyone on Ex Parte has any thoughts as to who is the most trenchant writer on the subject of liberty today. (And please don't mention Virginia Postrel.)
Posted
5:59 PM
by Austin Bramwell
In other news, Ex Parte won the Conservative Site of the Day Award, sponsored by enterstageright.com.
Posted
5:54 PM
by Austin Bramwell
Jonathan: I'd love to heap contumely on all the cant we heard in class today, but one of the professors insisted that everything said in class be kept strictly off the record, so we must be circumspect. Still, apropos of nothing, I wonder myself why it is that someone would go to pedantic lengths to distinguish terrorism from guerilla war, only later to accuse the United States of sponsoring terrorism in aiding the Nicaraguan contras.
Posted
5:37 PM
by Jonathan Skrmetti
So Winter Term started, and today I had 3 hours of Terrorism, a team-taught class led by former Deputy Attorney General Phil Heymann. The class looks to be really interesting, although the reading is distressingly voluminous. I have a feeling the crits in the class are going to be generally depressed by the focus of the course, and that's always a good sign. I'm sure Austin will comment on the leftist slant exhibited today (e.g., the Contras are the repeated example of state-sponsored terrorism), but I have faith that the DoJ alums teaching the class will keep the course firmly planted on the side of angels.
Posted
8:35 AM
by Patrick Lewis
Good to know that, despite the crisis in state education dollars brought about by Bush's "irresponsible" handling of the economy, liberal universities have some cash left over to invest in "EcoDorms". I particularly like the bicycle-powered blender.
Wednesday, January 01, 2003
Posted
11:59 PM
by Adam White
JONATHAN: Forget the media. Over the past 70 years or so, the Left has had a pretty effective foundation in the burgeoning federal government! Great annual funding drive, that crew.
Posted
10:18 PM
by Jonathan Skrmetti
The best quote from the story Adam links to below (via his girlfriend's blog), regarding an attempt to set up a liberal Heritage Foundation, is this:
Should the organizers succeed at starting a foundation, it would not have anywhere near the number of prominent, outright partisan media voices that its conservative counterparts do.
Is that because the legions of prominent , outright partisan media voices for the left already work for the Times, CBS, ABC, NBC, and CNN? It's hard to tell if the NYT is tweaking the conservatives or whether they're so stupid in their partisan sincerity that they don't understand the mind-boggling asymmetry in media bias. The Times has become funnier than The Onion, and that's quite an accomplishment.
Posted
8:26 PM
by Adam White
My girlfriend just pointed out that the NY Times has inconspicuously run a story about Democrat attempts to "balance out" FoxNews in the political media wars. How hilarious is that? The same liberals who worry -- in the New York Times, no less -- about "balancing" FoxNews must have been the ones who thought that the ACS was needed to "balance" the influence of FedSoc at HLS.
Posted
5:12 PM
by Jonathan Skrmetti
Happy New Year everybody! As you emerge from the darkest depths of debauchery, I bring you good tidings: Bush and Bashman are on the same page. Both the President and the appellate blog guru have come out for an increase in federal judicial salaries. Given the draconian restrictions on outside income* with which federal judges must deal, it is only fair to reward judges with compensation that approaches the lower boundaries of adequacy. Any federal appellate judge could increase his salary by at least an order of magnitude by reentering private practice; while it would be unrealistic and potentially corrupting for the federal government to meet such potential salaries, it is absurd that junior litigation associates may make more money than the judges in whose courtrooms they practice. And please, no jokes about how junior litigation associates never practice in courtrooms - my old college roommate is a first year associate in the D.C. office of a mid-sized firm and he's been in court once and has another appearance scheduled for this month.
In other news, our Winter Term starts tomorrow. In spite of the pesky demands of class on my time I look forward to devoting far too much of my life to the vitality of the blogosphere.
* Restrictions with bitter consequences, such as the absence from Harvard Law School of Judge Douglas Ginsberg. According to a former clerk of the judge's, prior to the restriction Ginsberg travelled up here to teach. Of course that may just provide further evidence that the D.C. Circuit is underworked, but I prefer to view it as a substantial commitment of time and effort that the judge was willing to invest in shaping the rising minds of American law, a goal that Congress ought to support rather than stymie.
|