Dave, welcome to the discussion. Good to hear from you and have your thoughts. If there is anyone else "lurking" out there, follow Dave's example and join the conversation.
Karl (or Scott, Elliott, and Ryan), I am still waiting to hear the defense of the Cap and Trade System. I assume there is are good reasons for smart people to think a Cap and Trade is a good idea, even if I don't personally agree with them. I've enjoyed the balanced discussion on judicial activism and taxes, but lately, I think the environmental discussion has been a bit one-sided. We need some voices from farther down on Peter's belief scale.
Peter, I recommend you go ahead and choose the next book. I feel like I waste half of each month trying to get the book from my library. I'm still on hold for the one copy of Karl's book in my local library system.
I don't know if it's just me, but this blog emails me most, but not all comments. For example, I got emails for both of Karl's comments on my last post but not the comment Paul made in between. So I apologize in advance if someone's comment. Also, I apologize for posting some things to everyone when an email to a certain individual would have been more appropriate, but I don't have email addresses for most of you.
Wednesday, July 30, 2008
Sunday, July 27, 2008
Howdy from Texas
Well, I suppose it's time for me to stop lurking and finally post something. I've been reading the discussions for a while now and am finally up to date. I've found it to be a great forum for discussions of many different views.
Anyway, a little about myself. I'm currently a software engineer for Bibble Labs in Austin, Texas. We do photography workflow software, primarily focusing on processing RAW images from Digital-SLR cameras faster than any other software available. As such I get to play with just about any DSLR that comes out; if only that made me a better photographer.
I made my way to Austin by first working with Karl at another software company - Corda Technologies in Lindon, Utah. I actually started working there way back when we were all still in Merrill Hall, at that time it was only me and my Boss. After I served my mission in the Philippines I returned to Corda and worked there while I finished my BS in Computer Science at BYU. I graduated in the fall of 2002 only a few days after I got married.
Marriage inevitably took me to New York City where I worked for Nikon doing photography software similar to what I'm doing now. I lived in the Upper East Side of Manhattan for about 3 years. This time unfortunately saw the end of my marriage which also indirectly led me to Austin. Being single again let me entertain opportunities that I otherwise might not have considered.
That's me in a nutshell. Throughout most of that time I've had a big black lab named Pungi who is featured frequently in the pictures I post on my blog, Cutterpillow.com. Unfortunately Pungi hasn't quite mastered the art of taking pictures so there are very few pictures of me there. One of these days I'll get Pungi trained and then hopefully there'll be more pictures of me up there.
Climate Change
Lastly to contribute somewhat to the discussion I'll share some of my views on climate change. I must admit that I don't have a large knowledge of the subject, but since when has that ever stopped anyone from having strong opinions? First of all I despise the term "global warming" as it implies that global temperatures will only ever get warmer and never cooler and that claim is pretty much preposterous. I tend to agree with the following quote by The Viscount Monckton of Brenchley which I referenced on my blog:
A careful study of the substantial corpus of peer-reviewed science reveals that Mr. Gore's film, An Inconvenient Truth, is a foofaraw of pseudo-science, exaggerations, and errors, now being peddled to innocent schoolchildren worldwide.Now when you've got a title like The Viscount Monckton of Brenchley, who's going to mess with you? Seriously though, as for Peter's scale in the previous article I'd have to say that I fall in at #1 and don't go beyond that, that is I believe that on average global temperatures are currently increasing. I don't have any conclusive beliefs one way or another regarding #2 but I am highly skeptical that we have anything to do with the rise in the average global temperature. My belief is that the primary force behind climate change is that big burning ball of gas that our planet orbits. I just don't think that there's enough information to determine that our activity is the driving force behind the current trend in climate change, after all the entire history of civilized mankind is only a blink in the history of this planet. And the period of time that we've actually kept records of global climate trends is a mere blink of that - a blink of a blink in the history of the world. To claim that we have any solid understanding of global climate trends over large periods of time is fairly foolish in my opinion, let alone trying to predict how the climate will trend in the future.
Something I like to remind myself of is how wrong science has been throughout the history of mankind. The one thing that is constant in science is change, yet there are many who believe that out current understanding of science is an absolute authority. There was once time when we knew that the Earth was the center of the Solar System. Later a time that we knew that the planets orbited the sun in perfect circles. I think that our understanding of the global climate system is still in its infancy and trying to enact any policy based on our current limited knowledge is premature and potentially dangerous. It was only 34 years ago that Time magazine published an article titled Another Ice Age? The consensus at that time was that "global cooling" was occurring and potentially a problem. Not to mention that they thought that man might have been the cause. Whatever the cause of the current change in global climates I believe that it is premature to take any significant actions based on our limited understanding of global climate patterns, especially any actions that might try to significantly change global climates. Who knows, we might cause our own manmade ice age if we were to undertake radical efforts to prevent "global warming."
I do think that doing things to ensure a clean environment are a good thing. Everyone wants clean water and air and we should recycle as best we can. But imposing costly measures on businesses and individuals (Carbon Credits) is foolish in my opinion.
Musings on the Judiciary, Gay Rights, Principles and Practices, and the Church
I have thoroughly enjoyed reading various posts on the judiciary and contitutional interpretation and the gay marriage question. Each of your insights are intriguing and demonstrate a scintillating level of intellectual acumen. I offer a few thoughts...
Right vs. Wrong in Judicial Opinions
In reading Scott's and Karl's missives about whether the Supreme Court can ever decide a case wrongly, I find myself in agreement with Karl. Scott set forth a common argument that the Dred Scott and Plessy cases were "wrongly" decided. However, Jesse's point -- wrong, by whose standards -- compellingly reveals the inherent dangers in untethering constitutional interpretation from some sort of firmly established moorings. Originalism or contextualism thus serves a vital role in constitutional interpretation because it provides such moorings. This is not to say, however, that we should be completely locked into 18th century thought when interpreting the constitution. As I stated in a previous post, there must be a balance sought between originalism and viewing the constitution as a living document that continues to have vitality nearly 250 years after its adoption. Moreover, we must recognize that the document itself provides for a means to amend it. Thus, if the high court were to stick with pure originalism, and such interpretation ran afoul of currently accepted social norms, the People are empowered to amend the Constitution and clarify or even change its meaning.
Such, ultimately occured with the infamous Dred Scott case. In that 1857 decision, Dred Scott, a slave and direct descendant of African blood, brought an action at law in federal court against his slave owner for his freedom. It must be recognized that unlike state courts, federal courts are courts of limited jurisidiction and that such courts can only assert jurisidiction as authorized under Article III of the Constitution. In this case, in order to establish federal jurisdiction, the plaintiff, Dred Scott, asserted he was a citizen of Missouri and the defendant, Stanford, was a citizen of New York. This would then vest the federal court with what is known as "diversity" jurisdiction -- the plaintiffs and defendants being diverse to each other as citizens of different states.
The question in Dred Scott was whether he was a "citizen" within the meaning of the Constitution and could thereby bring an action at law in the federal courts against a citizen of a different state. Dred Scott had lived in different states that had abolished slavery and had enacted laws declaring former slaves to be citizens in those states. In concluding that Dred Scott was not a "citizen" of Missouri, the Supreme Court explained that at the time the Constitution was drafted, adopted, and ratified, no persons of African descent were considered to be "citizens;" instead they were "property." Of course, there were other issues at play in the Dred Scott case, including the powers of Congress to declare new territories to the Union to be free, the powers of the States to declare whether one is a citizen of the Union, etc. In addressing each of these issues, the high court appealed to the 1789 understanding of the Constitution.
The high court tacitly acknowledged how repugnant its holdings were when it wrote, "[i]t is not the province of the court to decide upon the justice or injustice, the policy or impolicy, of these laws..." Nevertheless, repugnant or not, the court's approach in this case, demonstrates a considerable, and perhaps even commendable, amount of judicial restraint and a recognition that the body politic rather than the judiciary is charged with the responsibility of changing the laws. Change ultimately came after the Civil War with the 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments. These Reconstruction Amendments abolished slavery and granted citizenship with all its attendant due process and equal protection rights to the former slaves and all those who are born or naturalized in the United States.
Now, as to the notion of wrongly decided cases, Scott urges that the Dred Scott (and Plessy - a case announcing the separate but equal doctrine) decisions were patently wrong. However, this begs the question, as Jesse already poignantly pointed out, wrong by whose standards? Indisputably, the case was wrong and thus superceded, once the Reconstruction Amendments were ratified. However, at the time the Dred Scott case was decided in 1857, it certainly was not wrong by the standards of the antebellum South. The North probably would have had a different view, but the international community, which was busily engaged in empire building, likely would not have balked too terribly at the Dred Scott decision. The Framers, whose intent the high court sought to divine, also probably would reached some form of compromise (as some were for slavery and others against), such that the Dred Scott decision would have resonated with them.
Just because the holding of a case might be repugnant to some, does not automatically make it wrongly decided. For this reason, perhaps originalism is the safest method to interpret the Constitution. At the very least, by going back to the context of when the document was drafted, we are able to come up with a set of bedrock principles as a starting point for constitutional interpretation. If the resultant interpretation is too repugnant to be tenable, then amending the document is always an option. By just cavalierly stating that the meaning of the Constitution changes with the times inherently diminishes the document from standing for something, to standing for nothing.
Gay Rights and Marriage
I find the discussion on "gay rights" to be a fascinating tangent to the discussion on marriage. I think no one could rightly argue that a person should be denied the rights, privileges, and immunities bestowed by the government on the basis of sexual orientation. However, why does the foregoing inalienable truth then mean that the institution of marriage itself is a "right, privilege, or immunity" bestowed by the government? A married couple may have certain rights, privileges, or immunities bestowed upon them as a result of the marriage, but the marriage itself is not a right, privilege, or immunity. I have to agree that benfits (and burdens) of tax laws, insurance laws, intestacy laws, property laws, etc. should be extended to all people who are similarly situated. Therefore, I favor domestic partnership laws that confer the same governmental benefits granted to married persons to homosexual partners that have registered as domestic partners.
However, defining homosexual partners as "married" is not a benefit that comes from the government. Long before governments existed, marriage existed. It is a religious institution ordained by God. Consequently, we cannot speak of gay rights as including some sort of "right to marry."
The Church and its Prop. 8 Involvement in California
In a related vein, as you know, the First Presidency issued a letter to all wards in California asking members of the church to give of their time and means to promote the passage of Proposition 8, which is the proposed amendment to the California Constitution defining marriage as being only between one man and one woman. (Here is an example of amending the Constitution in light of a judicial opinion; though I disagree with the decision and some of its reasoning, it was not necessarily "wrongly" decided.)
I am curious to know what your thoughts are as to the Church's involvement in this debate. I have heard sentiments, and perhaps you share them, that the Church should not get involved in this political issue, that the Church is endangering its tax-exempt status, that the Church needs to learn where to draw the line between political questions and moral issues, etc. I have also heard Latter-day Saints question: What does it affect me? How does this issue harm my marriage? Even if gay and lesbian couples can "marry," what harm will come of that? Who am I to impose my moral views on others?
I, for one, am shocked at what I have heard. Do we sustain President Monson as a prophet, seer, and revelator, or not? If the prophet says support Prop. 8, you can bet your boots I'm supporting Prop. 8. I know President Monson is a prophet and I know that when he speaks as a prophet of God, he is distilling upon us prophetic insight. What harm can come of gay marriage? No puny mortal can possibly imagine all the potential harm. But God knows; and I thank Him for His prophet on Earth to issue a prophetic voice of warning to us.
I firmly believe that times are only going to get more divisive -- the gulf between where we stand as Latter-day Saints and where the world is headed is only going to widen. As this gulf widens, we will not be able to continue speaking in pleasant conciliatory tones without compromising our own convictions. Consequently, I am eternally grateful we have prophets, seers, and revelators, who have spoken as plainly and as clearly as they have. I am grateful for the counsel we have received to continually keep our arms open in the spirit of love and fellowship for our brothers and sisters who struggle with the inclination of same-sex attraction while maintaining our firm resolve that marriage, which is central to our Father's Plan, is nothing short of a divinely appointed relationship between a man and woman.
I am convinced that the Church will speak out on moral issues more frequently in the future as more and more of those moral issues continue to make their way onto our ballots. If the Lord's servants speak to such issues, our safest assurance is to listen and hearken.
Who are we to impose our sense of morality upon society? We are citizens of that society and have an obligation to strive to define its moral contours. Moreover, we are citizens of God's kingdom here on Earth and have covenanted to stand as witnesses of God at all times, in all things, and in all places. If we sit quietly, then we have failed.
Right vs. Wrong in Judicial Opinions
In reading Scott's and Karl's missives about whether the Supreme Court can ever decide a case wrongly, I find myself in agreement with Karl. Scott set forth a common argument that the Dred Scott and Plessy cases were "wrongly" decided. However, Jesse's point -- wrong, by whose standards -- compellingly reveals the inherent dangers in untethering constitutional interpretation from some sort of firmly established moorings. Originalism or contextualism thus serves a vital role in constitutional interpretation because it provides such moorings. This is not to say, however, that we should be completely locked into 18th century thought when interpreting the constitution. As I stated in a previous post, there must be a balance sought between originalism and viewing the constitution as a living document that continues to have vitality nearly 250 years after its adoption. Moreover, we must recognize that the document itself provides for a means to amend it. Thus, if the high court were to stick with pure originalism, and such interpretation ran afoul of currently accepted social norms, the People are empowered to amend the Constitution and clarify or even change its meaning.
Such, ultimately occured with the infamous Dred Scott case. In that 1857 decision, Dred Scott, a slave and direct descendant of African blood, brought an action at law in federal court against his slave owner for his freedom. It must be recognized that unlike state courts, federal courts are courts of limited jurisidiction and that such courts can only assert jurisidiction as authorized under Article III of the Constitution. In this case, in order to establish federal jurisdiction, the plaintiff, Dred Scott, asserted he was a citizen of Missouri and the defendant, Stanford, was a citizen of New York. This would then vest the federal court with what is known as "diversity" jurisdiction -- the plaintiffs and defendants being diverse to each other as citizens of different states.
The question in Dred Scott was whether he was a "citizen" within the meaning of the Constitution and could thereby bring an action at law in the federal courts against a citizen of a different state. Dred Scott had lived in different states that had abolished slavery and had enacted laws declaring former slaves to be citizens in those states. In concluding that Dred Scott was not a "citizen" of Missouri, the Supreme Court explained that at the time the Constitution was drafted, adopted, and ratified, no persons of African descent were considered to be "citizens;" instead they were "property." Of course, there were other issues at play in the Dred Scott case, including the powers of Congress to declare new territories to the Union to be free, the powers of the States to declare whether one is a citizen of the Union, etc. In addressing each of these issues, the high court appealed to the 1789 understanding of the Constitution.
The high court tacitly acknowledged how repugnant its holdings were when it wrote, "[i]t is not the province of the court to decide upon the justice or injustice, the policy or impolicy, of these laws..." Nevertheless, repugnant or not, the court's approach in this case, demonstrates a considerable, and perhaps even commendable, amount of judicial restraint and a recognition that the body politic rather than the judiciary is charged with the responsibility of changing the laws. Change ultimately came after the Civil War with the 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments. These Reconstruction Amendments abolished slavery and granted citizenship with all its attendant due process and equal protection rights to the former slaves and all those who are born or naturalized in the United States.
Now, as to the notion of wrongly decided cases, Scott urges that the Dred Scott (and Plessy - a case announcing the separate but equal doctrine) decisions were patently wrong. However, this begs the question, as Jesse already poignantly pointed out, wrong by whose standards? Indisputably, the case was wrong and thus superceded, once the Reconstruction Amendments were ratified. However, at the time the Dred Scott case was decided in 1857, it certainly was not wrong by the standards of the antebellum South. The North probably would have had a different view, but the international community, which was busily engaged in empire building, likely would not have balked too terribly at the Dred Scott decision. The Framers, whose intent the high court sought to divine, also probably would reached some form of compromise (as some were for slavery and others against), such that the Dred Scott decision would have resonated with them.
Just because the holding of a case might be repugnant to some, does not automatically make it wrongly decided. For this reason, perhaps originalism is the safest method to interpret the Constitution. At the very least, by going back to the context of when the document was drafted, we are able to come up with a set of bedrock principles as a starting point for constitutional interpretation. If the resultant interpretation is too repugnant to be tenable, then amending the document is always an option. By just cavalierly stating that the meaning of the Constitution changes with the times inherently diminishes the document from standing for something, to standing for nothing.
Gay Rights and Marriage
I find the discussion on "gay rights" to be a fascinating tangent to the discussion on marriage. I think no one could rightly argue that a person should be denied the rights, privileges, and immunities bestowed by the government on the basis of sexual orientation. However, why does the foregoing inalienable truth then mean that the institution of marriage itself is a "right, privilege, or immunity" bestowed by the government? A married couple may have certain rights, privileges, or immunities bestowed upon them as a result of the marriage, but the marriage itself is not a right, privilege, or immunity. I have to agree that benfits (and burdens) of tax laws, insurance laws, intestacy laws, property laws, etc. should be extended to all people who are similarly situated. Therefore, I favor domestic partnership laws that confer the same governmental benefits granted to married persons to homosexual partners that have registered as domestic partners.
However, defining homosexual partners as "married" is not a benefit that comes from the government. Long before governments existed, marriage existed. It is a religious institution ordained by God. Consequently, we cannot speak of gay rights as including some sort of "right to marry."
The Church and its Prop. 8 Involvement in California
In a related vein, as you know, the First Presidency issued a letter to all wards in California asking members of the church to give of their time and means to promote the passage of Proposition 8, which is the proposed amendment to the California Constitution defining marriage as being only between one man and one woman. (Here is an example of amending the Constitution in light of a judicial opinion; though I disagree with the decision and some of its reasoning, it was not necessarily "wrongly" decided.)
I am curious to know what your thoughts are as to the Church's involvement in this debate. I have heard sentiments, and perhaps you share them, that the Church should not get involved in this political issue, that the Church is endangering its tax-exempt status, that the Church needs to learn where to draw the line between political questions and moral issues, etc. I have also heard Latter-day Saints question: What does it affect me? How does this issue harm my marriage? Even if gay and lesbian couples can "marry," what harm will come of that? Who am I to impose my moral views on others?
I, for one, am shocked at what I have heard. Do we sustain President Monson as a prophet, seer, and revelator, or not? If the prophet says support Prop. 8, you can bet your boots I'm supporting Prop. 8. I know President Monson is a prophet and I know that when he speaks as a prophet of God, he is distilling upon us prophetic insight. What harm can come of gay marriage? No puny mortal can possibly imagine all the potential harm. But God knows; and I thank Him for His prophet on Earth to issue a prophetic voice of warning to us.
I firmly believe that times are only going to get more divisive -- the gulf between where we stand as Latter-day Saints and where the world is headed is only going to widen. As this gulf widens, we will not be able to continue speaking in pleasant conciliatory tones without compromising our own convictions. Consequently, I am eternally grateful we have prophets, seers, and revelators, who have spoken as plainly and as clearly as they have. I am grateful for the counsel we have received to continually keep our arms open in the spirit of love and fellowship for our brothers and sisters who struggle with the inclination of same-sex attraction while maintaining our firm resolve that marriage, which is central to our Father's Plan, is nothing short of a divinely appointed relationship between a man and woman.
I am convinced that the Church will speak out on moral issues more frequently in the future as more and more of those moral issues continue to make their way onto our ballots. If the Lord's servants speak to such issues, our safest assurance is to listen and hearken.
Who are we to impose our sense of morality upon society? We are citizens of that society and have an obligation to strive to define its moral contours. Moreover, we are citizens of God's kingdom here on Earth and have covenanted to stand as witnesses of God at all times, in all things, and in all places. If we sit quietly, then we have failed.
Saturday, July 26, 2008
Believing IN Al Gore and Believing Al Gore
Besides Jurassic Park in middle school, this is the only Michael Crichton book I've ever read. After reading it, I've relegated him to my "Dan Brown" list; i.e., authors who write compulsively readable material that has essentially no redemptive value from an artistic perspective. Not to be confused with guilty pleasures (like, in my case for instance, Orson Scott Card), there is nothing pleasurable about the experience. Its the difference between cheesecake and cheesepuffs; in both cases I can't help but eat the food, but only in one do I enjoy it while eating.
Specific things that struck me as miserable about this book: 1) Narrow scope of cursing. I mean, c'mon, expand your expletive vocabularly beyond the words that start with "f." 2) Strawmen: he was great at setting them up and knocking them down. It was like he wanted us to be impressed with hitting a home run off a tee. With a juiced ball. In a little league park. From somewhere around 2nd base. 3) Two dimensional characters. A few characters actually had fewer. In fact, that lawyer neice of Kenner had no dimension at all, so far as I could tell. I have no idea why she was even introduced to the story. 4) Well, let's not beat a dead horse. Suffice it to say, great literature this is not.
Now, to the policy issue, I did find the book useful in goading me to examine my own feelings about global warming and climate change a bit more. Here's my most cogent thought:
"Believing" in global warming has lots of different levels:
1) Believing that, on average, the temperature on the surface of the earth is currently increasing
2) Believing that the increase is anthropogenic
3) Believing that the primary anthropogenic factor is carbon dioxide/greenhouse gases
4) Believing that the Global Climate Models accurately project the effects of increased greenhouse gases
5) Believing that the costs associated with limiting greenhouse gas emissions are worth the benefits
So where do I find myself?
(1) I feel pretty confident; I don't think a cabal is manipulating the data.
(2) I've become more confident in recent years. I used to doubt this quite a bit. I can't think of any specific thing that won me over to anthropogenic warming rather than a natural trend in the earth's climate cycle, but I'm pretty well won over at this point.
(3) Well, now things get a little dicey for me. I don't know whether Crichton's "urban heat island" effect is a good explanation, or whether there might be other unexplored ideas, but I can tenatively accept this proposition.
(4) Here I'm pretty well completely off the ship. I don't believe that any of the long range forecasts are remotely accurate. As far as I can tell, neither do the climate scientists. The system is far too complex, the variables too intertwined. This is why climate scientists don't issue predictions; they offer projections. It's because they are unable and unwilling to explore the full variable space, so instead they make some pretty curves and call it something else, even though they know people will assume it has some bearing in objective reality. And this is precisely where the hysteria does in fact set in. For more on this, I like the series of blog posts on the blog Prometheus by Roger Pielke, Jr. (a political scientist who often works with his climatologist father) in late 2007/early 2008 in which he attempted to evaluate the quality of major projections that have been made over the last 20 years. I was going to do the same thing, so I appreciated that he already did the leg work. You can see the index of the various attempts at verification/refutation of the predictions here.
(5) And finally, I don't think the massive expenditures of wealth and shackling of industry is worth it, given the complete (to my mind) uncertainty of outcome. I think the idea that any developing country is going to voluntarily limit greenhouse gases is naive in the extreme. I think that most of the proposals are deeply flawed (although if I had to choose one I would hold my nose and pick Carbon taxes. I think "cap and trade" is a recipe for maintaining global inequality).
On the balance, I think clean air and more balanced land use (less slash and burn in developing countries, reforestation in America/Europe) is a better goal for ecological effort than limiting GHG output.
Final thought: the chief scientist for BP did a very engaging lecture on the future of energy at Lincoln Lab recently. He's given similar lectures elsewhere, and here is a youtube link of his presentation (he begins around 8:00 in). There are tons and tons of numbers and charts and stats in this presentation, which (as a stats head) I really like. Koonin confronts the energy question from two sides: 1) global warming and 2) security. There's interesting things throughout, and if you have an hour to burn you could certainly do worse, but the things I found most interesting were how much of our global energy is spent on transportation (20%) vs. electricity (40%) vs. heating (40%). So when we think about conservation, don't just jump to buying a Prius. There are other significant steps that should be taken.
Real final thought: I think the likely future path is an almost immediate (i.e. within five years) move to electric vehicles. Watch out for the Chevy Volt, coming out next year. As a result, we will consume less foreign oil, which will make security types (like me) happy. However, we will consume more coal (the primary source of electricity in the US) which will make the GHG people angry, since for an equivalent amount of energy, coal releases twice as much GHG as oil. But they won't have the same traction with the general populace, because people feel less bad about polluting when it isn't coming out of their own tailpipe.
Specific things that struck me as miserable about this book: 1) Narrow scope of cursing. I mean, c'mon, expand your expletive vocabularly beyond the words that start with "f." 2) Strawmen: he was great at setting them up and knocking them down. It was like he wanted us to be impressed with hitting a home run off a tee. With a juiced ball. In a little league park. From somewhere around 2nd base. 3) Two dimensional characters. A few characters actually had fewer. In fact, that lawyer neice of Kenner had no dimension at all, so far as I could tell. I have no idea why she was even introduced to the story. 4) Well, let's not beat a dead horse. Suffice it to say, great literature this is not.
Now, to the policy issue, I did find the book useful in goading me to examine my own feelings about global warming and climate change a bit more. Here's my most cogent thought:
"Believing" in global warming has lots of different levels:
1) Believing that, on average, the temperature on the surface of the earth is currently increasing
2) Believing that the increase is anthropogenic
3) Believing that the primary anthropogenic factor is carbon dioxide/greenhouse gases
4) Believing that the Global Climate Models accurately project the effects of increased greenhouse gases
5) Believing that the costs associated with limiting greenhouse gas emissions are worth the benefits
So where do I find myself?
(1) I feel pretty confident; I don't think a cabal is manipulating the data.
(2) I've become more confident in recent years. I used to doubt this quite a bit. I can't think of any specific thing that won me over to anthropogenic warming rather than a natural trend in the earth's climate cycle, but I'm pretty well won over at this point.
(3) Well, now things get a little dicey for me. I don't know whether Crichton's "urban heat island" effect is a good explanation, or whether there might be other unexplored ideas, but I can tenatively accept this proposition.
(4) Here I'm pretty well completely off the ship. I don't believe that any of the long range forecasts are remotely accurate. As far as I can tell, neither do the climate scientists. The system is far too complex, the variables too intertwined. This is why climate scientists don't issue predictions; they offer projections. It's because they are unable and unwilling to explore the full variable space, so instead they make some pretty curves and call it something else, even though they know people will assume it has some bearing in objective reality. And this is precisely where the hysteria does in fact set in. For more on this, I like the series of blog posts on the blog Prometheus by Roger Pielke, Jr. (a political scientist who often works with his climatologist father) in late 2007/early 2008 in which he attempted to evaluate the quality of major projections that have been made over the last 20 years. I was going to do the same thing, so I appreciated that he already did the leg work. You can see the index of the various attempts at verification/refutation of the predictions here.
(5) And finally, I don't think the massive expenditures of wealth and shackling of industry is worth it, given the complete (to my mind) uncertainty of outcome. I think the idea that any developing country is going to voluntarily limit greenhouse gases is naive in the extreme. I think that most of the proposals are deeply flawed (although if I had to choose one I would hold my nose and pick Carbon taxes. I think "cap and trade" is a recipe for maintaining global inequality).
On the balance, I think clean air and more balanced land use (less slash and burn in developing countries, reforestation in America/Europe) is a better goal for ecological effort than limiting GHG output.
Final thought: the chief scientist for BP did a very engaging lecture on the future of energy at Lincoln Lab recently. He's given similar lectures elsewhere, and here is a youtube link of his presentation (he begins around 8:00 in). There are tons and tons of numbers and charts and stats in this presentation, which (as a stats head) I really like. Koonin confronts the energy question from two sides: 1) global warming and 2) security. There's interesting things throughout, and if you have an hour to burn you could certainly do worse, but the things I found most interesting were how much of our global energy is spent on transportation (20%) vs. electricity (40%) vs. heating (40%). So when we think about conservation, don't just jump to buying a Prius. There are other significant steps that should be taken.
Real final thought: I think the likely future path is an almost immediate (i.e. within five years) move to electric vehicles. Watch out for the Chevy Volt, coming out next year. As a result, we will consume less foreign oil, which will make security types (like me) happy. However, we will consume more coal (the primary source of electricity in the US) which will make the GHG people angry, since for an equivalent amount of energy, coal releases twice as much GHG as oil. But they won't have the same traction with the general populace, because people feel less bad about polluting when it isn't coming out of their own tailpipe.
Friday, July 25, 2008
My perspective(s) on the rightness of judicial decisions
Hmm, with regards to Jesse's statement, "Karl mentioned his dislike for the term 'legislating from the bench'; that is, he thought it exaggerated or inappropriate or overused or...", I'm glad someone's managed to clearly explain what I mean :)
It dawned on me that I never responded to Jesse's question, so I suppose I should.
The relativist in me says no, the Supreme Court cannot wrongly decide a case, because, legally speaking, right and wrong changes as society changes, and we, via our constitution, have entrusted them to be the ultimate authorities as to what is right or wrong in our society.
I suppose they could actually make a technical legal error independent from any interpretation of "right" or "wrong." But that's not going to happen too often with how rigourously their decisions are reviewed, and besides I don't think that's what the question was getting at.
From an absolute moral standpoint, yes they can make a "wrong" decision. But seeing as there's only one person I trust on absolute morals (and it's not me), I don't think it does a lot of good for us, as a society, to classify decisions as right/wrong from an absolute moral standpoint. Besides, the court is not intended to be an authority on absolute morality.
Now, another option is would be to say that the Court's rightness depends on how well it substitutes as a proxy for the prevailing social attitudes in the current historical context. But what if they make a decision that runs counter to prevailing social attitudes? Is that wrong? Again, such a classification is not very useful because it requires that one can capture, at any time, the exact social attitudes of the nation. But, even if one could do that, I don't particulalry favor this perspective because in the past they've made decisions that I'm fairly certain ran counter to then-prevailing social attitiudes, but that would today be considered "right."
Here's yet another perspective on it... One of the best aspects of our American system is that we have a judiciary to keep government in check. Unfortunately, we have to rely on humans to serve the function of the judiciary, and so we inevitably are going to disagree with our judiciary some of the time. However, to preserve the integrity of the system, we must operate under the assumption that the Court produces "right" results. When they produce results with which we disagree, we can work within the system to change the law and/or social sentiment, thereby creating different results. But until the law is changed, the Court's decision is still "right." In fact, by acting in compliance with the result, impute "rightness" to the result.
Not quite sure where I'm going with these different perspectives, other than to say that, from a legal perspective, I do not believe that the Court is likely to ever be "wrong" within the current historical moment. Barring technical errors, the only time a decision may ever be classified as legally wrong is when a decision is later overturned by the Court itself.
From my personal perspective, the Court can reach decisions that yield "wrong" results--i.e. results to which I am opposed. But I would be very reluctant to say that a still-standing decision was itself "wrong" or "incorrect."
It dawned on me that I never responded to Jesse's question, so I suppose I should.
The relativist in me says no, the Supreme Court cannot wrongly decide a case, because, legally speaking, right and wrong changes as society changes, and we, via our constitution, have entrusted them to be the ultimate authorities as to what is right or wrong in our society.
I suppose they could actually make a technical legal error independent from any interpretation of "right" or "wrong." But that's not going to happen too often with how rigourously their decisions are reviewed, and besides I don't think that's what the question was getting at.
From an absolute moral standpoint, yes they can make a "wrong" decision. But seeing as there's only one person I trust on absolute morals (and it's not me), I don't think it does a lot of good for us, as a society, to classify decisions as right/wrong from an absolute moral standpoint. Besides, the court is not intended to be an authority on absolute morality.
Now, another option is would be to say that the Court's rightness depends on how well it substitutes as a proxy for the prevailing social attitudes in the current historical context. But what if they make a decision that runs counter to prevailing social attitudes? Is that wrong? Again, such a classification is not very useful because it requires that one can capture, at any time, the exact social attitudes of the nation. But, even if one could do that, I don't particulalry favor this perspective because in the past they've made decisions that I'm fairly certain ran counter to then-prevailing social attitiudes, but that would today be considered "right."
Here's yet another perspective on it... One of the best aspects of our American system is that we have a judiciary to keep government in check. Unfortunately, we have to rely on humans to serve the function of the judiciary, and so we inevitably are going to disagree with our judiciary some of the time. However, to preserve the integrity of the system, we must operate under the assumption that the Court produces "right" results. When they produce results with which we disagree, we can work within the system to change the law and/or social sentiment, thereby creating different results. But until the law is changed, the Court's decision is still "right." In fact, by acting in compliance with the result, impute "rightness" to the result.
Not quite sure where I'm going with these different perspectives, other than to say that, from a legal perspective, I do not believe that the Court is likely to ever be "wrong" within the current historical moment. Barring technical errors, the only time a decision may ever be classified as legally wrong is when a decision is later overturned by the Court itself.
From my personal perspective, the Court can reach decisions that yield "wrong" results--i.e. results to which I am opposed. But I would be very reluctant to say that a still-standing decision was itself "wrong" or "incorrect."
Judiciary (Re: Scott)
To clarify:
Karl mentioned his dislike for the term "legislating from the bench"; that is, he thought it exaggerated or inappropriate or overused or...well read his post to understand what he meant. I obviously was not advocating "legislating from the bench" by asking him to clarify why he disliked the term.
My questions were (are) twofold:
1. Is it possible for the Supreme Court to wrongly decide a case
2. If your answer to #1 is yes, tell me how you would know it was wrongly decided
Your answers if I understand them were:
1. Yes
2. ? When you disagree with them? Or when the majority of people do? Or when some group (you, me, a majority, maybe everyone) deems something racist? Or if 50+ years later most everyone agrees it was wrong?
I'm not sure I clearly understand your view on question 2. Suppose the court made a decision today. How would you know whether it was wrongly decided? On what basis would you make an argument with someone who disagreed with you?
Karl mentioned his dislike for the term "legislating from the bench"; that is, he thought it exaggerated or inappropriate or overused or...well read his post to understand what he meant. I obviously was not advocating "legislating from the bench" by asking him to clarify why he disliked the term.
My questions were (are) twofold:
1. Is it possible for the Supreme Court to wrongly decide a case
2. If your answer to #1 is yes, tell me how you would know it was wrongly decided
Your answers if I understand them were:
1. Yes
2. ? When you disagree with them? Or when the majority of people do? Or when some group (you, me, a majority, maybe everyone) deems something racist? Or if 50+ years later most everyone agrees it was wrong?
I'm not sure I clearly understand your view on question 2. Suppose the court made a decision today. How would you know whether it was wrongly decided? On what basis would you make an argument with someone who disagreed with you?
Weather and Other Weapons of Mass Destruction
Let me start by saying that I love having this forum to discuss interesting topics with intelligent people. I'm glad that there are a wide variety of opinions and ideas. Thanks Peter, for getting this started and organizing it. In reference to your book choice, I'd really enjoy a discussion on the temple, so that would be my first choice. But I'd be happy with any of the three choices.
As for this month's book, I have only read the cover page and the bibliography/appendix thing at the back, but I am very impressed with the title. How our fears shape our public decision making is a very interesting topic.
In my contemplation this morning, I found a surprising number of parallels between global warming and the war in Iraq. Let me explain.
Pollution vs. Saddam Hussein
Saddam was a problem for a number of years. Nobody in the world argued the assertion that Saddam was a bad man, doing lots of bad things. However, this in and of itself was not enough to justify our invasion of Iraq. Not even after he invaded Kuwait. An invasion of Iraq needed to be justified by a bigger fear (see below). Similarly, no one is arguing that pollution is bad.
Global Warming vs. Weapons of Mass Destruction
Saddam alone wasn't worth the sacrifice of American lives and money, but Saddam with WMDs is an unimaginable worst case scenario that justified the cost. Similarly, pollution alone isn't worth the cost of slowing down our economy and the extra burden, but global warming and the unimaginable thought of "Waterworld", "The Day After Tomorrow" or "Wall-E", now that's worth sacrificing for.
Consensus
Not fair, you say. We KNOW there is global warming, but we didn't know if there were WMDs. I agree, we do know there is global warming, but we don't know if it will be catastrophic. That's a key difference. We knew that Saddam had weapons, just not weapons of mass destruction. We knew that Saddam was avoiding UN inspectors and acting like he had WMDs. There was a consensus in the political community that Saddam had WMDs, even among those that didn't go to war with us. Which leads to my next point...
No Coalition
Bush gets ripped to shreds for not forming a broad coalition before going into Iraq. He called it leadership. We are, after all, the only superpower. Now, there's a call for leadership in climate change without the agreement of important contributers, namely China and India.
Going in without the right plan
According to the great vision of hindsight, many have said that we could have avoided many of the problems in Iraq if we had just gone in with the right plan. Well, personally I think that many environmentalists have been going about things the wrong way. From what I've read, biofuels and wind power don't appear to be the solutions they've been touted to be. I think the cap and trade system will be a bureaucratic mess that will have very little impact on our net Carbon emissions.
Al Gore vs. Dick Cheney
Haliburton benefitted nicely from the war in Iraq, and similarly, many of the todays most fervent environmentalists will have "greener" wallets as the global warming movement picks up steam.
How long we'll be there
For some, the problem with Iraq wasn't that we went in, but that we can't get back out. Similarly, if the government bolsters up its payrolls with green collar workers, I imagine it will be tough to let those workers off when the job is over. It's never politically popular to let people go. And the effects of a cap and trade system will linger just as long as our troops stay in Iraq.
The "What if..." factor
Getting out of Iraq is complicated by several fears and hopes, namely the fear of a terrorist breeding ground if we leave and the hope of a democratic Iraq and eventually a democratic Middle East. History may one day see George Bush as a hero and one of our greatest presidents. Stranger things have happened. Interestingly, it's the fear, more than the hope that drives people's opinions. Similarly, the fear of cataclysmic weather is much more motivating than the hope of a pristine environment. The "What If..." factor will ensure that we never leave Iraq and that we will always worry and legislate our effect on the environment.
My Conclusion
There are intelligent people that support the war in Iraq, and there are more intelligent people that support drastic government intervention to reduce our impact on the environment. I respect both groups, even though often they are either of vastly different political persuasions or they voted for McCain. I don't know the correctness of either cause. There will always be that "What if..." factor. However, I have stopped believing the argument that there are people smarter than me that have a lot more information than I do, and that I should just trust them. (Note: I have no doubt that there are people smarter than me and with more experience, but I now require a higher level of evidence from them. If they're so smart, they should be able to explain it to me and not just require me to trust them. (Note: That means if they want me to trust a computer model's output for 10 years down the road, they should start by predicting one year down the road.))
I know it's becoming a bit cliche to blame Bush, but I like to blame him for making me more cynical. I got sucked into the justification for the war in Iraq, thinking that he had access to information that I didn't, and when I felt deceived later, I tried to learn from my mistakes. After the dot.com bubble, you've got to recognize the signs of a housing bubble. While I think that a big government-backed environmental movement is inevitable, I still have a faint hope that they will go in with a good plan.
In the meantime, I will try to do my part to help the environment. We recycle, and while I don't bike to work like Paul, I do work from home 2 days a week. And if the government wants to save the environment, they can ask me to work from home every day.
As for this month's book, I have only read the cover page and the bibliography/appendix thing at the back, but I am very impressed with the title. How our fears shape our public decision making is a very interesting topic.
In my contemplation this morning, I found a surprising number of parallels between global warming and the war in Iraq. Let me explain.
Pollution vs. Saddam Hussein
Saddam was a problem for a number of years. Nobody in the world argued the assertion that Saddam was a bad man, doing lots of bad things. However, this in and of itself was not enough to justify our invasion of Iraq. Not even after he invaded Kuwait. An invasion of Iraq needed to be justified by a bigger fear (see below). Similarly, no one is arguing that pollution is bad.
Global Warming vs. Weapons of Mass Destruction
Saddam alone wasn't worth the sacrifice of American lives and money, but Saddam with WMDs is an unimaginable worst case scenario that justified the cost. Similarly, pollution alone isn't worth the cost of slowing down our economy and the extra burden, but global warming and the unimaginable thought of "Waterworld", "The Day After Tomorrow" or "Wall-E", now that's worth sacrificing for.
Consensus
Not fair, you say. We KNOW there is global warming, but we didn't know if there were WMDs. I agree, we do know there is global warming, but we don't know if it will be catastrophic. That's a key difference. We knew that Saddam had weapons, just not weapons of mass destruction. We knew that Saddam was avoiding UN inspectors and acting like he had WMDs. There was a consensus in the political community that Saddam had WMDs, even among those that didn't go to war with us. Which leads to my next point...
No Coalition
Bush gets ripped to shreds for not forming a broad coalition before going into Iraq. He called it leadership. We are, after all, the only superpower. Now, there's a call for leadership in climate change without the agreement of important contributers, namely China and India.
Going in without the right plan
According to the great vision of hindsight, many have said that we could have avoided many of the problems in Iraq if we had just gone in with the right plan. Well, personally I think that many environmentalists have been going about things the wrong way. From what I've read, biofuels and wind power don't appear to be the solutions they've been touted to be. I think the cap and trade system will be a bureaucratic mess that will have very little impact on our net Carbon emissions.
Al Gore vs. Dick Cheney
Haliburton benefitted nicely from the war in Iraq, and similarly, many of the todays most fervent environmentalists will have "greener" wallets as the global warming movement picks up steam.
How long we'll be there
For some, the problem with Iraq wasn't that we went in, but that we can't get back out. Similarly, if the government bolsters up its payrolls with green collar workers, I imagine it will be tough to let those workers off when the job is over. It's never politically popular to let people go. And the effects of a cap and trade system will linger just as long as our troops stay in Iraq.
The "What if..." factor
Getting out of Iraq is complicated by several fears and hopes, namely the fear of a terrorist breeding ground if we leave and the hope of a democratic Iraq and eventually a democratic Middle East. History may one day see George Bush as a hero and one of our greatest presidents. Stranger things have happened. Interestingly, it's the fear, more than the hope that drives people's opinions. Similarly, the fear of cataclysmic weather is much more motivating than the hope of a pristine environment. The "What If..." factor will ensure that we never leave Iraq and that we will always worry and legislate our effect on the environment.
My Conclusion
There are intelligent people that support the war in Iraq, and there are more intelligent people that support drastic government intervention to reduce our impact on the environment. I respect both groups, even though often they are either of vastly different political persuasions or they voted for McCain. I don't know the correctness of either cause. There will always be that "What if..." factor. However, I have stopped believing the argument that there are people smarter than me that have a lot more information than I do, and that I should just trust them. (Note: I have no doubt that there are people smarter than me and with more experience, but I now require a higher level of evidence from them. If they're so smart, they should be able to explain it to me and not just require me to trust them. (Note: That means if they want me to trust a computer model's output for 10 years down the road, they should start by predicting one year down the road.))
I know it's becoming a bit cliche to blame Bush, but I like to blame him for making me more cynical. I got sucked into the justification for the war in Iraq, thinking that he had access to information that I didn't, and when I felt deceived later, I tried to learn from my mistakes. After the dot.com bubble, you've got to recognize the signs of a housing bubble. While I think that a big government-backed environmental movement is inevitable, I still have a faint hope that they will go in with a good plan.
In the meantime, I will try to do my part to help the environment. We recycle, and while I don't bike to work like Paul, I do work from home 2 days a week. And if the government wants to save the environment, they can ask me to work from home every day.
Wednesday, July 23, 2008
State of Fear Thoughts
I picked this book because I thought it would spawn some constructive thinking regarding global warming. As an aside, while I was flattered by so much prelude to an average novel which has already faded into relative obscurity, (is that because of the heretics, or because the religion of global warming has caught on? more on this in a sec.), I resisted the temptation to make serious comments back because (1) I thought you'd enjoy the novel more if I didn't talk it up or put it down (I think this would be a good rule), (2) I didn't want to express an opinion if I were to be burned at the carbon emissions stake, and (3) I wanted some more time to think about it. Obviously, there are some strong opinions (and facts!) involved in our group, and I don't mean to offend. Here goes:
About the Novel:
I didn't think the plot was very good, the characters were either too flat or too convincible, and I was almost bored at the “exciting conclusion”. That being said, I had read the book before I picked it, and I still picked it, because I like Chrichton's research—he looks into something, then takes a wild leap. For example, while cloning may be a reality, dinosaurs are still extinct—the same thought could apply to this book. The bibliography at the end was unparalleled for fiction and though the appendix had some weak sauce charts, I liked it as well.
About Global Warming:
I believe in global warming, the same way I believe in gravity or relativity. I don't think anyone would argue with these beliefs. I even believe, presumptive as it is, that humans can have an impact on the global temperature to some degree. I believe there may be other factors. These are all relatively scientific statements that somehow we've become comfortable with as “beliefs,” when they're really just facts. I enjoyed the article about environmentalism as religion to which Alvin pointed us, and I would refer you to it if you haven't read it.
I haven't done any personal research, and I've only read a little about it, but I can accept the fact that if you put CO2 in the air, energy will get trapped, and the global temperature on the whole has risen recently. I also enjoyed the website Karl pointed out, and would refer you to it as well. I don't feel particularly educated in this area, but having scratched the surface, I don't feel that I have the time I believe I would need to research to get to that point.
However, I think that there are present and practical reasons to “Go Green”--speculation has driven the cost of oil higher and higher. I like clean air and water, too. Personally, I ride my bike to work, live in a state with one of the higher percentages of renewable resources, and am studying to become a USGreenBuildingCouncil LEED (Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design) Accredited Professional.
The consumption of may change in 30 years, but the US is to coal as Saudia Arabia is to oil, and I don't foresee us getting rid of coal for a while. In my opinion we need now to establish Nuclear power, with electric and/or hydrogen fuel cell vehicles. We need to do this now, because the infrastructure will take time.
Off my soap box—some questions:
Did you hate it how Evans is slowly convinced about the “falsities of global warming”? I think Chrichton does this a lot in his books, and it bugged a little in this book.
Is environmentalism a religion? Do most people understand global warming? Can we? Can we change the climate? Can we reverse our warming trend? Should we?
I consider myself a conservationalist, in that I think we should keep what we've got, clean up after ourselves and not destroy the beauty of the earth. What should I be doing to save the earth?
Is there anything good about buying carbon credits, or is it pure bunk?
About the Novel:
I didn't think the plot was very good, the characters were either too flat or too convincible, and I was almost bored at the “exciting conclusion”. That being said, I had read the book before I picked it, and I still picked it, because I like Chrichton's research—he looks into something, then takes a wild leap. For example, while cloning may be a reality, dinosaurs are still extinct—the same thought could apply to this book. The bibliography at the end was unparalleled for fiction and though the appendix had some weak sauce charts, I liked it as well.
About Global Warming:
I believe in global warming, the same way I believe in gravity or relativity. I don't think anyone would argue with these beliefs. I even believe, presumptive as it is, that humans can have an impact on the global temperature to some degree. I believe there may be other factors. These are all relatively scientific statements that somehow we've become comfortable with as “beliefs,” when they're really just facts. I enjoyed the article about environmentalism as religion to which Alvin pointed us, and I would refer you to it if you haven't read it.
I haven't done any personal research, and I've only read a little about it, but I can accept the fact that if you put CO2 in the air, energy will get trapped, and the global temperature on the whole has risen recently. I also enjoyed the website Karl pointed out, and would refer you to it as well. I don't feel particularly educated in this area, but having scratched the surface, I don't feel that I have the time I believe I would need to research to get to that point.
However, I think that there are present and practical reasons to “Go Green”--speculation has driven the cost of oil higher and higher. I like clean air and water, too. Personally, I ride my bike to work, live in a state with one of the higher percentages of renewable resources, and am studying to become a USGreenBuildingCouncil LEED (Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design) Accredited Professional.
The consumption of may change in 30 years, but the US is to coal as Saudia Arabia is to oil, and I don't foresee us getting rid of coal for a while. In my opinion we need now to establish Nuclear power, with electric and/or hydrogen fuel cell vehicles. We need to do this now, because the infrastructure will take time.
Off my soap box—some questions:
Did you hate it how Evans is slowly convinced about the “falsities of global warming”? I think Chrichton does this a lot in his books, and it bugged a little in this book.
Is environmentalism a religion? Do most people understand global warming? Can we? Can we change the climate? Can we reverse our warming trend? Should we?
I consider myself a conservationalist, in that I think we should keep what we've got, clean up after ourselves and not destroy the beauty of the earth. What should I be doing to save the earth?
Is there anything good about buying carbon credits, or is it pure bunk?
September's Book
I'd like some input on September's book. I have three possibilities in mind:
1) Most preferred: Andrew Skinner's Temple Worship: 20 Truths that will Bless Your Life. I took a class on Jerusalem from Dr. Skinner and found him insightful. The drawback of this option is I doubt anyone could get it through their library system.
2) Second preferred: Fareed Zakaria's Post-American World. I find Zakaria to be a very insightful voice with regards to foreign policy. This is a recent book, and so is probably in high demand in local library systems. I've got a request in, but don't imagine I'll see the book for at least several weeks.
3) Least preferred (but still a great option): JFK's Profiles in Courage. Although it was evidently ghostwritten by an adviser, I've found the vignettes of US Statesmen who stand up for what they believe in regardless of consequences to be inspiring in a Mr. Smith Goes to Washington way.
If I get no input I'll probably choose the first. If anyone doesn't feel that's feasible, let me know (either in the comments or private email) and I'll choose one of the other two.
1) Most preferred: Andrew Skinner's Temple Worship: 20 Truths that will Bless Your Life. I took a class on Jerusalem from Dr. Skinner and found him insightful. The drawback of this option is I doubt anyone could get it through their library system.
2) Second preferred: Fareed Zakaria's Post-American World. I find Zakaria to be a very insightful voice with regards to foreign policy. This is a recent book, and so is probably in high demand in local library systems. I've got a request in, but don't imagine I'll see the book for at least several weeks.
3) Least preferred (but still a great option): JFK's Profiles in Courage. Although it was evidently ghostwritten by an adviser, I've found the vignettes of US Statesmen who stand up for what they believe in regardless of consequences to be inspiring in a Mr. Smith Goes to Washington way.
If I get no input I'll probably choose the first. If anyone doesn't feel that's feasible, let me know (either in the comments or private email) and I'll choose one of the other two.
August Book, and more on SSM
Next month's book
So I just remembered that I have the book choice for next month (and I just realized that July is almost over). I had originally thought to do Obama's first book, "Dreams of My Father," but I'm all politicked out right now. (FYI, the book has very little to do with politics, and was written at a time when he was still pretty far removed from the political arena, which is why I think it's a very good way to judge his character).
Instead, I've selected The Third Policeman. It's a surrealist story by a not very widely known Irish author named Flann O'Brien. I read a review in the Atlantic on it a while back that peaked my interest (the connections to Lost helped as well).
I've not read it yet, but I have no reason to suspect objectionable content. I will warn people if I find any. I do, however, suspect that some may find it to be a very odd read, so you might want to read some of the reviews before deciding whether or not to buy it.
More on SSM
(this started as part of a comment on Peter's last post, and just started to get too big)
Regarding court decisions on SSM, I do believe that our governments, in basing any sort of law or benefit on marital status, and furthermore by creating mechanisms by which to "validate" a marriage, have created a government-sponsored institution of marriage. If government creates an institution, it also creates a right for individuals who meet the necessary criteria to belong to that institution. Therefore, the right to marry does exists. Just because there are qualifications on that right, does not mean it is not a right--e.g., there are many qualifications on free speech, nonetheless, it is a right.
The question before the courts, in my mind, was "is there a compeling reason for making gender a criteria for the right to marry?" The courts could not think of such a reason, and therefore they did what they had to do. It was this exact same framework that brought about the civil rights movement, and it is exactly this kind of purpose for which our judiciary exists. Now, the burden is upon the legislative branch to either write laws for which there is a clear and compelling secular reason, or upon us as a people to amend the constitution to explicitly define this right to marry.
Personally, I believe that, barring some compelling secular reason that I've so far not seen formulated, government should be marriage-agnostic. It should remove any reference to marriage in its laws and procedures. From a religious standpoint, does it really matter whether government recognizes my marriage?
So I just remembered that I have the book choice for next month (and I just realized that July is almost over). I had originally thought to do Obama's first book, "Dreams of My Father," but I'm all politicked out right now. (FYI, the book has very little to do with politics, and was written at a time when he was still pretty far removed from the political arena, which is why I think it's a very good way to judge his character).
Instead, I've selected The Third Policeman. It's a surrealist story by a not very widely known Irish author named Flann O'Brien. I read a review in the Atlantic on it a while back that peaked my interest (the connections to Lost helped as well).
I've not read it yet, but I have no reason to suspect objectionable content. I will warn people if I find any. I do, however, suspect that some may find it to be a very odd read, so you might want to read some of the reviews before deciding whether or not to buy it.
More on SSM
(this started as part of a comment on Peter's last post, and just started to get too big)
Regarding court decisions on SSM, I do believe that our governments, in basing any sort of law or benefit on marital status, and furthermore by creating mechanisms by which to "validate" a marriage, have created a government-sponsored institution of marriage. If government creates an institution, it also creates a right for individuals who meet the necessary criteria to belong to that institution. Therefore, the right to marry does exists. Just because there are qualifications on that right, does not mean it is not a right--e.g., there are many qualifications on free speech, nonetheless, it is a right.
The question before the courts, in my mind, was "is there a compeling reason for making gender a criteria for the right to marry?" The courts could not think of such a reason, and therefore they did what they had to do. It was this exact same framework that brought about the civil rights movement, and it is exactly this kind of purpose for which our judiciary exists. Now, the burden is upon the legislative branch to either write laws for which there is a clear and compelling secular reason, or upon us as a people to amend the constitution to explicitly define this right to marry.
Personally, I believe that, barring some compelling secular reason that I've so far not seen formulated, government should be marriage-agnostic. It should remove any reference to marriage in its laws and procedures. From a religious standpoint, does it really matter whether government recognizes my marriage?
Tuesday, July 22, 2008
Peter's Bric-a-brac
State of Fear: Paul, it's been a month since our last book club. I don't know if you've been thinking about what you want to post in re Michael Crichton's polemic, but I'd certainly be interested in your thoughts. I have my own, but I'll wait until you've opened things.
Constitutional Law: I really enjoyed Christopher's post regarding the Constitution and how it should be interpreted. Based largely on the bad taste in my mouth after the MA SSM decision, which had no basis in law IMO, I spent some time as a strict originalist. But, thinking about the historical role of judges I feel that the sort of originalism propounded by Justice Scalia is a bit farther than I'm willing to go; judges should be (I feel) the wise men of society who can balance the letter and the spirit of the law. That said, I feel law has become troublingly politicized, particularly due to the balkanization of the US Supreme Court and several high profile legislative battles over Federal Circuit appointees.
Same Sex Marriage: Living in MA, having gone to the only gay wedding to which I've been invited (after much inner conflict), I find that my personal acquaintance with the practice has not significantly impacted my feelings about it as far as I can tell.
I believe marriage is a social construct; that its only meaning is what we as a society imbue it with. As such, I do not accept that "equal marriage" is an inherent right. The question I see the point revolving on is whether we as a society want to weaken the construct sufficiently to allow for same sex couples. Historically there have been far less strict interpretations of what "marriage" means; globally there are very different interpretations on what "marriage" means. I'm not too worked up over the possibility of a definitional change. Although individually I oppose it and vote that way, if society chooses to accept it I'm not going to go about wringing my hands.
I do get worked up, however, with any arguments in favor of SSM that assert a "right to marry" or that focus on logistical (i.e. inheritance, hospital visitation, etc.), rather than definitional aspects of marriage. I'm leary of the assertion of "rights" beyond a basic few, and don't see historical or popular support for the assertion of this particular "right." Since the question, to me, is not one of "rights," the procedure calls for legislative deliberation and popular votes to determine the central question of whether homosexual relationships belong to the marriage construct, with all the social acceptance that membership entails. If society does not believe that, then the government has no place dictating an different position.
I feel that the push to legalize SSM through judicial rather than legislative methods is largely an effort to use the power of government as a method to force a change in the social construct, rather than the more appropriate process of legislating to reconcile the government with what the construct has become. I see this particularly in MA where the legal battle became essentially a public relations method for recognition of the validity of same-sex relationships. It was an anti-populist attempt to compel change in the hearts and minds of the populace, which I see as a poor legal precedent.
I disagree both with the MA and CA SSM decisions; in both cases the courts recognized a right that I don't believe exists, i.e. the "right to marry." Precedence appeals to the end of miscegnation (which, IIRC, were part of the written decisions in both state cases) I think are faulty; you could equally well (to my mind) say the refutation of it as a right is established by minimum age laws, cousin (or sibling) laws, or polyandry laws. I don't know if that makes sense, but my point is simply that using an example of expansion (interracial marriage) to assert a right to marry while ignoring examples of contractions (close-relative marriage) is either disingenuous or illogical.
My Political Philosophy: I generally see myself as a classic conservative in the vein of Edmund Burke. This is neither the conservatism of the current Republican Party, nor the individual rights conservatism that Jesse has propounded. It has more to do with an ideological resistance to change, which in my case is coupled with a distrust of pure reason as a basis for policy. I generally believe that policies already in place are wise, and am pessimistic that changes in policy will lead to intended benefits nor that they will avoid unintended negative consequences. I see an inspiration for this in Burke's principles in supporting the American revolution but rejecting the French revolution. In general, I identify more with the "liberal" wing of the Republican party, and view Bush pere as a better president than either Ronald Reagan or Bush fils.
When asked, rather than Republican or Democrat, I usually identify myself as Communitarian. Like Libertarians, Communitarians find themselves on both sides of the two-party split. But instead of a focus on individual rights and liberties (as in Libertarianism), Communitarianism focuses more on our responsibility to our communities. A result of this is that I feel that political decisions should devolve to the most local community capable of addressing the issue adequately. I am a strong proponent of the "representative" part of our representative democracy (I was recently quite disappointed by the MA legislature's decision to award our Electoral votes for PotUS to the winner of the National popular vote in an attempt to make a populist end run around the Electoral College). I think the changes in the federal government enacted by FDR and LBJ were more bad than good, and that we'd be better off pushing most of the responsibilities the federal government assumed over the past 75 years back down to the states and localities, particularly the social safety net (i.e. health care, social security, unemployment, etc.) I feel that administering it at a political level so far removed from community oversight is a recipe for corruption and inefficiency. Ideally I don't think the federal government should do much other than maintain interstate trade (mostly the interstate highway system) and work out foreign relations (including Defense, which has come to mean Offense, which is a whole different issue). Pretty much all other functions should devolve to at least the states if not the localities.
More Merrill Alums: If anyone has contact with other friends from our Helaman Halls days, please feel free to invite them to the symposium. I didn't spend a lot of time tracking down loose ends, but I'd certainly like to see more voices added to our mix. Furthermore, I'd be open to a discussion of extending membership to spouses or other friends who would like to participate.
Constitutional Law: I really enjoyed Christopher's post regarding the Constitution and how it should be interpreted. Based largely on the bad taste in my mouth after the MA SSM decision, which had no basis in law IMO, I spent some time as a strict originalist. But, thinking about the historical role of judges I feel that the sort of originalism propounded by Justice Scalia is a bit farther than I'm willing to go; judges should be (I feel) the wise men of society who can balance the letter and the spirit of the law. That said, I feel law has become troublingly politicized, particularly due to the balkanization of the US Supreme Court and several high profile legislative battles over Federal Circuit appointees.
Same Sex Marriage: Living in MA, having gone to the only gay wedding to which I've been invited (after much inner conflict), I find that my personal acquaintance with the practice has not significantly impacted my feelings about it as far as I can tell.
I believe marriage is a social construct; that its only meaning is what we as a society imbue it with. As such, I do not accept that "equal marriage" is an inherent right. The question I see the point revolving on is whether we as a society want to weaken the construct sufficiently to allow for same sex couples. Historically there have been far less strict interpretations of what "marriage" means; globally there are very different interpretations on what "marriage" means. I'm not too worked up over the possibility of a definitional change. Although individually I oppose it and vote that way, if society chooses to accept it I'm not going to go about wringing my hands.
I do get worked up, however, with any arguments in favor of SSM that assert a "right to marry" or that focus on logistical (i.e. inheritance, hospital visitation, etc.), rather than definitional aspects of marriage. I'm leary of the assertion of "rights" beyond a basic few, and don't see historical or popular support for the assertion of this particular "right." Since the question, to me, is not one of "rights," the procedure calls for legislative deliberation and popular votes to determine the central question of whether homosexual relationships belong to the marriage construct, with all the social acceptance that membership entails. If society does not believe that, then the government has no place dictating an different position.
I feel that the push to legalize SSM through judicial rather than legislative methods is largely an effort to use the power of government as a method to force a change in the social construct, rather than the more appropriate process of legislating to reconcile the government with what the construct has become. I see this particularly in MA where the legal battle became essentially a public relations method for recognition of the validity of same-sex relationships. It was an anti-populist attempt to compel change in the hearts and minds of the populace, which I see as a poor legal precedent.
I disagree both with the MA and CA SSM decisions; in both cases the courts recognized a right that I don't believe exists, i.e. the "right to marry." Precedence appeals to the end of miscegnation (which, IIRC, were part of the written decisions in both state cases) I think are faulty; you could equally well (to my mind) say the refutation of it as a right is established by minimum age laws, cousin (or sibling) laws, or polyandry laws. I don't know if that makes sense, but my point is simply that using an example of expansion (interracial marriage) to assert a right to marry while ignoring examples of contractions (close-relative marriage) is either disingenuous or illogical.
My Political Philosophy: I generally see myself as a classic conservative in the vein of Edmund Burke. This is neither the conservatism of the current Republican Party, nor the individual rights conservatism that Jesse has propounded. It has more to do with an ideological resistance to change, which in my case is coupled with a distrust of pure reason as a basis for policy. I generally believe that policies already in place are wise, and am pessimistic that changes in policy will lead to intended benefits nor that they will avoid unintended negative consequences. I see an inspiration for this in Burke's principles in supporting the American revolution but rejecting the French revolution. In general, I identify more with the "liberal" wing of the Republican party, and view Bush pere as a better president than either Ronald Reagan or Bush fils.
When asked, rather than Republican or Democrat, I usually identify myself as Communitarian. Like Libertarians, Communitarians find themselves on both sides of the two-party split. But instead of a focus on individual rights and liberties (as in Libertarianism), Communitarianism focuses more on our responsibility to our communities. A result of this is that I feel that political decisions should devolve to the most local community capable of addressing the issue adequately. I am a strong proponent of the "representative" part of our representative democracy (I was recently quite disappointed by the MA legislature's decision to award our Electoral votes for PotUS to the winner of the National popular vote in an attempt to make a populist end run around the Electoral College). I think the changes in the federal government enacted by FDR and LBJ were more bad than good, and that we'd be better off pushing most of the responsibilities the federal government assumed over the past 75 years back down to the states and localities, particularly the social safety net (i.e. health care, social security, unemployment, etc.) I feel that administering it at a political level so far removed from community oversight is a recipe for corruption and inefficiency. Ideally I don't think the federal government should do much other than maintain interstate trade (mostly the interstate highway system) and work out foreign relations (including Defense, which has come to mean Offense, which is a whole different issue). Pretty much all other functions should devolve to at least the states if not the localities.
More Merrill Alums: If anyone has contact with other friends from our Helaman Halls days, please feel free to invite them to the symposium. I didn't spend a lot of time tracking down loose ends, but I'd certainly like to see more voices added to our mix. Furthermore, I'd be open to a discussion of extending membership to spouses or other friends who would like to participate.
Monday, July 21, 2008
Ryan and Jesse comments RE: gay marriage
I'm sorry to clog things, but wanted to pull this out of the comments. If I had more time I'd summarize...but copy-paste is so fast!
Ryan said...
Jesse, I find your comments extremely interesting. Thank you very much for sharing. Now, I don’t want to pry, and I’ll understand if you don’t comment, but I’m really interested in this issue as it pertains to the church. It seems to me that the First Presidency has put the weight of their calling into this issue and have evoked very strong and religiously charged language, asking people to devote "time and means" if I remember correctly, to encourage church members to be actively in favor of the marriage amendment in California. What would you do if you were in California? Do you have a moral obligation as a member of a democracy to speak you views, even if they aren’t in agreement with the church? Would publicly speaking those views undermine your commitments to the church? Or do your views make you more likely to view the teachings of church leaders as having a natural, as opposed to a divine, origin? I know I’m trending on delicate ground, but I feel these conversations are important to have somewhere. And this seems to be a group of very intelligent and accomplished people from many fields of study, who seem to have strong faith as well, so it seems like an ideal group of people to help me make sense of things. Just as a side note, I enjoyed reading an extensive interview with the apostle constitutional lawyer/judge, in which he talks of the prophet and the ERA amendment (he said the church couldn’t defend it’s position rationally, only could appeal to revelation), and about disagreeing with church positions, apostasy, etc. http://newsroom.lds.org/ldsnewsroom/eng/news-releases-stories/elder-oaks-interview-transcript-from-pbs-documentary
July 20, 2008 12:02 PM
Jesse said...
I stated above that I believe the court was wrong to decide what they did. I further argued that this is not a question for the courts to decide. I think that is consistent with the church's position. I didn't say anything about my views on a constitutional amendment. I believe the amendment is meant as a check to perceived judicial overreach. I am therefore in agreement with it. I don't view that as inconsistent with what I've said elsewhere. It has seemed to me that, in the past, some leaders of the church have given insufficient thought to my earlier point: even if I personally believe something to be immoral that does not mean the government should force others to act in some way (take drug/alcohol laws for example). I deal with this conflict the way any of you would---through prayer, meditation, scripture study, etc.
July 20, 2008 6:08 PM
Ryan said...
I can sympathize with the feeling that this is judicial over-reach. But if I understand you, you like the California amendment but for a reason that is slightly different from the church's reasoning. Your focus is more on countering the judicial over-reach. I get the impression that if the people vote to strike down the amendment, then you would be at peace with that, because the people have had their say, they have countered a judicial over-reach? When you talk about not forcing people to do the moral thing,I think you're saying that the courts shouldn't force their sense of fairness on others, rather than saying that people shouldn't force their heterosexual values on others? Just trying to understand, because the first time around I got the impression you were talking about the latter, but now I think that you're talking about former.I was in Massachusetts, too, when this was all settled. And reading the newspapers that day I felt a sense of peace that though I was opposed to it, that our elective officials had voted for what they felt was right, and that many of them had struggled with it a lot, and that it appeared that a consensus had been reached. Most people seemed happy about it. I was glad that the constitution process had been followed and that all branches of government had been involved to some extent. I appreciate you're point of prayer and meditation, but there must also be study. I believe there is room in the church for honest differences of opinion, honest questioning, investigative study, and open dialogue. I kind of sympathize with Tennyson, "There lives more faith in honest doubt, Believe me, than in half the creeds." But I really don't want to be a trouble maker about these things, so I won't push the issue. Just thought I would throw something out. I'm still an active church member with hope and belief. But I'm certainly on a journey to understand more. I think my training as a scientist has given me an appetite for asking a lot of annoying questions.
July 20, 2008 9:18 PM
Jesse said...
Ryan-Thanks for your comments and questions. I agree with your thoughts on dissent and active questioning. My only regret is that this is all taking place in the comments---and I'm trying to avoid comment discussion where possible. I'd move it to the main page if I had the time to quickly summarize or something.In any case my "not forcing morals" argument is about both the contexts you mentioned. Courts should interpret the laws as set forth by the constitution and legislation, period. I also am in favor of individual freedom---even if I personally disagree with it. I would not favor laws that restrict individual freedom for moral reasons. A law against homosexual acts, for example, I would not support.I also have to comment on the MA ruling. I disagree with your view that the issue was in any way properly "settled." The legislature delayed the vote until after state elections were held (which indicates that the amendment had broad support) and only voted after the supreme court found them in abdication of their responsibilities under the constitution. The amendment process required a second vote which took place later that year...needed 50 votes to be put before the voters...got 45 votes with 4 absent. My experience with MA politics has not been the least bit favorable---I can think of few more corrupt and less transparent institutions. Polls indicated the amendment would have passed had it been put before the voters.Anyway as I indicated I'm not that worried about the MA ruling...I just wouldn't personally hold it up as a model of the system working correctly.
Ryan said...
Jesse, I find your comments extremely interesting. Thank you very much for sharing. Now, I don’t want to pry, and I’ll understand if you don’t comment, but I’m really interested in this issue as it pertains to the church. It seems to me that the First Presidency has put the weight of their calling into this issue and have evoked very strong and religiously charged language, asking people to devote "time and means" if I remember correctly, to encourage church members to be actively in favor of the marriage amendment in California. What would you do if you were in California? Do you have a moral obligation as a member of a democracy to speak you views, even if they aren’t in agreement with the church? Would publicly speaking those views undermine your commitments to the church? Or do your views make you more likely to view the teachings of church leaders as having a natural, as opposed to a divine, origin? I know I’m trending on delicate ground, but I feel these conversations are important to have somewhere. And this seems to be a group of very intelligent and accomplished people from many fields of study, who seem to have strong faith as well, so it seems like an ideal group of people to help me make sense of things. Just as a side note, I enjoyed reading an extensive interview with the apostle constitutional lawyer/judge, in which he talks of the prophet and the ERA amendment (he said the church couldn’t defend it’s position rationally, only could appeal to revelation), and about disagreeing with church positions, apostasy, etc. http://newsroom.lds.org/ldsnewsroom/eng/news-releases-stories/elder-oaks-interview-transcript-from-pbs-documentary
July 20, 2008 12:02 PM
Jesse said...
I stated above that I believe the court was wrong to decide what they did. I further argued that this is not a question for the courts to decide. I think that is consistent with the church's position. I didn't say anything about my views on a constitutional amendment. I believe the amendment is meant as a check to perceived judicial overreach. I am therefore in agreement with it. I don't view that as inconsistent with what I've said elsewhere. It has seemed to me that, in the past, some leaders of the church have given insufficient thought to my earlier point: even if I personally believe something to be immoral that does not mean the government should force others to act in some way (take drug/alcohol laws for example). I deal with this conflict the way any of you would---through prayer, meditation, scripture study, etc.
July 20, 2008 6:08 PM
Ryan said...
I can sympathize with the feeling that this is judicial over-reach. But if I understand you, you like the California amendment but for a reason that is slightly different from the church's reasoning. Your focus is more on countering the judicial over-reach. I get the impression that if the people vote to strike down the amendment, then you would be at peace with that, because the people have had their say, they have countered a judicial over-reach? When you talk about not forcing people to do the moral thing,I think you're saying that the courts shouldn't force their sense of fairness on others, rather than saying that people shouldn't force their heterosexual values on others? Just trying to understand, because the first time around I got the impression you were talking about the latter, but now I think that you're talking about former.I was in Massachusetts, too, when this was all settled. And reading the newspapers that day I felt a sense of peace that though I was opposed to it, that our elective officials had voted for what they felt was right, and that many of them had struggled with it a lot, and that it appeared that a consensus had been reached. Most people seemed happy about it. I was glad that the constitution process had been followed and that all branches of government had been involved to some extent. I appreciate you're point of prayer and meditation, but there must also be study. I believe there is room in the church for honest differences of opinion, honest questioning, investigative study, and open dialogue. I kind of sympathize with Tennyson, "There lives more faith in honest doubt, Believe me, than in half the creeds." But I really don't want to be a trouble maker about these things, so I won't push the issue. Just thought I would throw something out. I'm still an active church member with hope and belief. But I'm certainly on a journey to understand more. I think my training as a scientist has given me an appetite for asking a lot of annoying questions.
July 20, 2008 9:18 PM
Jesse said...
Ryan-Thanks for your comments and questions. I agree with your thoughts on dissent and active questioning. My only regret is that this is all taking place in the comments---and I'm trying to avoid comment discussion where possible. I'd move it to the main page if I had the time to quickly summarize or something.In any case my "not forcing morals" argument is about both the contexts you mentioned. Courts should interpret the laws as set forth by the constitution and legislation, period. I also am in favor of individual freedom---even if I personally disagree with it. I would not favor laws that restrict individual freedom for moral reasons. A law against homosexual acts, for example, I would not support.I also have to comment on the MA ruling. I disagree with your view that the issue was in any way properly "settled." The legislature delayed the vote until after state elections were held (which indicates that the amendment had broad support) and only voted after the supreme court found them in abdication of their responsibilities under the constitution. The amendment process required a second vote which took place later that year...needed 50 votes to be put before the voters...got 45 votes with 4 absent. My experience with MA politics has not been the least bit favorable---I can think of few more corrupt and less transparent institutions. Polls indicated the amendment would have passed had it been put before the voters.Anyway as I indicated I'm not that worried about the MA ruling...I just wouldn't personally hold it up as a model of the system working correctly.
Sunday, July 20, 2008
Just like the good old days
(This is starting to get too reminiscent of the old symposiums. Here I am, thinking I have a whole Sunday afternoon to catch up on things like sleep and sorting through pictures and home videos, when all of the sudden I'm drawn in . . . )
Taxes
So Jesse and I appear to agree that taxes are a mechanism to redistribute the costs of benefits that, due to market failures, are not adequately borne by those who receive them.
I also agree that, in fairness, positive externalities must be considered. For example, the benefits of technological progress justify intellectual property laws and rights. I even agree that productivity is a positive externality.
However, I believe that the market more than fairly compensates for productivity. I imagine that I also believe that the costs (negative externalities) that I outlined in my previous posts are much greater than Jesse believes. By not paying for these costs, our corporations and other owners of means of production are essentially stealing from not only the American people, but all of humanity.
In reponse to Alvin, this is how I justify the majority forcing the minority to pay higher taxes.
Of course, the major problem here is that the we can argue all we want about what the true costs and benefits of these externalities are. It's very difficult to argue one way or another. So what can do to try to quantify these costs and benefits?
One could attempt to do a meta-comparison by comparing results of our current American system to that of other countries (like GDP per capita--I find that that much more agreeable than unemployment). However, I am skeptical as to the validity of a multi-national comparison for a number of reasons. Our nation's wealth owes almost as much to historical happenstance of circumstances (i.e. our geographic location, free land as a safety valve to the poor for almost half our existence, large number of natural resources) and exploitation of other countries (both the past effects of imperilaism and our current exploitation of third world labor) as it does our current system, itself.
I am interested in a historical comparison of American taxation, productivity, and distribution of wealth. However, I've been too lazy to dig up hard numbers. I hate making claims I can't back up, but here's a go. I believe that the top marginal tax rate for most of the first 70-80 years of the last century was above 70%. In fact, during the middle of the century, it was over 90%. Thanks to Reagonomics, it very rapidly declined and is now about 35%. Meanwhile, 1% of the population now holds approximately 90% of our wealth (or something like that--this is where I need to do research). That ratio has been getting worse and worse, not coincidentally, at the same time the highest marginal tax rates have been falling. Likewise, poverty rates have been climbing in a very similar way.
I should take some time to argue why all of this is bad, because I'm sure there are apologists who would say it isn't, but I'm runing out of time before my kid wakes up. So, if anybody **cough**esse, wants to tell me argue why this isn't bad, that's fine with me. (But it's all fun and games, right Jesse--especially since I'll actually agree with you later on here).
Another question of importance is "what should we tax?" Jesse has argued that we should tax consumption. In general, I think this is a very bad idea, because it becomes an essentially regressive tax. Those who have the least amount of money spend the most (percentage-wise) on consumption, while those who have the most amount of money can afford to save money, avoid taxation, and then make even more money.
And while we're talking about savings, while I think we should stay out of debt and encourage a small amount of savings for emergencies, I think we should discourage people from saving large amounts of money. ANY amount of savings has a negative effect on the current economy, because it represents money that is not being put into circulation to make more money. So if we're going to encourage savings, it should be just the minimal amount to take care of reasonably expected emergencies.
Nature of Government
I'm with Elliott. We need to stop looking at government as being somebody else forcing something upon us, and more as a social contract in which we all participate.
But, what do we do about the fact that we can't all agree all the time? I think we all agree that we can't just have a society where everybody can do anything they want just so we can make sure that no one should have to be forced to do anything. We have a right to force people to abide by certain rules that interfere too much with the rights of others--i.e. no murder, no theft, not running red lights, etc.
So we're left to walk the line between "freedom of choice" and protection of other people's rights to life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness. The issues that we've been debating are all hard issues along that line. It's hard to say just where on this spectrum of "freedom of choice" and "protection of rights" things like pollution and ownership of limited resources belong.
Also, I was going to argue with Jesse's assessment that government is, for the most part, no different than any other entity, but I think I'll save that for another day.
Legislating from the Bench
It would probably be pretty easy for me to backtrack from this statement by saying I was being technical when I said that "judges do not legislate." Technically speaking, of course, they do not. They interpret laws. They merely provide their best interpretation of laws that are ambiguous, or strike down laws that Congress had no right to make in light of the constitution. Congress (and by extension, we, as a people) then have the power to make laws that are not ambiguous and/or do not violate the Constitution.
But I'm not going to back down here. When people say that judges legislate from the bench, what they are really saying is that the judges have a different interpretation than they do, but they are saying it in such a way as to dismiss the legitimacy of that interpretation and ascribe typically dishonorable motivations to the judges who hold that different interpretation.
Most of these judges have no aspiration to "legislate." Yes, some of these judges are not generally elected, but these are not people who are appointed on a whim, nor are these people who have no reason but partisanship for making their decisions. These are people with very methodical and thorough understandings of the law, which understandings cause them to hold oft-times difficult to categorize beliefs. For these beliefs and legal understandings, they at one point were appointed office by people we trusted enough to elect to office. The beliefs of these judges are, generally speaking, quite centrist. Their attitudes reflect the attitudes of different populations of the American people very well (which is unfortunate in many circumstances).
I guess what I'm getting at is that by dismissing judicial decisions as partisan-minded activism, we disrespect the judicial process, the judges themselves, and the opinions of the many Americans who hold the same beliefs as the judges. I'm not saying we have to agree with every decions handed down by a judge, or every opinion held by every American citizien, but we should at least take the time to respect the legitimacy of their opinion. Until we take the time to understand one another, all we are doing is yelling back and forth, getting no where.
Social Conservatism
So finally, on to the main topic of the day--social conservatism. I liked Alvin's story about someone trying to convince him to be a Democrat. I think I was in much the same frame of mind as Alvin coming out of BYU. I wish the BYU environment would more openly challenge students to develop political consciences for themselves. I think American Heritage was supposed to do this, but it didn't. Even in law school, by which time I'd become more liberal minded, it was difficult to have a fair and open discussion of politics.
The first time I ever forced myself to actually build my political consience from the ground up, I became a libertarian (this was for about a year right after 2001--obviously, I have since changed my mind on many issues). The most difficult aspect to accept of libertarianism was, for me, the idea of being socially liberal. I never made it all the way there, but to this day I still believe there are a lot of "private" issues that the government has no business being involved in.
For a while, one of these was gay marriage. Morally, I'm opposed to it. Emotionally, my revulsion to homosexuality is complicated by the fact that one of my sisters is gay. Intellectually, I think my opinion is similar to Jesse's--except I would argue that it was perfectly legitimate for the court to decide what they did. I question whether government has any role endorsing any kind of religious institution, and thus I question whether government should endorse marriage. The fact that this is the only political issue I've ever seen the church become involved in, however, has me looking for ways to intellectually reconcile things. So, anyone out there have good secular arguments for it? Particularly since, as a California citize, I need to decide how to vote?
Taxes
So Jesse and I appear to agree that taxes are a mechanism to redistribute the costs of benefits that, due to market failures, are not adequately borne by those who receive them.
I also agree that, in fairness, positive externalities must be considered. For example, the benefits of technological progress justify intellectual property laws and rights. I even agree that productivity is a positive externality.
However, I believe that the market more than fairly compensates for productivity. I imagine that I also believe that the costs (negative externalities) that I outlined in my previous posts are much greater than Jesse believes. By not paying for these costs, our corporations and other owners of means of production are essentially stealing from not only the American people, but all of humanity.
In reponse to Alvin, this is how I justify the majority forcing the minority to pay higher taxes.
Of course, the major problem here is that the we can argue all we want about what the true costs and benefits of these externalities are. It's very difficult to argue one way or another. So what can do to try to quantify these costs and benefits?
One could attempt to do a meta-comparison by comparing results of our current American system to that of other countries (like GDP per capita--I find that that much more agreeable than unemployment). However, I am skeptical as to the validity of a multi-national comparison for a number of reasons. Our nation's wealth owes almost as much to historical happenstance of circumstances (i.e. our geographic location, free land as a safety valve to the poor for almost half our existence, large number of natural resources) and exploitation of other countries (both the past effects of imperilaism and our current exploitation of third world labor) as it does our current system, itself.
I am interested in a historical comparison of American taxation, productivity, and distribution of wealth. However, I've been too lazy to dig up hard numbers. I hate making claims I can't back up, but here's a go. I believe that the top marginal tax rate for most of the first 70-80 years of the last century was above 70%. In fact, during the middle of the century, it was over 90%. Thanks to Reagonomics, it very rapidly declined and is now about 35%. Meanwhile, 1% of the population now holds approximately 90% of our wealth (or something like that--this is where I need to do research). That ratio has been getting worse and worse, not coincidentally, at the same time the highest marginal tax rates have been falling. Likewise, poverty rates have been climbing in a very similar way.
I should take some time to argue why all of this is bad, because I'm sure there are apologists who would say it isn't, but I'm runing out of time before my kid wakes up. So, if anybody **cough**esse, wants to tell me argue why this isn't bad, that's fine with me. (But it's all fun and games, right Jesse--especially since I'll actually agree with you later on here).
Another question of importance is "what should we tax?" Jesse has argued that we should tax consumption. In general, I think this is a very bad idea, because it becomes an essentially regressive tax. Those who have the least amount of money spend the most (percentage-wise) on consumption, while those who have the most amount of money can afford to save money, avoid taxation, and then make even more money.
And while we're talking about savings, while I think we should stay out of debt and encourage a small amount of savings for emergencies, I think we should discourage people from saving large amounts of money. ANY amount of savings has a negative effect on the current economy, because it represents money that is not being put into circulation to make more money. So if we're going to encourage savings, it should be just the minimal amount to take care of reasonably expected emergencies.
Nature of Government
I'm with Elliott. We need to stop looking at government as being somebody else forcing something upon us, and more as a social contract in which we all participate.
But, what do we do about the fact that we can't all agree all the time? I think we all agree that we can't just have a society where everybody can do anything they want just so we can make sure that no one should have to be forced to do anything. We have a right to force people to abide by certain rules that interfere too much with the rights of others--i.e. no murder, no theft, not running red lights, etc.
So we're left to walk the line between "freedom of choice" and protection of other people's rights to life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness. The issues that we've been debating are all hard issues along that line. It's hard to say just where on this spectrum of "freedom of choice" and "protection of rights" things like pollution and ownership of limited resources belong.
Also, I was going to argue with Jesse's assessment that government is, for the most part, no different than any other entity, but I think I'll save that for another day.
Legislating from the Bench
It would probably be pretty easy for me to backtrack from this statement by saying I was being technical when I said that "judges do not legislate." Technically speaking, of course, they do not. They interpret laws. They merely provide their best interpretation of laws that are ambiguous, or strike down laws that Congress had no right to make in light of the constitution. Congress (and by extension, we, as a people) then have the power to make laws that are not ambiguous and/or do not violate the Constitution.
But I'm not going to back down here. When people say that judges legislate from the bench, what they are really saying is that the judges have a different interpretation than they do, but they are saying it in such a way as to dismiss the legitimacy of that interpretation and ascribe typically dishonorable motivations to the judges who hold that different interpretation.
Most of these judges have no aspiration to "legislate." Yes, some of these judges are not generally elected, but these are not people who are appointed on a whim, nor are these people who have no reason but partisanship for making their decisions. These are people with very methodical and thorough understandings of the law, which understandings cause them to hold oft-times difficult to categorize beliefs. For these beliefs and legal understandings, they at one point were appointed office by people we trusted enough to elect to office. The beliefs of these judges are, generally speaking, quite centrist. Their attitudes reflect the attitudes of different populations of the American people very well (which is unfortunate in many circumstances).
I guess what I'm getting at is that by dismissing judicial decisions as partisan-minded activism, we disrespect the judicial process, the judges themselves, and the opinions of the many Americans who hold the same beliefs as the judges. I'm not saying we have to agree with every decions handed down by a judge, or every opinion held by every American citizien, but we should at least take the time to respect the legitimacy of their opinion. Until we take the time to understand one another, all we are doing is yelling back and forth, getting no where.
Social Conservatism
So finally, on to the main topic of the day--social conservatism. I liked Alvin's story about someone trying to convince him to be a Democrat. I think I was in much the same frame of mind as Alvin coming out of BYU. I wish the BYU environment would more openly challenge students to develop political consciences for themselves. I think American Heritage was supposed to do this, but it didn't. Even in law school, by which time I'd become more liberal minded, it was difficult to have a fair and open discussion of politics.
The first time I ever forced myself to actually build my political consience from the ground up, I became a libertarian (this was for about a year right after 2001--obviously, I have since changed my mind on many issues). The most difficult aspect to accept of libertarianism was, for me, the idea of being socially liberal. I never made it all the way there, but to this day I still believe there are a lot of "private" issues that the government has no business being involved in.
For a while, one of these was gay marriage. Morally, I'm opposed to it. Emotionally, my revulsion to homosexuality is complicated by the fact that one of my sisters is gay. Intellectually, I think my opinion is similar to Jesse's--except I would argue that it was perfectly legitimate for the court to decide what they did. I question whether government has any role endorsing any kind of religious institution, and thus I question whether government should endorse marriage. The fact that this is the only political issue I've ever seen the church become involved in, however, has me looking for ways to intellectually reconcile things. So, anyone out there have good secular arguments for it? Particularly since, as a California citize, I need to decide how to vote?
Social Conservatism and Gay Marriage
Ryan asked me in a comment to my previous post to explain my not being a "social conservative". The issues he asks about are abortion, gay marriage, birth control, abstinence education. Yes this is what I mean by "social conservative" issues. It would take a book to really describe my views on all these issues, but the brief answer is that I do not believe the government should be involved in most of them. I am as against Mike Huckabee and Harriet Miers (proponents of "social conservative" big government and judicial activism) as I am left-wing judicial activism and big government. Briefly on some issues:
1. Birth control. I'm not sure the "Right to privacy" here was correctly decided. I should read more about it and form a more educated opinion. But in any case I see no reason for the government to be involved here.
2. Abortion. Before "life" begins (life here defined as having rights separate from the mother) this is the same as #1. But of course the government should be involved in infanticide, so it comes down to when this "life" begins. A very hard question. Is it too hard to be left up to 9 unelected judges? Or too hard to be left to the tyranny of the majority? This one will require its own post later.
3. Gay Marriage. Beasley asks below for secular arguments against gay marriage. Mine are secular but only sort of against gay marriage. The question, again, is why is government in the marriage business? How would my life be different if the government recognized no marriages? The only difference is that I would not receive certain benefits the government now provides to married couples---but I would still be married of course. So government is involved because people originally saw a positive externality (here we go again) from marriage and government played a role to maintain/encourage that institution. If that is the case we need to ask whether that externality still makes sense and whether gay marriage generates the same externality. That is an interesting and difficult question. It most certainly is not a "rights" issue---the government does not grant a "right" to marriage, it confers benefits on those contributing a positive externality. It would be fine, for example, for the government to recognize no marriages at all---marriage is not a "right" given you by the government (imagine the government recognizing no one's right to speech or due process...marriage is just not the same). It is totally inappropriate therefore to be decided by the courts. If states believe positive externalities are generated by gay marriages they can encourage them if they want through legislation. But the court cannot find "rights" to things that were never "rights" to begin with. The California court (like my own MA court), seems to view itself as being in the "fairness" business---confusing rulings on which laws are "fair" with which laws violate rights. Marriage laws may be totally unfair to single people---in the same way that income tax laws may be totally unfair to rich people---but these are not "rights" issues for the court to decide.
4. Prayer in school. Government should not be involved.
Ok this is longer than I intended (as usual). I believe in limited government---that applies equally to things I like as it does to things I dislike. This is consistent with my earlier points to Karl on taxation---it is not enough to say "I should not have an abortion" in the same way it is not enough to say "I should help the poor". The question is whether one group of people (the majority, maybe) should force another group of people to do something. Compulsion is the issue here.
By the way I feel I should mention I haven't always been in agreement with church leadership here. The church has involved itself in "moral" issues and encouraged us to do the same. I believe it has sometimes failed to appreciate the distinction above---just because I believe something is immoral does not mean I should force others to act in some way.
And with that I'm off to PEC :)
1. Birth control. I'm not sure the "Right to privacy" here was correctly decided. I should read more about it and form a more educated opinion. But in any case I see no reason for the government to be involved here.
2. Abortion. Before "life" begins (life here defined as having rights separate from the mother) this is the same as #1. But of course the government should be involved in infanticide, so it comes down to when this "life" begins. A very hard question. Is it too hard to be left up to 9 unelected judges? Or too hard to be left to the tyranny of the majority? This one will require its own post later.
3. Gay Marriage. Beasley asks below for secular arguments against gay marriage. Mine are secular but only sort of against gay marriage. The question, again, is why is government in the marriage business? How would my life be different if the government recognized no marriages? The only difference is that I would not receive certain benefits the government now provides to married couples---but I would still be married of course. So government is involved because people originally saw a positive externality (here we go again) from marriage and government played a role to maintain/encourage that institution. If that is the case we need to ask whether that externality still makes sense and whether gay marriage generates the same externality. That is an interesting and difficult question. It most certainly is not a "rights" issue---the government does not grant a "right" to marriage, it confers benefits on those contributing a positive externality. It would be fine, for example, for the government to recognize no marriages at all---marriage is not a "right" given you by the government (imagine the government recognizing no one's right to speech or due process...marriage is just not the same). It is totally inappropriate therefore to be decided by the courts. If states believe positive externalities are generated by gay marriages they can encourage them if they want through legislation. But the court cannot find "rights" to things that were never "rights" to begin with. The California court (like my own MA court), seems to view itself as being in the "fairness" business---confusing rulings on which laws are "fair" with which laws violate rights. Marriage laws may be totally unfair to single people---in the same way that income tax laws may be totally unfair to rich people---but these are not "rights" issues for the court to decide.
4. Prayer in school. Government should not be involved.
Ok this is longer than I intended (as usual). I believe in limited government---that applies equally to things I like as it does to things I dislike. This is consistent with my earlier points to Karl on taxation---it is not enough to say "I should not have an abortion" in the same way it is not enough to say "I should help the poor". The question is whether one group of people (the majority, maybe) should force another group of people to do something. Compulsion is the issue here.
By the way I feel I should mention I haven't always been in agreement with church leadership here. The church has involved itself in "moral" issues and encouraged us to do the same. I believe it has sometimes failed to appreciate the distinction above---just because I believe something is immoral does not mean I should force others to act in some way.
And with that I'm off to PEC :)
Saturday, July 19, 2008
Constitutional Law
One of my favorite things about my career as an appellate lawyer is the amount of constitutional law I get to deal with on a regular basis. In fact, I have a case pending in the California Supreme Court interpreting the constitutional right to an unbiased trial judge. There is no question that we have a federal constitutional right to a trial before an unbiased judge who is fair in fact. What is left open, is whether that right further includes the right to a trial before a judge who is free from the mere appearance of bias. Should make for an interesting opinion from the Cal Supremes.
I would like to make a few comments as to the notion of the Constitution being a living document. The Framers had great insight and wisdom in drafting a document that would be vague or ambiguous enough to allow for changing circumstances, but yet clear and concise enough to withstand the erosion of time and stand as an ensign to the world of an inspired declaration of self-government. The danger in simply concluding that the Constitution is a "living document" subject to interpretation as circumstances change is that if we go too far in such a direction, we lose the contextual tether which explains the Framers' intentions. By the same token if we unyieldingly keep the Constitution moored to 18th century thought, we run the risk of finding untenable or even unpalpable interpretations of that document in a society that has certainly evolved in the last 200 years. Consequently, there must be a middle ground. Contextualism and originalism which seeks to understand the original intent of the Framers is an excellent starting point for constitutional interpretation. However, it would be unwise to neglect or ignore the lessons of the last 200 years. By and large, I have found that the United States Supreme Court does a good job in reaching that balance.
Perhaps in a later post I will say a thing or two about legislating from the bench. In the interim, and in a related vein, I am interested to hear what the outside world (outside of California) has to say about our Supreme Court's recent ruling on gay marriage. My office, sadly, lost that case. This was a classic example of judicial activism in which the high court decided to legislate from the bench on the definition of marriage. I am most interested in hearing good secular arguments for why marriage should be defined as only between a man and a woman -- take God, the Plan of Salvation, and any other spiritual doctrine out of the mix and what compelling arguments are left?
I would like to make a few comments as to the notion of the Constitution being a living document. The Framers had great insight and wisdom in drafting a document that would be vague or ambiguous enough to allow for changing circumstances, but yet clear and concise enough to withstand the erosion of time and stand as an ensign to the world of an inspired declaration of self-government. The danger in simply concluding that the Constitution is a "living document" subject to interpretation as circumstances change is that if we go too far in such a direction, we lose the contextual tether which explains the Framers' intentions. By the same token if we unyieldingly keep the Constitution moored to 18th century thought, we run the risk of finding untenable or even unpalpable interpretations of that document in a society that has certainly evolved in the last 200 years. Consequently, there must be a middle ground. Contextualism and originalism which seeks to understand the original intent of the Framers is an excellent starting point for constitutional interpretation. However, it would be unwise to neglect or ignore the lessons of the last 200 years. By and large, I have found that the United States Supreme Court does a good job in reaching that balance.
Perhaps in a later post I will say a thing or two about legislating from the bench. In the interim, and in a related vein, I am interested to hear what the outside world (outside of California) has to say about our Supreme Court's recent ruling on gay marriage. My office, sadly, lost that case. This was a classic example of judicial activism in which the high court decided to legislate from the bench on the definition of marriage. I am most interested in hearing good secular arguments for why marriage should be defined as only between a man and a woman -- take God, the Plan of Salvation, and any other spiritual doctrine out of the mix and what compelling arguments are left?
On Judges
A few quick comments on Alvin's post below:
1. I have not read the Rex E. Lee book mentioned below but it sounds interesting---maybe someone should select it for the book club?
2. I'd like to emphasize that when Alvin criticizes "conservatives" below for inconsistency he is referring, in my opinion, to social conservatives. Having called myself a conservative earlier I think it's important to differentiate---I do not consider myself a social conservative and there are many conservatives who would not favor prayer in school/abortion restrictions etc. This is another example of where I think party affiliation can be misleading.
3. Scott wrote awhile back that he favored a "living constitution" approach and Karl has mentioned his dislike for the term "legislating from the bench." I disagree with them on the role of the judiciary but would like to understand their position better. My question for them: is it possible, in your opinion, for the supreme court to wrongly decide a case, or to overreach? If so, on what basis would you decide that?
4. I have recently become a bit of a supreme court junkie. This is almost entirely due to one site: http://www.oyez.org/. You can listen to the oral arguments for almost any recent case before the court. You can also read the opinions (which you can do at other sites also of course). It has given me a greater respect for all the justices---most especially those with whom I disagree---and I highly recommend spending some time there. I will warn you that it may make you, like me, desperately wish you had another life to live to study constitutional law.
1. I have not read the Rex E. Lee book mentioned below but it sounds interesting---maybe someone should select it for the book club?
2. I'd like to emphasize that when Alvin criticizes "conservatives" below for inconsistency he is referring, in my opinion, to social conservatives. Having called myself a conservative earlier I think it's important to differentiate---I do not consider myself a social conservative and there are many conservatives who would not favor prayer in school/abortion restrictions etc. This is another example of where I think party affiliation can be misleading.
3. Scott wrote awhile back that he favored a "living constitution" approach and Karl has mentioned his dislike for the term "legislating from the bench." I disagree with them on the role of the judiciary but would like to understand their position better. My question for them: is it possible, in your opinion, for the supreme court to wrongly decide a case, or to overreach? If so, on what basis would you decide that?
4. I have recently become a bit of a supreme court junkie. This is almost entirely due to one site: http://www.oyez.org/. You can listen to the oral arguments for almost any recent case before the court. You can also read the opinions (which you can do at other sites also of course). It has given me a greater respect for all the justices---most especially those with whom I disagree---and I highly recommend spending some time there. I will warn you that it may make you, like me, desperately wish you had another life to live to study constitutional law.
A Lawyer Looks at the Constitution by Rex E. Lee
First, let me make a confession. It was not long after I left BYU that someone was trying to convince me to become a Democrat. This person made several convincing arguments, and my only comeback was "Yeah, but they believe in abortion." I was very naive. I now think voting based on the abortion issue is silly, and it's an easy excuse not to think about the many other issues. While I'm still pretty uneducated, I have learned a lot since BYU, but I blame all of you (and BYU) for not educating me about important political issues a lot sooner.
Anyway, as part of my quest to become a reasonably informed citizen, I just read "A Lawyer Looks at the Constitution", by Rex E. Lee. My uncle, a lawyer, said it's his favorite book on the Constitution, but unfortunately, it is no longer in print (so we can never read it for book club). So I thought I'd throw out some of the things I've learned, and you can tell me how much more I need to learn.
1. The book never talks about political parties or liberal/conservative judges. The supreme court has obviously had to make a lot of tough decisions, but 98% of the time I found myself completely agreeing with their decision and admiring them for their wisdom and forethought. That's a much higher percent of the time than I agree with the President or Congress. So I guess I don't really worry too much about what judges the president will appoint. Because all nominees need approval from the Senate, I think that weeds out most of the most extreme individuals.
2. I think I'm finally understanding what politicians are saying when they use Karl's least favorite phrase, "legislating from the bench". While technically it is not possible, there are certainly examples in history where that phrase might apply. (for you lawyers out there, Lee cites Lochner v. New York and the substantive interpretation of Due Process as an example)
He also says that Roe vs. Wade falls into this category. The decision cites a right of "privacy" which is not found anywhere in the Constitution. He also quickly points out, however, that the same reasoning that protects family planning in Roe v. Wade might also protect the people someday against a law limiting family size, like they have in China. He also points out that the rulings that made prayer in school illegal is what protects the religious rights those that want prayer in school so highly value.
Rex Lee comes down in favor of the reasoning that made prayer in school illegal and against the reasoning in Roe v. Wade. I'm not one to argue with the great Rex Lee. It is a slippery slope in allowing the courts to interpret things into the Constitution that aren't there. So far, we've generally had a pretty reasonable supreme court, but the potential for abuse is certainly there. I can understand the "living document" line of thinking, but if the times are really changing, then lets change the constitution through the amendment process not through the supreme court. However, I think most conservatives are wrong in the way they want to pick and choose. They are against "legislating from the bench" when it works against them (abortion), but they are for it when it works for them (school prayer or in the future, family size).
3. I learned that before the 14th amendment the bill of rights only applied to the federal government and that states could make laws discriminating against religion, etc. So when Buchanan said he could do nothing to help the Mormons, technically he was correct.
4. The government was designed to be inefficient. This protects us, as frustrating as it is. However, much of what our government does that directly effects each one of us is done by government bureaucracies (like my very own FDA), and these bureaucracies are not directly accountable to the people. They are the "4th branch" of the government. I guess I already knew this, but this area is key to most government philosophies.
OK, my kid is crying, so I guess I'll stop there. I already offended Ryan enough with my last post that he didn't want to have lunch with me. And the more I say, I'm probably only digging myself into a bigger hole.
PS I just read Elliott's post about taxes, and he said the law about taxes is the will of the majority so we are not being forced to pay so much as abiding by a group decision. This was interesting after reading so much about the Constitution and how the Constitution protects the rights of the minority. Obviously, high taxes are not against the Constitution, and I'm not arguing that they should be. However, I think the topic of the rights of the majority to tell the minority what to do with their money is an interesting one, and I'm looking forward to additional insight.
Anyway, as part of my quest to become a reasonably informed citizen, I just read "A Lawyer Looks at the Constitution", by Rex E. Lee. My uncle, a lawyer, said it's his favorite book on the Constitution, but unfortunately, it is no longer in print (so we can never read it for book club). So I thought I'd throw out some of the things I've learned, and you can tell me how much more I need to learn.
1. The book never talks about political parties or liberal/conservative judges. The supreme court has obviously had to make a lot of tough decisions, but 98% of the time I found myself completely agreeing with their decision and admiring them for their wisdom and forethought. That's a much higher percent of the time than I agree with the President or Congress. So I guess I don't really worry too much about what judges the president will appoint. Because all nominees need approval from the Senate, I think that weeds out most of the most extreme individuals.
2. I think I'm finally understanding what politicians are saying when they use Karl's least favorite phrase, "legislating from the bench". While technically it is not possible, there are certainly examples in history where that phrase might apply. (for you lawyers out there, Lee cites Lochner v. New York and the substantive interpretation of Due Process as an example)
He also says that Roe vs. Wade falls into this category. The decision cites a right of "privacy" which is not found anywhere in the Constitution. He also quickly points out, however, that the same reasoning that protects family planning in Roe v. Wade might also protect the people someday against a law limiting family size, like they have in China. He also points out that the rulings that made prayer in school illegal is what protects the religious rights those that want prayer in school so highly value.
Rex Lee comes down in favor of the reasoning that made prayer in school illegal and against the reasoning in Roe v. Wade. I'm not one to argue with the great Rex Lee. It is a slippery slope in allowing the courts to interpret things into the Constitution that aren't there. So far, we've generally had a pretty reasonable supreme court, but the potential for abuse is certainly there. I can understand the "living document" line of thinking, but if the times are really changing, then lets change the constitution through the amendment process not through the supreme court. However, I think most conservatives are wrong in the way they want to pick and choose. They are against "legislating from the bench" when it works against them (abortion), but they are for it when it works for them (school prayer or in the future, family size).
3. I learned that before the 14th amendment the bill of rights only applied to the federal government and that states could make laws discriminating against religion, etc. So when Buchanan said he could do nothing to help the Mormons, technically he was correct.
4. The government was designed to be inefficient. This protects us, as frustrating as it is. However, much of what our government does that directly effects each one of us is done by government bureaucracies (like my very own FDA), and these bureaucracies are not directly accountable to the people. They are the "4th branch" of the government. I guess I already knew this, but this area is key to most government philosophies.
OK, my kid is crying, so I guess I'll stop there. I already offended Ryan enough with my last post that he didn't want to have lunch with me. And the more I say, I'm probably only digging myself into a bigger hole.
PS I just read Elliott's post about taxes, and he said the law about taxes is the will of the majority so we are not being forced to pay so much as abiding by a group decision. This was interesting after reading so much about the Constitution and how the Constitution protects the rights of the minority. Obviously, high taxes are not against the Constitution, and I'm not arguing that they should be. However, I think the topic of the rights of the majority to tell the minority what to do with their money is an interesting one, and I'm looking forward to additional insight.
Friday, July 18, 2008
So cool to hear you guys break it down—makes me nostalgic for the non-virtual symposium.
Here are some of my thoughts on the recent Jesse/Karl government/taxes topic. First off, I think its pretty much impossible to be objective; 'help the poor' I think is accurate but carries an emotional load–it inclines us to empathize with towards those that are being helped. I would say the same thing about a description 'subset of people forcing another subset of people. . .'—sounds like dispassionate language but its still using terms that incline us empathize with one side, the people people being forced.
So here's my own subjective spin. The government isn't (and i'm speaking in ideal terms here), a subset of people, it is the people; we as a collective reached a decision—because as citizens we have implicitly agreed to abide by the decisions of the whole—when I am 'forced' to pay a parking ticket, I'm really just abiding by a decision that I had a say in—a decision that 'we' made—because I had a say in it, maybe 'force' is the wrong word—its different than 'force' for a surf in the feudal system.
On an unrelated note, where is Chris Garcia? he's the one the named it the symposium if memory serves. I think its someone's job to find him.
Tuesday, July 8, 2008
Religious expression for $12
Actually, after I receive payment from Amazon for reselling the copy I purchased, my total out of pocket expense will be about 1/2 that. Reading your comments on the book has actually been more valuable than reading the book itself. I understand that it was the author's first book, and I did enjoy the end (for multiple reasons), but when I finished reading it I wanted to write my own book: Why Men Hate Reading Books about Why Men Hate Going to Church. The premise will be stated on the first page, but I will spend a few chapters quoting some people and rehashing my beginning statements.
But now on to productive matters, I will respond to some of your comments and add a few of my own.
Peter: I too saw Murrow's insinuation that all "masculine behaviors" should be welcomed/encouraged was an absurdity.
Your comment that no one should be comfortable spiritually brought to mind a couple of quotes that I have heard: "We as leaders are to comfort the afflicted and to afflict the comfortable." "A religion that does not require the sacrifice of all things never has the power sufficient to produce the faith necessary unto life and salvation."
Jesse: Did your stake president read the book? What kind of commentary did he offer on it?
Paul: I got to thinking why it is that I am still active in the church. It was an interesting mental exercise. I believe what has made a difference for me is the caring leaders (men and women) that I had as a youth, along with a great group of friends that had strong values; I can also recall family prayer and scripture study leading to personal spiritual experiences that still serve as a personal anchor.
Ryan: I briefly shared a few things from the book with my elders quorum when we discussed Elder Ballard's recent talk about women and the Church. They didn't have much to say regarding a possible feminization of religion. It was interesting to discuss how many people outside the Church view LDS women as being oppressed by some great patriarchal order. That is not the case. In an article on fairlds.org titled "The Place of Mormon Women: Perceptions, Prozac, Polygamy, Priesthood, Patriarchy, and Peace" the author points out that "LDS women have had early access to suffrage, healing, religious ceremonies, autonomous leadership in Relief Society, and access to coeducation at a time when much of the nation still struggled to accept the idea."
A couple of observations related to some other comments that have been made: Most of the recent converts I know are of middle to low income/education status. Most of the less active members in the Church are middle to low income/education status. A friend of mine who was baptized last summer commented on the high percentage of highly educated men and women in the church and in the church leadership. He is a college drop-out so he felt a little uncomfortable about it at first.
Another member, this one inactive, is put off by most efforts to fellowship him. His wife said to me a few weeks ago that if I want to fellowship him there's going to have to be a service project involved. He likes work, he avoids social events.
Summary: unenjoyable book, highly enjoyable discussion
But now on to productive matters, I will respond to some of your comments and add a few of my own.
Peter: I too saw Murrow's insinuation that all "masculine behaviors" should be welcomed/encouraged was an absurdity.
Your comment that no one should be comfortable spiritually brought to mind a couple of quotes that I have heard: "We as leaders are to comfort the afflicted and to afflict the comfortable." "A religion that does not require the sacrifice of all things never has the power sufficient to produce the faith necessary unto life and salvation."
Jesse: Did your stake president read the book? What kind of commentary did he offer on it?
Paul: I got to thinking why it is that I am still active in the church. It was an interesting mental exercise. I believe what has made a difference for me is the caring leaders (men and women) that I had as a youth, along with a great group of friends that had strong values; I can also recall family prayer and scripture study leading to personal spiritual experiences that still serve as a personal anchor.
Ryan: I briefly shared a few things from the book with my elders quorum when we discussed Elder Ballard's recent talk about women and the Church. They didn't have much to say regarding a possible feminization of religion. It was interesting to discuss how many people outside the Church view LDS women as being oppressed by some great patriarchal order. That is not the case. In an article on fairlds.org titled "The Place of Mormon Women: Perceptions, Prozac, Polygamy, Priesthood, Patriarchy, and Peace" the author points out that "LDS women have had early access to suffrage, healing, religious ceremonies, autonomous leadership in Relief Society, and access to coeducation at a time when much of the nation still struggled to accept the idea."
A couple of observations related to some other comments that have been made: Most of the recent converts I know are of middle to low income/education status. Most of the less active members in the Church are middle to low income/education status. A friend of mine who was baptized last summer commented on the high percentage of highly educated men and women in the church and in the church leadership. He is a college drop-out so he felt a little uncomfortable about it at first.
Another member, this one inactive, is put off by most efforts to fellowship him. His wife said to me a few weeks ago that if I want to fellowship him there's going to have to be a service project involved. He likes work, he avoids social events.
Summary: unenjoyable book, highly enjoyable discussion
Thursday, July 3, 2008
On progressive taxes
So many political topics have been mentioned here...so little time to respond. I'll start by recommending Mr. Friedman once again, this time in video form. At http://www.ideachannel.tv/ you can now watch the original PBS specials "Free to Choose" which help with background I don't have time to write here.
I was hoping to write a significant preface to introduce some of the core principles which guide my views on specific topics but, well, I honestly just don't have time to think it all through. So here's my cliff notes version:
1. People are selfish
2. Governments, corporations, non-profits, etc. are just entities through which some group of people act---they are not therefore exempt from #1.
3. Government is unique among these entities in that it acts by compulsion---it acts with the ultimate threat of force.
I find these useful in mentally translating many ideas about the role of government. For example, "we should help the poor" is hard to disagree with, but "some subset of people (the government) should force some other subset of people to help some third subset of people" is more complicated (in every sense). You may certainly still agree with it---the subset of people represented by the government may have legitimate claim to take from one group and give to another---but I think it's unfair to avoid thinking the question through by clever use of semantics.
As an aside to this point I'll briefly mention how important I think "compulsion" is to think about here. At the risk of citing scripture in a political discussion, I note the Lord speaks of compulsory means several times. For example, in D&C 121:46. The united order has frequently been compared to "communism" of some sort but had this important difference---no one was compelled to give. I'm not saying all compulsion is therefore unholy or something, and don't want to dwell on this point. But I think my semantic argument above is not as trivial as it might first appear.
Ok, feel free to ignore all the above if you'd like. I don't mean to make this an abstract philosophy discussion. But I figure I may make use of all that as we go along.
Ok on to a specific topic. I figure I might as well start with Karl on progressive taxes.
Let's start with point 2. Karl argues here, and elsewhere, that taxation is a tool to correct externalities---actions a person takes which affect other people but for which he/she is not fully compensated (positively or negatively). I could not agree more---this is a basic and fundamental principle of economics. Correcting for externalities is certainly not contrary to economic conservatism. Often externalities are simply the result of incompletely specified property rights---the air I breathe is not owned by anyone so there is no market mechanism to compensate me for the pollution you put into it. Karl argues that one role of government is to tax actions which generate negative externalities (pollution), and I would add subsidizing actions which generate positive externalities (education).
I would add several externalities to the list. First, saving money. When you or I save money, we lower interest rates by reducing the demand for debt (and/or increasing the supply). As others have noted, Americans in general and our federal government in particular carry large debts. My saving lowers the cost of other individuals' debts as well as the federal government's. Not to mention that my savings act as "insurance" against needing other taxpayers to bail me out later on. How might policies "internalize" (to use an economist term---meaning to cause the cost/benefit of the externality to be reflected in the individual decision maker's utility function) saving as a positive externality?
1. Lower capital gains taxes. My wages are taxed, if I then spend everything I pay no additional federal taxes. If I save my money it will be taxed again. This distorts the save/consume decision toward consuming and away from saving.
2. Tax consumption, not income. This would directly tax the negative externality (consumption) and not the positive one.
Which of these policies are favored by any single democrat holding federal office?
Another externality to add: productive businesses and people. Productive businesses employ people and create wealth. I would argue this is as significant a positive externality as you will find as it enables all others. How much better off are you because great people and businesses made this country as wealthy as it is today? As a positive externality this should then be subsidized, yet it is taxed. If my business is productive I pay higher taxes than if my business is not.
You may argue the cost-benefit implies that taxing productivity (in both businesses and individuals) is worthwhile, but you cannot ignore the cost. If I were to argue that taxing pollution is a bad idea because it will be harmful to the economy (a cost-benefit analysis) how much sympathy would I find from the left? Yet our tax code in effect subsidizes pollution (by taxing productivity) and this fact is inadmissable in most debates I've had with leftists on taxation. You just can't have it both ways.
As I mentioned, I view this positive externality as large and worth encouraging. Why is the U.S. the richest nation in the world today? Why is unemployment in the U.S. 4-5% while it is 10-14% in Europe? Why have so many of the products we use today come from the U.S., and so few from elsewhere? I believe it is because we have maintained a strong incentive to be productive and am very cautious about policies which would discourage it.
This applies as well to Karl's last two points: overthrowing the tyranny of wealth and ensuring a land of opportunity. What country exceeds the U.S. in this regard? Isn't this part of the reason immigrants have come here for centuries? Does Europe afford greater opportunity? Less tyranny of one social class over others? My experience and study of macroeconomics indicates those countries with less regulation, smaller government and less redistribution of income have greater upward mobility than those with more progressive policies. I just see no evidence of the contention in point #4.
As for point 1, income seems a noisy proxy here. I know lots of folks at Harvard who will go on to make little money but have spent 12 years gaining a world class education. Shouldn't many of us (Ryan and I for example) have been taxed a lot for the opportunity to work toward at PhD which is certainly not necessary for us to make a living? How about those born wealthy who squander it? How about those born with little who just work really hard? How about those who emigrate and manage to make something for themselves? How about those who save their money?
And if you're going to tax based on what they've received shouldn't you also consider what they've contributed? Here income seems a noisy proxy as well.
Ok this is getting too long. I believe government should encourage positive externalities and discourage negative ones. Progressive income taxes are exactly the opposite.
I was hoping to write a significant preface to introduce some of the core principles which guide my views on specific topics but, well, I honestly just don't have time to think it all through. So here's my cliff notes version:
1. People are selfish
2. Governments, corporations, non-profits, etc. are just entities through which some group of people act---they are not therefore exempt from #1.
3. Government is unique among these entities in that it acts by compulsion---it acts with the ultimate threat of force.
I find these useful in mentally translating many ideas about the role of government. For example, "we should help the poor" is hard to disagree with, but "some subset of people (the government) should force some other subset of people to help some third subset of people" is more complicated (in every sense). You may certainly still agree with it---the subset of people represented by the government may have legitimate claim to take from one group and give to another---but I think it's unfair to avoid thinking the question through by clever use of semantics.
As an aside to this point I'll briefly mention how important I think "compulsion" is to think about here. At the risk of citing scripture in a political discussion, I note the Lord speaks of compulsory means several times. For example, in D&C 121:46. The united order has frequently been compared to "communism" of some sort but had this important difference---no one was compelled to give. I'm not saying all compulsion is therefore unholy or something, and don't want to dwell on this point. But I think my semantic argument above is not as trivial as it might first appear.
Ok, feel free to ignore all the above if you'd like. I don't mean to make this an abstract philosophy discussion. But I figure I may make use of all that as we go along.
Ok on to a specific topic. I figure I might as well start with Karl on progressive taxes.
Let's start with point 2. Karl argues here, and elsewhere, that taxation is a tool to correct externalities---actions a person takes which affect other people but for which he/she is not fully compensated (positively or negatively). I could not agree more---this is a basic and fundamental principle of economics. Correcting for externalities is certainly not contrary to economic conservatism. Often externalities are simply the result of incompletely specified property rights---the air I breathe is not owned by anyone so there is no market mechanism to compensate me for the pollution you put into it. Karl argues that one role of government is to tax actions which generate negative externalities (pollution), and I would add subsidizing actions which generate positive externalities (education).
I would add several externalities to the list. First, saving money. When you or I save money, we lower interest rates by reducing the demand for debt (and/or increasing the supply). As others have noted, Americans in general and our federal government in particular carry large debts. My saving lowers the cost of other individuals' debts as well as the federal government's. Not to mention that my savings act as "insurance" against needing other taxpayers to bail me out later on. How might policies "internalize" (to use an economist term---meaning to cause the cost/benefit of the externality to be reflected in the individual decision maker's utility function) saving as a positive externality?
1. Lower capital gains taxes. My wages are taxed, if I then spend everything I pay no additional federal taxes. If I save my money it will be taxed again. This distorts the save/consume decision toward consuming and away from saving.
2. Tax consumption, not income. This would directly tax the negative externality (consumption) and not the positive one.
Which of these policies are favored by any single democrat holding federal office?
Another externality to add: productive businesses and people. Productive businesses employ people and create wealth. I would argue this is as significant a positive externality as you will find as it enables all others. How much better off are you because great people and businesses made this country as wealthy as it is today? As a positive externality this should then be subsidized, yet it is taxed. If my business is productive I pay higher taxes than if my business is not.
You may argue the cost-benefit implies that taxing productivity (in both businesses and individuals) is worthwhile, but you cannot ignore the cost. If I were to argue that taxing pollution is a bad idea because it will be harmful to the economy (a cost-benefit analysis) how much sympathy would I find from the left? Yet our tax code in effect subsidizes pollution (by taxing productivity) and this fact is inadmissable in most debates I've had with leftists on taxation. You just can't have it both ways.
As I mentioned, I view this positive externality as large and worth encouraging. Why is the U.S. the richest nation in the world today? Why is unemployment in the U.S. 4-5% while it is 10-14% in Europe? Why have so many of the products we use today come from the U.S., and so few from elsewhere? I believe it is because we have maintained a strong incentive to be productive and am very cautious about policies which would discourage it.
This applies as well to Karl's last two points: overthrowing the tyranny of wealth and ensuring a land of opportunity. What country exceeds the U.S. in this regard? Isn't this part of the reason immigrants have come here for centuries? Does Europe afford greater opportunity? Less tyranny of one social class over others? My experience and study of macroeconomics indicates those countries with less regulation, smaller government and less redistribution of income have greater upward mobility than those with more progressive policies. I just see no evidence of the contention in point #4.
As for point 1, income seems a noisy proxy here. I know lots of folks at Harvard who will go on to make little money but have spent 12 years gaining a world class education. Shouldn't many of us (Ryan and I for example) have been taxed a lot for the opportunity to work toward at PhD which is certainly not necessary for us to make a living? How about those born wealthy who squander it? How about those born with little who just work really hard? How about those who emigrate and manage to make something for themselves? How about those who save their money?
And if you're going to tax based on what they've received shouldn't you also consider what they've contributed? Here income seems a noisy proxy as well.
Ok this is getting too long. I believe government should encourage positive externalities and discourage negative ones. Progressive income taxes are exactly the opposite.
Books Past, Present and Future
Greetings from IL. I'm currently visiting my parents in the Land of Lincoln. Ryan, if you want to get together for lunch on Monday. I'll be driving through Champaign on my way back to MD, though you may want to read this post before you decide if you're busy or not. I've been very intrigued by the comments here, and I've been wanting to post for a while. It's funny how hard it can be to find time for something when you're on vacation.
Books past:
Yesterday my wife was trying to decide between two pairs of shoes, and she finally decided on the less expensive pair because she simply couldn't justify spending $90 (pre-discount) on a pair of shoes, even if she only gets new shoes once every 3 years. This is why I love her. I, however, felt that I wasn't being a very good provider if my wife didn't feel like she could get the slightly more comfortable shoes, so I convinced her to get the more expensive ones. While I felt like a good provider, I was later haunted by the ghosts of Paul Farmer.
Books present:
I'm surprised by how much commentary there has been about this book by people that haven't read it. I haven't read it either, but I have read most of the bibliography that Paul referred to. (I was at a Polka concert in our library, and I saw the book on the shelf next to me and read it while I listened. It's not that long, and it's better documented than Al (I should have been President.) Gore's documentary.) I think everyone can/should at least read the bibliography.) I thought it was funny that the anti-Crichton faction chose to call his book "Heresy" because Crichton has an interesting article about environmentalism as a religion.
I don't want to spoil the bibliography but for those of you have never read it, let me clarify a few things for you. (Hopefully, I won't misrepresent anything because I actually haven't read it for a year.) But from what I remember, Crichton doesn't deny that global warming is happening, and he doesn't claim that carbon dioxide has nothing to do with it. He thinks carbon dioxide has less to do with it then other things, such as the way we use land, but the focus is always on carbon emissions instead of bigger problems. He also gets annoyed with how some weather predictions get presented as facts when they are just scientific guesses, and environmentalists often cause as much harm as good.
Chrichton doesn't use this example, but I think biofuels is a good example. Studies are now showing that the carbon emitted to process biofuels plus the forests that are being destroyed so that we can plant more corn, sugar, etc. to create biofuels has had a net negative effect on the environment. The center to predict hurricanes underpredicted the year of Katrina and has overpredicted every year since. (Note: I'm not saying that all environmental models are useless. In statistics we say, all models are wrong, but some are useful.)
I believe that we do need to be very concerned about the environment. I think we have a moral responsibility to take care of the earth. I believe that global warming is happening, though I am unsure of all of the causes, what is the most important cause, or what we can realistically do to prevent it. I have visited Karl's suggested website for global warming doubters, and if you make it down to the scientific reasons for doubting global warming, I think there are still reasonable reasons to think that there may be other more important causes to global warming than carbon emissions. If you can lead me to sources that prove otherwise, please do. I'd be happy to be proven wrong.
Books past:
Yesterday my wife was trying to decide between two pairs of shoes, and she finally decided on the less expensive pair because she simply couldn't justify spending $90 (pre-discount) on a pair of shoes, even if she only gets new shoes once every 3 years. This is why I love her. I, however, felt that I wasn't being a very good provider if my wife didn't feel like she could get the slightly more comfortable shoes, so I convinced her to get the more expensive ones. While I felt like a good provider, I was later haunted by the ghosts of Paul Farmer.
Books present:
I finally got the
On a tangential note, I was called to the Young Men's Organization about a year ago, and I was very surprised because I didn't think they called people with my personality type to Young Men's. It's typically the more popular, manly men. For example, we had an activity this year where we built potato cannons. The majority of the YM's leaders and youth were very excited about this activity. It's very manly/cool to shoot things, start them on fire, etc. However, I was not at all interested in such things as a youth, and I have not acquired these tastes as I've grown older. I guess, according to this book, I've become too "feminized" for the YM's program. Now, I realize there is still a way for me to be helpful in YM, as not every youth is into guns, archery, and fire, but we are certainly not in the majority.
Books future:I'm surprised by how much commentary there has been about this book by people that haven't read it. I haven't read it either, but I have read most of the bibliography that Paul referred to. (I was at a Polka concert in our library, and I saw the book on the shelf next to me and read it while I listened. It's not that long, and it's better documented than Al (I should have been President.) Gore's documentary.) I think everyone can/should at least read the bibliography.) I thought it was funny that the anti-Crichton faction chose to call his book "Heresy" because Crichton has an interesting article about environmentalism as a religion.
I don't want to spoil the bibliography but for those of you have never read it, let me clarify a few things for you. (Hopefully, I won't misrepresent anything because I actually haven't read it for a year.) But from what I remember, Crichton doesn't deny that global warming is happening, and he doesn't claim that carbon dioxide has nothing to do with it. He thinks carbon dioxide has less to do with it then other things, such as the way we use land, but the focus is always on carbon emissions instead of bigger problems. He also gets annoyed with how some weather predictions get presented as facts when they are just scientific guesses, and environmentalists often cause as much harm as good.
Chrichton doesn't use this example, but I think biofuels is a good example. Studies are now showing that the carbon emitted to process biofuels plus the forests that are being destroyed so that we can plant more corn, sugar, etc. to create biofuels has had a net negative effect on the environment. The center to predict hurricanes underpredicted the year of Katrina and has overpredicted every year since. (Note: I'm not saying that all environmental models are useless. In statistics we say, all models are wrong, but some are useful.)
I believe that we do need to be very concerned about the environment. I think we have a moral responsibility to take care of the earth. I believe that global warming is happening, though I am unsure of all of the causes, what is the most important cause, or what we can realistically do to prevent it. I have visited Karl's suggested website for global warming doubters, and if you make it down to the scientific reasons for doubting global warming, I think there are still reasonable reasons to think that there may be other more important causes to global warming than carbon emissions. If you can lead me to sources that prove otherwise, please do. I'd be happy to be proven wrong.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)