Policemen actually scare me, and the only reason is that I am afraid of getting arrested—I always slow down when passing a policeman regardless of my speed. These policemen did not scare me, but the book did a little.
Humor:
I loved the writing. I'm not sure what I got out of the book, though. Incidentally, I was reading some Douglas Adams at the same time and found them very different. For some reason, british humor is funnier to me in a british accent (even if it's just in my mind), and I also thought that TTP was funnier with an Irish accent. I don't claim that I have a very good understanding of either culture, but I feel more at ease with the English than the Irish. I don't particularly like Joyce (though I found the writing reminiscent), and haven't read any Beckett. but I liked this book, and hope to read more Nolan.
Moral:
I would say the moral is: don't waste your life. While de Selby was amusing, I felt sorry for the ___tagonist wasting his life's purpose, then killing the old man. I think that may be why in Hell he didn't know who he was—he'd wasted his mortal existence.
Crackpot theory?
I did like the boxes—I loved when the one policeman pretended to find the smallest box, but the other one knew he was faking.
The part of the book that I liked the best was the bicycles—that we loose our humanity to a machine (or anything really) by trading characteristics seems like an amusing exploration into the afterlife for the wicked.
I'm sure I'm just dense, but why is the third policeman important? Why not The Three Policemen?
Saturday, August 30, 2008
Wednesday, August 27, 2008
An Obsession with Infinitesimals
O'Brien's literary genealogy: This book is what would happen if James Joyce and Albert Camus collaborated. The warm but subtly satirical descriptions of the everyday Irish life and the sharp-edged existential absurdity of post-WWI continental philosophy. The absurd humor mingled with warm characters reminds me of his countryman and fellow Joyce acolyte Samuel Beckett.
Connections to Lost: I recognized lots of themes from Lost. The hint that this is all a weird afterlife experience, the apparent materiality of dead characters, the obsession with fantastic mechanisms. When the narrator spends an evening conversing in conversation with a withered dead man in an empty, dark room I immediately saw Jacob's shack (don't worry Alvin; you'll get there).
Indelible images: I think the subterranean paradise where you can have anything you want, can grow no older, experience no hunger or weariness, that is brought about by a complex series of metal doors and tubes and corridors is the image I will remember longest. The hugely grotesque Sgt. Pluck and the aforementioned conversation with the ghost-who-is-not-a-ghost Mathers are other strong images.
Moral, or lack thereof: I didn't see there being any moral to this story. Mostly, I saw an author fascinated by the strangeness that infinitesimals foist upon us all. Like the boxes within boxes, the needle that is so sharp and narrow at its point that it can pass two-inches through your finger before it actually makes contact, the litany of things that aren't (e.g. Pluck trying to guess the narrator's name). All of these are variations on Zenos paradoxes (paradice?). Luckily, I'm a discretist and so appreciate the infinitesimal as a useful fiction without allowing it to lead me into logical paralysis.
Related to this theme is the obsession (carried out mostly in the de Selby footnotes, but also a bit in the question over the narrator's identity) with pseudonyms and the logic of who is pretending to be who. The author of the book uses actually a pseudonym, and published several other literary works under several other pseudonyms. The inability to distinguish what is the truth (is du Garbandier impersonating Kraus or is du Gabandier actually Kraus in disguise, or is it actually a third author pretending to be both) is another fascinating bit of logic.
In the end, I enjoyed it very much. Thanks for the good read.
Connections to Lost: I recognized lots of themes from Lost. The hint that this is all a weird afterlife experience, the apparent materiality of dead characters, the obsession with fantastic mechanisms. When the narrator spends an evening conversing in conversation with a withered dead man in an empty, dark room I immediately saw Jacob's shack (don't worry Alvin; you'll get there).
Indelible images: I think the subterranean paradise where you can have anything you want, can grow no older, experience no hunger or weariness, that is brought about by a complex series of metal doors and tubes and corridors is the image I will remember longest. The hugely grotesque Sgt. Pluck and the aforementioned conversation with the ghost-who-is-not-a-ghost Mathers are other strong images.
Moral, or lack thereof: I didn't see there being any moral to this story. Mostly, I saw an author fascinated by the strangeness that infinitesimals foist upon us all. Like the boxes within boxes, the needle that is so sharp and narrow at its point that it can pass two-inches through your finger before it actually makes contact, the litany of things that aren't (e.g. Pluck trying to guess the narrator's name). All of these are variations on Zenos paradoxes (paradice?). Luckily, I'm a discretist and so appreciate the infinitesimal as a useful fiction without allowing it to lead me into logical paralysis.
Related to this theme is the obsession (carried out mostly in the de Selby footnotes, but also a bit in the question over the narrator's identity) with pseudonyms and the logic of who is pretending to be who. The author of the book uses actually a pseudonym, and published several other literary works under several other pseudonyms. The inability to distinguish what is the truth (is du Garbandier impersonating Kraus or is du Gabandier actually Kraus in disguise, or is it actually a third author pretending to be both) is another fascinating bit of logic.
In the end, I enjoyed it very much. Thanks for the good read.
Tuesday, August 26, 2008
October's book(s)
The book that has been at or near the top of what I would like to read again is a book that is described by some as a science fiction mystery comedy Dirk Gently's Holistic Detective Agency. Yes, it is more British comedy, but the humor is less obscure than 3rd policeman, and it is quite cleverly written (or at least it was 6 years ago when I read it).
Now, for non-fiction that I would like to read, we have The Film Club. A book that I haven't read simply because it I am still on the wait list at the library, but it sounds interesting.
The alternate for the fiction team is Year of Wonders, 'cause I like infectious disease. And the alternate for the non-fiction squad is Joseph Smith: Presidential Candidate, due to the fact that I plan on doing a fireside in October, looking at how Joseph Smith's candidacy might provide insight into Obama and McCain.
So, share your thoughts either as a comment or as an email to glennjamen@gmail.com
I will consider strong opinions, availability in local libraries, and whether you have previously read it and never want to crack the book again, but remember I have the final say. AHHHH, the POWER!!
Now, for non-fiction that I would like to read, we have The Film Club. A book that I haven't read simply because it I am still on the wait list at the library, but it sounds interesting.
The alternate for the fiction team is Year of Wonders, 'cause I like infectious disease. And the alternate for the non-fiction squad is Joseph Smith: Presidential Candidate, due to the fact that I plan on doing a fireside in October, looking at how Joseph Smith's candidacy might provide insight into Obama and McCain.
So, share your thoughts either as a comment or as an email to glennjamen@gmail.com
I will consider strong opinions, availability in local libraries, and whether you have previously read it and never want to crack the book again, but remember I have the final say. AHHHH, the POWER!!
September PVS Book Club
Sorry for the delay in posting my final decision on the September book. I appreciate those who voiced an opinion on the three books I selected. On further consideration, I decided to go with none of the above.
Instead, I'm choosing The Man in the Gray Flannel Suit. Written in 1955, it's the story of a young father struggling to find balance and fulfillment in home and career. It has the added benefit, for those less literarily inclined among us (*cough* Alvin *cough*), that it was made into a movie starring Gregory Peck.
One caveat: I haven't finished the book yet, so am unable to give a full content advisory. However, based on the first 50 pages the profanity is kept to "hell"s and "damn"s, and there is little else that is offensive (unless you find pervasive Martini drinking offensive).
I finished The Third Policeman a couple of days ago. I'll try to get my thoughts in order for a post later tonight.
Monday, August 25, 2008
Lost vs. The Third Policeman
I am not a particularly fast reader, and most of my "reading" these days is actually "listening". Unfortunately, this book club has a pattern of choosing books that are difficult to obtain in print and not available at all in audio. Frankly, I'm not even sure how an audio book of The Third Policeman would work, given all of the footnotes. Anyway, by the time I got the book, the month was half over, and not surprisingly, I haven't finished it. Plus, my book is due tomorrow, and I can't renew it because someone else has a hold request on it.
Besides my slow reading, the main reason I haven't finished the book is, coincidentally, because of "Lost". Just this month I borrowed Season 1 from my brother. Thus, every time I've had some free moments and had to choose how to entertain myself, I've chosen Lost (and some Olympics) over The Third Policeman. (You'd do the same in my shoes, right Karl?) We're only about 2/3 of the way through Season 1, so the previous comments here didn't make much sense. But maybe in a year, I'll have caught up enough that we can have a good Lost discussion in this forum (and not before then (though if the series has a disappointing ending let me know so I can save myself some time)).
As for the parts that I read (about 3 and a half chapters), I enjoyed them, even if it didn't get me hooked. I didn't find it quite as funny as the Hitchhikers series (though it's been 15 years since I read those) and it's a bit darker, but I can see the comparison. I guess I enjoy British humor, though I don't seem to be as big as a fan as some people I know. For example, some friends at church were going on and on about Jeeves and Wooster, and I watched the first episode and enjoyed it but didn't think it lived up to the hype. The running DeSelby interjections/footnotes/commentary were my favorite parts. Under better conditions, I might have enjoyed the whole thing.
Besides my slow reading, the main reason I haven't finished the book is, coincidentally, because of "Lost". Just this month I borrowed Season 1 from my brother. Thus, every time I've had some free moments and had to choose how to entertain myself, I've chosen Lost (and some Olympics) over The Third Policeman. (You'd do the same in my shoes, right Karl?) We're only about 2/3 of the way through Season 1, so the previous comments here didn't make much sense. But maybe in a year, I'll have caught up enough that we can have a good Lost discussion in this forum (and not before then (though if the series has a disappointing ending let me know so I can save myself some time)).
As for the parts that I read (about 3 and a half chapters), I enjoyed them, even if it didn't get me hooked. I didn't find it quite as funny as the Hitchhikers series (though it's been 15 years since I read those) and it's a bit darker, but I can see the comparison. I guess I enjoy British humor, though I don't seem to be as big as a fan as some people I know. For example, some friends at church were going on and on about Jeeves and Wooster, and I watched the first episode and enjoyed it but didn't think it lived up to the hype. The running DeSelby interjections/footnotes/commentary were my favorite parts. Under better conditions, I might have enjoyed the whole thing.
The Infinity Policeman
I initially posted this as a comment to Karl's post, but I thought it was long enough to be awarded its own spot on the blog.
I really enjoyed the first couple of chapters. The authors use of words amazed me; great metaphors and similes. To paraphrase one of my favorites from the book ... friendly and comforting like the pockets of an old suit. He combined words that I never would have thought of putting next to one another. It reminded me of Ratatouille, where Remy the rat is able to combine foods in such a unique and perfect way. But my attitude towards the book began to change when I started into the chapter that contained the box within the box within the box etc., ... it was oddly unsettling, as was nearly everything the 2nd policeman said. The book became more interesting, or at least enjoyable, as I spent less time dwelling upon the dialogue and focused more on the story.
First, what'd you think of the humor?
I enjoy British humor, in fact I was thinking of proposing Dirk Gently's Holistic Detective Agency as the book for October, but 3rd Policeman seemed to contain silliness more than the wittiness that I associate with the Brits, though there were a few good play-on-words.
If you had to say, succinctly, the moral of the story, what would it be?
don't be amoral.
Okay. Elaborate.
You sow what you reap. The punishment fits the crime.
In a way, it's similar to what I believe; there is not one heaven and one hell. The gradation in the degrees of glory is just and appropriate to what individuals have obtained and can endure.
What was your favorite crackpot theory of the book?
The version of the book that I picked up from the library was a compilation of the complete writings of "Flann O'Brien," so when I saw the footnotes, I assumed that they were written by an editor. When I read about the amazing waterbox, I got curious and googled "De Selby waterbox." Imagine my embarrasment when I realized I had been duped. So, I guess De Selby's obsession with water and his theory of diluting it is strongest in my memory.
Lastly, what was your favorite "image" of the book?
Probably the image of the third policeman's suggestion of what the narrator could buy with the contents of the black box, a room filled with jam (though it would necessitate a neighboring room filled with crunchy peanut butter).
So, what do you think this book has to do with the show LOST?
I really enjoyed the first couple of chapters. The authors use of words amazed me; great metaphors and similes. To paraphrase one of my favorites from the book ... friendly and comforting like the pockets of an old suit. He combined words that I never would have thought of putting next to one another. It reminded me of Ratatouille, where Remy the rat is able to combine foods in such a unique and perfect way. But my attitude towards the book began to change when I started into the chapter that contained the box within the box within the box etc., ... it was oddly unsettling, as was nearly everything the 2nd policeman said. The book became more interesting, or at least enjoyable, as I spent less time dwelling upon the dialogue and focused more on the story.
First, what'd you think of the humor?
I enjoy British humor, in fact I was thinking of proposing Dirk Gently's Holistic Detective Agency as the book for October, but 3rd Policeman seemed to contain silliness more than the wittiness that I associate with the Brits, though there were a few good play-on-words.
If you had to say, succinctly, the moral of the story, what would it be?
don't be amoral.
Okay. Elaborate.
You sow what you reap. The punishment fits the crime.
In a way, it's similar to what I believe; there is not one heaven and one hell. The gradation in the degrees of glory is just and appropriate to what individuals have obtained and can endure.
What was your favorite crackpot theory of the book?
The version of the book that I picked up from the library was a compilation of the complete writings of "Flann O'Brien," so when I saw the footnotes, I assumed that they were written by an editor. When I read about the amazing waterbox, I got curious and googled "De Selby waterbox." Imagine my embarrasment when I realized I had been duped. So, I guess De Selby's obsession with water and his theory of diluting it is strongest in my memory.
Lastly, what was your favorite "image" of the book?
Probably the image of the third policeman's suggestion of what the narrator could buy with the contents of the black box, a room filled with jam (though it would necessitate a neighboring room filled with crunchy peanut butter).
So, what do you think this book has to do with the show LOST?
Sunday, August 24, 2008
The Third Policeman
I finished the book a few weeks ago, actually, and it's taken me a while to figure out what to make of it. And, in fact, I still don't have anything too intelligent to say about it, so here's some conversation starter questions I came up with, along with my thoughts.
First, what'd you think of the humor?
It wasn't as humorous as I thought it would be (perhaps because some of it got old after a while). Still, there were a lot of moments that reminded me of Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy or Monty Python. Is anybody out there knowledgeable enough about British humor to be able to place "The Third Policeman" on some sort of comedic-influence genealogical tree?
If you had to say, succinctly, the moral of the story, what would it be?
I think I'd go for "moderation in all things."
Okay. Elaborate.
Everybody in the story appeared to have an unhealthy obsession with something. So much so that they're unable to see the big picture of what's going on. The boxes within boxes, the endless measurements, the pursuit of what's in the box, the DeShelby fetish, and so on. I especially like the boxes within the boxes--it's an unquenchable pursuit that will never end.
It is the pro(an)tognist's unhealthy obsession with DeShelby that leads him to basically hand his estate over to another man, justify murder and theft, walk blindly into an obvious trap, and even forget his own name. This obsession is easily transferable to the box, which at first is simply a means of preserving himself against the downfall of his estate, but soon becomes his sole reason for living--so that night and day he obsesses about it. The substance of the box, once simply assumed to be gold, in his imagination turns into absolute power to do anything and get anything he wants.
These obsessions turn into his hell. In other words, his hell is to be in constant pursuit of what he can never have. I think it's interesting that his hell is not the knowledge that he can never have what he wants, but that he must pursue it endlessly without knowing he can never have it.
(Note that the third policeman has much more mundane and practical designs for the substance of the box. Not quite sure what to make of that).
What was your favorite crackpot theory of the book?
I think DeShelby's theory that you could see the beginning of time via two mirrors facing each other was my favorite. Mostly because it took me a while to articulate to myself why the theory was wrong.
Lastly, what was your favorite "image" of the book?
I would have to go with the army of one-legged men with their wooden legs tied to each other's good leg.
First, what'd you think of the humor?
It wasn't as humorous as I thought it would be (perhaps because some of it got old after a while). Still, there were a lot of moments that reminded me of Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy or Monty Python. Is anybody out there knowledgeable enough about British humor to be able to place "The Third Policeman" on some sort of comedic-influence genealogical tree?
If you had to say, succinctly, the moral of the story, what would it be?
I think I'd go for "moderation in all things."
Okay. Elaborate.
Everybody in the story appeared to have an unhealthy obsession with something. So much so that they're unable to see the big picture of what's going on. The boxes within boxes, the endless measurements, the pursuit of what's in the box, the DeShelby fetish, and so on. I especially like the boxes within the boxes--it's an unquenchable pursuit that will never end.
It is the pro(an)tognist's unhealthy obsession with DeShelby that leads him to basically hand his estate over to another man, justify murder and theft, walk blindly into an obvious trap, and even forget his own name. This obsession is easily transferable to the box, which at first is simply a means of preserving himself against the downfall of his estate, but soon becomes his sole reason for living--so that night and day he obsesses about it. The substance of the box, once simply assumed to be gold, in his imagination turns into absolute power to do anything and get anything he wants.
These obsessions turn into his hell. In other words, his hell is to be in constant pursuit of what he can never have. I think it's interesting that his hell is not the knowledge that he can never have what he wants, but that he must pursue it endlessly without knowing he can never have it.
(Note that the third policeman has much more mundane and practical designs for the substance of the box. Not quite sure what to make of that).
What was your favorite crackpot theory of the book?
I think DeShelby's theory that you could see the beginning of time via two mirrors facing each other was my favorite. Mostly because it took me a while to articulate to myself why the theory was wrong.
Lastly, what was your favorite "image" of the book?
I would have to go with the army of one-legged men with their wooden legs tied to each other's good leg.
Friday, August 15, 2008
Stop worrying and learn to love the bomb
Chrichton
Thanks to those who cracked the cover on the State of Fear. I read (skimmed) it on the beach two years ago--definitely summer reading--I personally apologize for putting you through the misery of the novel itself. When I recommended it I assumed it would involve a good deal of skimming-I assumed most of you would have already known the Dan Browniness of the author. Hopefully none of you wasted to much time in two dimensional spaces (Third Policeman?), and you don't hate me for the FICTION I recommended.
Science
I understand that there is science behind the global warming. Most of it is a little beyond me, but I think that Alvin's request for clear, concise data is reasonable. Granted, it's a complex issue--I'm sure we'll learn more as time goes by. (This R. Feynman clip is so true about science).
Global Warming
Alvin, Peter, Glenn, and others--loved the comments. Elliot and others: I hope you'll expound on your dis. While I'm hesitant to spend a lot more time looking into it myself, I would love to hear more as Alvin mentioned, from those on the less heretical side of the spectrum--i.e. those who believe "that the Global Climate Models accurately project the effects of increased greenhouse gases" and that "the costs associated with limiting greenhouse gas emissions are worth the benefits".
Write your Senator
Regardless of what it does to the global temperature, the time to get America off dirty fuel is now. America is addicted to oil, and we cannot reduce production of oil in the next 10 years without adversely affecting our economy. Furthermore, we have LOTS of coal, which, as Peter pointed out, is dirtier than oil. So while the Tesla is way cool, we need NOW to build the systems to make it possible. Unless we prepare to use more nuclear power, or improve our electricity storage (for wind/solar), we are going to be using oil (we're not running out) and coal. I know this sounds preachy, but our nation needs to:
1. Develop more nuclear power plants.
2. Improve our infrastructure (mass transit, hydrogen fuel cells).
These can all involve private investment to some degree.
Thursday, August 7, 2008
someone, please fix the science
Would this book have read differently if it was part of the book club in January rather than in July? I guess it depends on which hemisphere you're in.
My impressions of the book echo what has already been said, cheese puffs and all. I felt it was predictable and weak as a thriller. I was very frustrated by the plot detours that were used to "educate" the reader on global warming/climate change/population manipulation/etc.
My impressions of the book echo what has already been said, cheese puffs and all. I felt it was predictable and weak as a thriller. I was very frustrated by the plot detours that were used to "educate" the reader on global warming/climate change/population manipulation/etc.
I was hoping someone (especially someone who has finished grad school and plays the "publish or perish" game) would have commented on the proposal at the end of the book that research funding be done differently. I had to write a grant last month as part of a class I was taking. It was such a frustrating ordeal. So when I read Morton's proposition of how he would like things to be run, Crichton had my attention. He said
Now, on to the environment. The claims made by the book didn't seem too far fetched, but they did at times contradict other reports about global warming. In a way I felt tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine (or maybe I was beginning to feel the effects of abrupt climate change). The take home message is that science can't prove anything. It even has a hard time disproving something. There always seems to be more than one side to the story, with both sides having data and statistics to support their theories. As has been mentioned in this blog before, recent data shows an upward trend in average global temperature. This may be caused or at least influenced by man. This may be a bad thing. I can't know at this point. But I don't like the effects that air pollution has on health or on the aesthetics of the landscape, these reasons, along with a desire for independence from foreign nations for much of or energy, give me cause to support research into alternative energy.
PS-Have any of you seen the Tesla car? Pretty sweet!
"We need a new mechanism to fund research. Right now, scientists are in exactly the same position as Renaissance painters, commissioned to make the portrait the patron wants done. And if they are smart, they'll make sure their work subtly flatters the patron. Not overtly. Subtly. This is not a good system for research into those areas of science that affect policy. Even worse, the system works against problem solving. Because if you solve a problem, your funding ends. All that's got to change."
He then offers up a few suggestions to improve the way research is funded and results reported. Coming from clinical medicine, I am still learning the politics of science, but it definitely exists, and there does seem to be room for improvement.Now, on to the environment. The claims made by the book didn't seem too far fetched, but they did at times contradict other reports about global warming. In a way I felt tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine (or maybe I was beginning to feel the effects of abrupt climate change). The take home message is that science can't prove anything. It even has a hard time disproving something. There always seems to be more than one side to the story, with both sides having data and statistics to support their theories. As has been mentioned in this blog before, recent data shows an upward trend in average global temperature. This may be caused or at least influenced by man. This may be a bad thing. I can't know at this point. But I don't like the effects that air pollution has on health or on the aesthetics of the landscape, these reasons, along with a desire for independence from foreign nations for much of or energy, give me cause to support research into alternative energy.
PS-Have any of you seen the Tesla car? Pretty sweet!
Monday, August 4, 2008
Quick Thoughts
On constitutional interpretation:
Just wanted to take a quick second and clarify my position on constitutional interpretation. While I believe it's foolish to ignore original context in some cases, I also believe that trying to figure out what a handful of elite individuals meant when they wrote a document during a hot Pennsylvanian summer more than 200 years ago is not the best way to answer questions about social issues that affect us today. Original intent is difficult to divine. Contexts change. Ambiguities arise. The legislative process is too slow to adapt to new contexts, and too unlikely to respond to people who don't speak loud enough. We need an institution like the Supreme Court that is capable of adapting quickly.
Yes, the constitution is a check on the Supreme Court. But not in the sense that any hypothetical "original" interpretation of the constitution should have more weight than any other guide. Modern interpretation of the constitution should be the greatest guide.
The People should amend the Constitution when their modern context of what is right moves away from the text of the Constitution. But when the text of the Constitution is flexible enough that it may be interpreted in a manner adapted to modern contexts, the People shouldn't be required to amend the Constitution to tell the Court that the Court's hypothetical original interpretation is wrong. If the Court's modern interpretation is disagreeable with the People, the People may then correct the Court by amending the Constitution to clarify to the Supreme Court that the Court's modern interpretation is not the will of the People.
I don't have any problems with the idea of 9 judges having such power. In my opinion the good of having an arm of the government that can do what our modern judiciary does far outweighs the risk of the Supreme Court departing significantly from the good of the people. Besides, there are still other checks--for example, the President and Congress can work in tandem to add more judges if the 9 get out of control. E.g. FDR.
Alvin (and others) -
On your "separate but equal" arguments, this is exactly why my gut instinct is that we should move the opposite way and remove all reference to marriage in any law or regulation, not just the assignment of benefits. What is marriage in the absence of religion? Is it anything more than a contract? Let people contract with whomever the please, and leave it to religious institutions to define and preserve the institution of marriage.
(I'm still a little uneasy on this idea, though, when it comes to adoption).
If you have to learn about constitutional law from one source, Rex Lee is a good one.
The right to privacy has always been, in my mind, the most suspect of "rights." But at the same time, I don't believe you should need a constitution to define a right specifically, if the right is a natural right. And I don't see anything wrong with the Court recognizing new natural rights--i.e. rights that are inalienable, but that we just haven't "seen" before. Substantive due process is just a legal way of saying that something's a natural (legally speaking, "fundamental") right. If we didn't have substantive due process, the Court would just find another legal concept to cling to for these natural rights. Even Scalia and Thomas have come to rely on the substantive due process concept from time to time.
Interesting thoughts on the First Presidency. I'll have to think about that some more.
Just wanted to take a quick second and clarify my position on constitutional interpretation. While I believe it's foolish to ignore original context in some cases, I also believe that trying to figure out what a handful of elite individuals meant when they wrote a document during a hot Pennsylvanian summer more than 200 years ago is not the best way to answer questions about social issues that affect us today. Original intent is difficult to divine. Contexts change. Ambiguities arise. The legislative process is too slow to adapt to new contexts, and too unlikely to respond to people who don't speak loud enough. We need an institution like the Supreme Court that is capable of adapting quickly.
Yes, the constitution is a check on the Supreme Court. But not in the sense that any hypothetical "original" interpretation of the constitution should have more weight than any other guide. Modern interpretation of the constitution should be the greatest guide.
The People should amend the Constitution when their modern context of what is right moves away from the text of the Constitution. But when the text of the Constitution is flexible enough that it may be interpreted in a manner adapted to modern contexts, the People shouldn't be required to amend the Constitution to tell the Court that the Court's hypothetical original interpretation is wrong. If the Court's modern interpretation is disagreeable with the People, the People may then correct the Court by amending the Constitution to clarify to the Supreme Court that the Court's modern interpretation is not the will of the People.
I don't have any problems with the idea of 9 judges having such power. In my opinion the good of having an arm of the government that can do what our modern judiciary does far outweighs the risk of the Supreme Court departing significantly from the good of the people. Besides, there are still other checks--for example, the President and Congress can work in tandem to add more judges if the 9 get out of control. E.g. FDR.
Alvin (and others) -
On your "separate but equal" arguments, this is exactly why my gut instinct is that we should move the opposite way and remove all reference to marriage in any law or regulation, not just the assignment of benefits. What is marriage in the absence of religion? Is it anything more than a contract? Let people contract with whomever the please, and leave it to religious institutions to define and preserve the institution of marriage.
(I'm still a little uneasy on this idea, though, when it comes to adoption).
If you have to learn about constitutional law from one source, Rex Lee is a good one.
The right to privacy has always been, in my mind, the most suspect of "rights." But at the same time, I don't believe you should need a constitution to define a right specifically, if the right is a natural right. And I don't see anything wrong with the Court recognizing new natural rights--i.e. rights that are inalienable, but that we just haven't "seen" before. Substantive due process is just a legal way of saying that something's a natural (legally speaking, "fundamental") right. If we didn't have substantive due process, the Court would just find another legal concept to cling to for these natural rights. Even Scalia and Thomas have come to rely on the substantive due process concept from time to time.
Interesting thoughts on the First Presidency. I'll have to think about that some more.
Nuttallicious on the scene
Hey guys,
I've been feeling guilty for a while just being a fly on the wall in here- I've been wanting to get involved, but I think mostly I'm afraid that once I post something I'll have set expectations that I'll continue, and that's just too much pressure for me...
I'll do some intro and later on I'll throw out a question I'm curious to hear input on.
After freshman year I served a mission in Bahia Blanca, Argentina, during which time my parents had moved from Warsaw to Shanghai. I have nothing to substantiate it, but I claim that I'm in the first 5 missionaries to "come home" to PRC. Soon after returning to BYU I met this fantastic girl and asked her to marry me. This month is our 9th anniversary- we have 2 boys (Isaac 4 yrs, Levi 1.5 yrs) and we're expecting in January.
I graduated in Chemical Engineering in 2002, but knew that I didn't want to size distillation columns the rest of my life, so I went into a sales role at Dow Chemical.
Dow took us to Michigan, San Diego, and Houston over a great 6 year period, during which I held several commercial roles. Along the way I decided that, since I enjoyed business so much, it might be a decent idea to get some training instead of continuing seat-of-pants style. I got into Wharton and had to take the opportunity- so I've spent the last couple of months extricating us from a spacious Houston home, shoe-horning us into an apartment in down-town Philly, and getting ready to rock the MBA program (being busy is one of my aforementioned excuses). Those of you in the Northeast and Mid-Atlantic, please consider coming to Philly to visit- you'll be pleasantly surprised... I know I am.
Take care,
James
Friday, August 1, 2008
The Legend of Jesse Barnes
We just had a missionary in my ward come back from Romania. I told him that I had three friends that served in Romania and loved it (Jesse Barnes, Peter Williams, and Tyson Wiser). He said, "That Barnes name sounds familiar." Clearly, Jesse's work in Romania has become mission legend.
Separate But Equal?
Christopher and others have expressed the following points (if I understood correctly)
1. Homosexuals shouldn't be denied governmental benefits based on sexual orientation.
2. Marriage is only a religious institution
3. There is no "right to marry"
4. The government (by amendment) should define marriage as between a man and a woman.
I feel like I'm missing something because these series of statement have some pretty important contradictions. If marriage is a religious institution, then why should the government define the terms under which marriage, a religious institution, is allowable. Why do I need government to tell me who can get married and who can't?
If government starts getting involved in the religious institution department, then could government also define how we should baptize people? In my mind, the only reason to ask the government to define marriage as between a man and woman is to deny governmental benefits based on sexual orientation. The idea of separate (in this case, marriage vs. partnerships) but equal has already been tried in this country. Now, if you think there should be some rights denied, such as adoption, I can agree with the logic of defining marriage, but I don't know how you justify it from a legal point of view.
The Prophet, Policy and Principle
I happen to side with Jesse "The Legend" Barnes on this one. (though his reasons may differ from mine)
This is a matter of policy rather than a principle. The principle is marriage should be defined as between a man and a woman. Marriage is defined in the Proclamation, and I fully support that definition. Another principle may be publicly supporting the family and gospel in the community. But the policy, suggested by the prophet, is to support an amendment defining marriage. A poor analogy is family home evening. The principle is to teach your children the gospel and have a regular habit of family time. The policy is to have it on Monday night. The church has set that time apart. However, if a family has their FHE on a Tuesday or Sunday, I don't think this is wrong in any way. I think you can still agree with and in many cases follow the principle without following the policy.
I realize that I am treading on thin ice trying to be a judge over what is principle and what is policy. And maybe the real principle is one of obedience, in which case my whole argument is bunk (but I've written to much to stop now).
I do think it is important not to confuse policy with principle. If you do, then, for example, you may get thrown for a loop every time the temple ordinances change. I often see members get upset when things aren't done in the way that they are used to (if a convert says a prayer or testimony differently, if someone doesn't dress a certain way, etc.). The church has a LOT of policies that help make the church fairly standard wherever we move, and I appreciate that. But given how different the church is today form the early days, most of the standardized church service is not principle.
The Original Living Constitution
There are a number of issues in Constitutional Law, as Christopher said, where a judge must decide between competing interests, such as federal versus state jurisdiction, private versus public interests, etc. In most of these cases, it is part of the Supreme courts duties to find a balance. The first amendment clearly protects the freedom of speech, but the courts have had to decide exactly what free speech is allowed. This can be particularly tricky when it comes to things like pornography. What should be allowed on television and what shouldn't? This is an area where the modern culture and community, as Scott suggested, very much play a part in what is allowed. The Supreme Court has even said that limits in this area depend on what a jury of peers in a particular area would find offensive, which might vary from one part of the country to another.
Now, I find myself more in the originalist camp, in that I don't think judges should add in rights to the Constitution that aren't there. Rex Lee (I know nothing about Constitutional Law besides what I learned from him.) suggested "substantive due process" decisions and the abortion ruling, based on a right to privacy, may be examples of this. However, there are certainly cases where the judges' interpretation of the Constitution is based on their own sense of morality and the community. And in these situations, whatever the Supreme Court decides becomes, as Karl said, the right decision. I found it interesting that besides the cases mentioned above, Rex Lee never said a decision was liberal or conservative. It was just the ruling of the court.
The First Presidency: The Supreme Court of the Mormon Church
I think the discussion of right and wrong court decisions parallels nicely with a discussion of right and wrong church policies. In my crazy late night analogy, the scriptures are like the Constitution and Joseph Smith the founding father and the First Presidency is the Supreme Court. Is any decision by the first presidency wrong? What about the practice of not letting blacks have the priesthood? Now, that it has been "reversed" is it safe to say that it was wrong before? Or is it like the Dred Scott argument that has been made here that though it seems wrong now that it may have been right at the time?
Similar to the courts, the first presidency has made many decisions that one could argue are influenced by modern culture. For example, I am very grateful that we could wear shorts while we were at BYU. And, while I don't necessarily agree with it, some would argue that the culture of the time affected the reversals on polygamy and blacks. A strict originalist in Mormon terms would I guess be a fundamentalist, which of course none of us are. And the opposite extreme would be the RLDS church which hardly believes in the Book of Mormon any more. I guess I'm somewhere in the middle with both the judiciary and the church.
Now, I find myself more in the originalist camp, in that I don't think judges should add in rights to the Constitution that aren't there. Rex Lee (I know nothing about Constitutional Law besides what I learned from him.) suggested "substantive due process" decisions and the abortion ruling, based on a right to privacy, may be examples of this. However, there are certainly cases where the judges' interpretation of the Constitution is based on their own sense of morality and the community. And in these situations, whatever the Supreme Court decides becomes, as Karl said, the right decision. I found it interesting that besides the cases mentioned above, Rex Lee never said a decision was liberal or conservative. It was just the ruling of the court.
The First Presidency: The Supreme Court of the Mormon Church
I think the discussion of right and wrong court decisions parallels nicely with a discussion of right and wrong church policies. In my crazy late night analogy, the scriptures are like the Constitution and Joseph Smith the founding father and the First Presidency is the Supreme Court. Is any decision by the first presidency wrong? What about the practice of not letting blacks have the priesthood? Now, that it has been "reversed" is it safe to say that it was wrong before? Or is it like the Dred Scott argument that has been made here that though it seems wrong now that it may have been right at the time?
Similar to the courts, the first presidency has made many decisions that one could argue are influenced by modern culture. For example, I am very grateful that we could wear shorts while we were at BYU. And, while I don't necessarily agree with it, some would argue that the culture of the time affected the reversals on polygamy and blacks. A strict originalist in Mormon terms would I guess be a fundamentalist, which of course none of us are. And the opposite extreme would be the RLDS church which hardly believes in the Book of Mormon any more. I guess I'm somewhere in the middle with both the judiciary and the church.
Some responses on Judiciary and Gay Marriage
Scott and others who care to respond:
Justice Cardozo argues that judges must "fashion laws for the litigants before him." You may agree or disagree with this---but how can it be unfair to call this "legislating from the bench"? Isn't that, in fact, exactly what he's saying?
You further argue that while the legislature enacts the will of the majority, the judiciary protects the rights of the minority. I would add that they protect the rights of the minority both from the majority (via the legislature) and from other minorities (they arbitrate if you steal from me). My question is: who protects the rights of the minority from the particular 9-person minority called the Supreme Court? My answer of course is the Constitution. It circumscribes the court's authority precisely because it is not "living" or "evolving" in the sense Cardozo intends. It changes only by consent of the governed---through the means Christopher outlines below.
Cardozo no doubt views his position as having great importance. A less expansive view of his own powers is "narrow" and not "worthy of his office." At the risk of hyperbole---is this not the view of all tyrants? Should this make me less concerned with carefully circumscribing the court's authority?
In the end I'm still unsure how you answer my question #2. As far as I can tell you believe there are many "guides": logic, history, customs, justice, morals, social welfare, "evolving as a people", "learning from our mistakes", etc. The advantage to having innumerable and vague "guides" is that almost nothing is proscribed. But then I'm not sure I understand on what basis you view Dred Scott as "wrong"? Do you mean it was wrong when decided? Weren't the justices using the guides you've outlined? Or was it correct then but not when it was overturned? If the only basis on which to conclude the court has overreached is when the court decides it has overreached aren't you really saying the court is never (presently) wrong?
If I've misunderstood your argument I'd be glad for clarification.
Christopher:
I'm obviously in broad agreement with the judicial philosophy you describe. I also think we're in agreement on domestic partnerships and marriage.
On the Church and Prop 8: I'm interested in the reconciliation of your views on domestic partnerships (you favor granting the same govt benefits to homosexual partners as married couples) with your views on the Church's involvement. Do you think the Church shares your views here? When you say the "same governmental benefits" that would include things like adoption, something the Church is against. How would (do) you reconcile this dissonance?
I do not view my disagreement with the Church on policy (even those with moral consequence) as not sustaining the leadership of the Church. If I disagreed with the Church on an issue where I had received counsel to vote or act in some way I would struggle with it. But isn't this struggle the basis of all faith and testimony? I don't believe the Lord wants us to "sustain" if that means accepting without thought the recommendations of our leaders. I'd be interested to hear your (and everyone else's) thoughts on this matter.
Justice Cardozo argues that judges must "fashion laws for the litigants before him." You may agree or disagree with this---but how can it be unfair to call this "legislating from the bench"? Isn't that, in fact, exactly what he's saying?
You further argue that while the legislature enacts the will of the majority, the judiciary protects the rights of the minority. I would add that they protect the rights of the minority both from the majority (via the legislature) and from other minorities (they arbitrate if you steal from me). My question is: who protects the rights of the minority from the particular 9-person minority called the Supreme Court? My answer of course is the Constitution. It circumscribes the court's authority precisely because it is not "living" or "evolving" in the sense Cardozo intends. It changes only by consent of the governed---through the means Christopher outlines below.
Cardozo no doubt views his position as having great importance. A less expansive view of his own powers is "narrow" and not "worthy of his office." At the risk of hyperbole---is this not the view of all tyrants? Should this make me less concerned with carefully circumscribing the court's authority?
In the end I'm still unsure how you answer my question #2. As far as I can tell you believe there are many "guides": logic, history, customs, justice, morals, social welfare, "evolving as a people", "learning from our mistakes", etc. The advantage to having innumerable and vague "guides" is that almost nothing is proscribed. But then I'm not sure I understand on what basis you view Dred Scott as "wrong"? Do you mean it was wrong when decided? Weren't the justices using the guides you've outlined? Or was it correct then but not when it was overturned? If the only basis on which to conclude the court has overreached is when the court decides it has overreached aren't you really saying the court is never (presently) wrong?
If I've misunderstood your argument I'd be glad for clarification.
Christopher:
I'm obviously in broad agreement with the judicial philosophy you describe. I also think we're in agreement on domestic partnerships and marriage.
On the Church and Prop 8: I'm interested in the reconciliation of your views on domestic partnerships (you favor granting the same govt benefits to homosexual partners as married couples) with your views on the Church's involvement. Do you think the Church shares your views here? When you say the "same governmental benefits" that would include things like adoption, something the Church is against. How would (do) you reconcile this dissonance?
I do not view my disagreement with the Church on policy (even those with moral consequence) as not sustaining the leadership of the Church. If I disagreed with the Church on an issue where I had received counsel to vote or act in some way I would struggle with it. But isn't this struggle the basis of all faith and testimony? I don't believe the Lord wants us to "sustain" if that means accepting without thought the recommendations of our leaders. I'd be interested to hear your (and everyone else's) thoughts on this matter.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)