My thoughts on this month's book club, in no particular order.
9 to 5 vs. Mover and Shaker
This goes back to one of our earliest discussions. What's the relative value (or are they even commensurate) of the "heroism" of working day in day out, raising a family, going to church, participating in town meetings, etc. vs. giving your whole life over to your passion ( a la Paul Farmer). I felt like the moral of the book was largely that sacrificing the family life for the passionate life is a poor trade off, at least when the passion (as in the case of Ralph Hopkins) is for business, even good business. But then there's that little snippet of dialogue at the end, when Ralph let's himself go, and says (paraphrasing) "we're the ones who get things done." And he's right, I think. If there weren't those people who obsessively dedicated themselves to things, whether it's research, or business, or healthcare, the world would not progress at the speed it does.
Atonement, Honesty and Facing our Demons
A large part of the novel was about Tom recognizing that he couldn't run from his responsibilities. I loved the way, early on in the book, that he hid behind his cynicism. And it scared me that the cynicism seemed so familiar to me. I often find myself wondering about the "political" advisability of statements, relationships, etc. rather than the rightness of them. It wasn't until Tom faced his responsibilities, in the form of standing up for his beliefs about the big speech, that his life started to turn around. And it wasn't until he faced up to his biggest responsibility, his obligation to Maria and their son, and his biggest sin, hiding it from Betsy, that he became a whole man again.
Striving for Success
Another point that hit perhaps a bit too close to home was the Rath's struggle to succeed, particularly in the form of the nicer home in the nicer neighborhood. I'm a little sensitive about the fact that we bought a home in a "good" town, with a "good" school district, and paid tens of thousands of dollars extra to do so. The reason was to be close to work (which happens to be located within the "good" town), but I'm ashamed to admit that I get a little thrill out of telling people I live in Lexington, and having them tell me what a nice town it is, how great the schools are, etc. This sort of materialism is checked in the book by the Angel of Destruction, in the form of Edward Schultz. And it isn't until after the school board meeting, when the Raths stand up (in this case it's primarily Besty) and stop scheming and are up front and honest about their intentions that the situation starts to really turn around.
The Big Moral
So this is a big moral book. The moral seems to me to be: If you are honest with people, accept your responsibilities, and act with integrity the world will reward you. But when you turn your back on your responsibilities either out of fear (like Tom early on) or selfishness (like Ralph), or when you are dishonest, like Edward, the world will reflect that back at you as well. Sort of a karma-based capitalism.
While I think it's true that the world is largely what you make out of it, I also think that the idealized vision of everything working out if we're just honest and forthright is a bit misguided. It reminds me of one of the more powerful lessons I learned about tithing. It was a story from a returned missionary from, I believe, Guatamala (no one you know, Alvin). He told how a man, newly baptized, struggled to decide whether to pay his tithing or buy food for his family. He decided to pay his tithing, knowing the Lord could bless him. And then went hungry for three days until his next paycheck. Sometimes acting with integrity and honesty just has to be its own reward.
Last week in church our sacrament meeting talks were about having joy despite trials. I was conducting the meeting, and as I concluded shared one of my favorite Neal Maxwell anecdotes. After the Nazi invasion of France, when the British troops were withdrawing from Dunkirk, the rearguard were able to send a brief message to the troops in the channel. The message they chose was "but if not," a reference to Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego, who told King Nebuchadnezzar that they believed if he threw them into the fiery furnace their God could save them. But if not, they still would refuse to worship the false idols of Babylon.
It also reminds me a scene near the end of "Man for All Seasons" when Meg is pleading with her father to sign the King's Act and save himself. I've copied the dialogue below:
(Meg) - In any state that was half good, you would be raised up high, not here. It's not your fault the state's three-quarters bad. If you elect to suffer for it, you elect to be a hero.
(Thomas) - That's very neat. But look now. If we lived in a state where virtue was profitable, common sense would make us saintly. But since we see that avarice, anger, pride and stupidity commonly profit far beyond charity, modesty, justice and thought perhaps we must stand fast a little even at the risk of being heroes.
(Meg) - But in reason! Haven't you done as much as God can reasonably want?
(Thomas) - Well, finally it isn't a matter of reason. Finally, it's a matter of love.
The End
That's enough of my random thoughts. I hope you all liked the book as much as I did.
Friday, September 26, 2008
Thursday, September 25, 2008
State of Fear, Science and the Dismal Science
By popular demand (the President of Merrill Hall no less!) I'm unearthing and posting my comments on "State of Fear" from several months back. I'm sorry I've been AWOL the last while...I've been hit with the double whammy of 1. working in finance where the world is melting down and 2. buying a house and moving. Not done with either just yet...
If it feels like it abruptly ends without much conclusion...well that's why it's been unposted for so long. I also have lots of other thoughts on the topic I wanted to share...will have to wait for another post (I'd also enjoy a serious book on the topic).
1. On the book. Now I know what it feels like to read a "dollar-theater" movie. It really felt to me like Crichton was writing a screenplay for an action film---with the lack of depth, predictable plot and totally unrealistic and unnecessary stunts. Of course, I did read it in about a week, while my book club selection (Men hating church) took me a month to get through. So I guess I have no right to complain.
2. On global warming. I am not a scientist. I therefore rely on an appeal to authority here, and my understanding is that most authorities are in broad agreement that global warming is occuring. I do, however, have several reasons I'm less sure of the details (and therefore the appropriate response) than I would like to be:
a. People are selfish. This includes grant- and publicity-seeking scientists. Incentives certainly play a role here.
b. Sample selection bias. People who believe strongly in global warming or "environmentalism" are much more likely to be passionate enough to devote their life to the study of these issues. Most civil rights attorneys think racism is a big problem; most nutritionists think people should be more careful about what they eat. They certainly have more information on these issues...but you can't ignore that they also are a biased sample.
c. Climate is a complex and unpredictable system. I will here make a comparison that may strike the scientists in the group as unfair. I will compare economics to climate science. Economics, my field of study, is known as the "dismal science." Many people believe this is a commentary on the quality of economic research---in fact the term originated as nothing of the kind. It referred instead to the predictions of economists like Thomas Malthus whose predictions about the future and fate of humanity were rather pessimistic. Malthus observed humanity as a system of production and consumption and used the data available to him to predict the path of that system. He predicted that overpopulation would devastate the human race within a short period of time---that standards of living were doomed to continuously decline. Of course he was wildly wrong. But his methods were sound. He tried to predict something very complicated based on observations on a much smaller (and simpler) scale.
Take a more recent example. Economists nearly all agree that increasing government debt raises interest rates. The relationship between debt and rates is simple and nearly irrefutable in theory---it's just supply and demand. Yet recently Dick Cheney declared he did not believe in this relationship because the data supporting it is so hard to interpret. And unfortunately it's hard to blame him for that conclusion. The economy is a complex system with many variables interacting. To quantify the effect of debt on rates requires a specification of the whole system. It requires controlling for all the other variables which affect interest rates. Economists can experiment with these things on a small scale and can build mathematical models to simulate. But in the real world the relationships are very hard to identify and quantify. Predictions can be and have been very far off. Economics cannot be as precise as science most of the time because economists cannot conduct controlled experiments. We have to infer from the data we observe in the world.
Isn't global climate science similar in this regard? You can know the greenhouse effect is real...you can understand the theory behind it, model it, simulate it, observe it on a small scale...but predicting it in a system as complex as world climate is no small task. Economists also tend to vastly overestimate their ability to forecast. It would not surprise me were global climate models to suffer from the same bias.
A common argument I encounter is that while the extent of global warming (or other environmental problems) may be unknown, why not have clean air and water? This seems to me a useless point. It conveys no information---if I say I'll pay $0 for something you know nothing about its worth to me. The cost is not $0. It may be $0 to much of the developed world, but it most certainly is not to the third world. It is unfair to duck the hard questions here---life (and public policy) is about trade-offs and it doesn't get us anywhere to pretend otherwise.
If it feels like it abruptly ends without much conclusion...well that's why it's been unposted for so long. I also have lots of other thoughts on the topic I wanted to share...will have to wait for another post (I'd also enjoy a serious book on the topic).
1. On the book. Now I know what it feels like to read a "dollar-theater" movie. It really felt to me like Crichton was writing a screenplay for an action film---with the lack of depth, predictable plot and totally unrealistic and unnecessary stunts. Of course, I did read it in about a week, while my book club selection (Men hating church) took me a month to get through. So I guess I have no right to complain.
2. On global warming. I am not a scientist. I therefore rely on an appeal to authority here, and my understanding is that most authorities are in broad agreement that global warming is occuring. I do, however, have several reasons I'm less sure of the details (and therefore the appropriate response) than I would like to be:
a. People are selfish. This includes grant- and publicity-seeking scientists. Incentives certainly play a role here.
b. Sample selection bias. People who believe strongly in global warming or "environmentalism" are much more likely to be passionate enough to devote their life to the study of these issues. Most civil rights attorneys think racism is a big problem; most nutritionists think people should be more careful about what they eat. They certainly have more information on these issues...but you can't ignore that they also are a biased sample.
c. Climate is a complex and unpredictable system. I will here make a comparison that may strike the scientists in the group as unfair. I will compare economics to climate science. Economics, my field of study, is known as the "dismal science." Many people believe this is a commentary on the quality of economic research---in fact the term originated as nothing of the kind. It referred instead to the predictions of economists like Thomas Malthus whose predictions about the future and fate of humanity were rather pessimistic. Malthus observed humanity as a system of production and consumption and used the data available to him to predict the path of that system. He predicted that overpopulation would devastate the human race within a short period of time---that standards of living were doomed to continuously decline. Of course he was wildly wrong. But his methods were sound. He tried to predict something very complicated based on observations on a much smaller (and simpler) scale.
Take a more recent example. Economists nearly all agree that increasing government debt raises interest rates. The relationship between debt and rates is simple and nearly irrefutable in theory---it's just supply and demand. Yet recently Dick Cheney declared he did not believe in this relationship because the data supporting it is so hard to interpret. And unfortunately it's hard to blame him for that conclusion. The economy is a complex system with many variables interacting. To quantify the effect of debt on rates requires a specification of the whole system. It requires controlling for all the other variables which affect interest rates. Economists can experiment with these things on a small scale and can build mathematical models to simulate. But in the real world the relationships are very hard to identify and quantify. Predictions can be and have been very far off. Economics cannot be as precise as science most of the time because economists cannot conduct controlled experiments. We have to infer from the data we observe in the world.
Isn't global climate science similar in this regard? You can know the greenhouse effect is real...you can understand the theory behind it, model it, simulate it, observe it on a small scale...but predicting it in a system as complex as world climate is no small task. Economists also tend to vastly overestimate their ability to forecast. It would not surprise me were global climate models to suffer from the same bias.
A common argument I encounter is that while the extent of global warming (or other environmental problems) may be unknown, why not have clean air and water? This seems to me a useless point. It conveys no information---if I say I'll pay $0 for something you know nothing about its worth to me. The cost is not $0. It may be $0 to much of the developed world, but it most certainly is not to the third world. It is unfair to duck the hard questions here---life (and public policy) is about trade-offs and it doesn't get us anywhere to pretend otherwise.
Tuesday, September 23, 2008
Happy Birthday Peter!
Peter,
I've been meaning to respond to your power post for a while, and what better time than on your birthday. I thought it was quite interesting, and I started to scheme up ways to become more powerful. Then I remembered what I learned from being President of Merrill Hall, namely that I really have no interest in power. But still, the post was thought provoking and I hope that others will post interesting things that they learn. My other question with regard to the post is if a person's power and leadership qualities should have any bearing in an election. Is it OK/good/bad to vote for the better leader even if I fundamentally disagree with his/her policies? What if I fundamentally disagree with both candidates' policies?
I'm sure everyone will be happy to know that I actually finished a book. It's next month's book and only because it was on audio. (I'm looking forward to the discussion.) However, Peter, I am on page 184 of your book, and I fully intend to finish it even though it will probably be after you start this discussion sometime this week. I also finished Season 2 of Lost.
Other things I've been meaning to say:
Jesse, you really need to finish the post that's been sitting in the draft section for months, so I can comment on it.
Karl, I have a cousin on a mission in Poland, Elder Hughes, if your brother ever runs into him.
Everybody, I said in an earlier post that I would disregard the Prophet's counsel to vote for the marriage amendment. I regretted it as soon as I posted it. My post was poorly reasoned. I won't rehash everything right now, but I had to clarify that and get that off my chest.
Well PBJ, I hope you have a fabulous day. If you ever want to be roommates again, you can always bring your family and live in my basement. I hope you include this blog on your list of great accomplishments during the last year. You rock!
Alvin
PS Sorry I don't know anyone else's birthday (except Paul's, which I missed in May), but if you want to tell me your birthday (vanordens@gmail.com), I'd be happy to write you a birthday post or email.
I've been meaning to respond to your power post for a while, and what better time than on your birthday. I thought it was quite interesting, and I started to scheme up ways to become more powerful. Then I remembered what I learned from being President of Merrill Hall, namely that I really have no interest in power. But still, the post was thought provoking and I hope that others will post interesting things that they learn. My other question with regard to the post is if a person's power and leadership qualities should have any bearing in an election. Is it OK/good/bad to vote for the better leader even if I fundamentally disagree with his/her policies? What if I fundamentally disagree with both candidates' policies?
I'm sure everyone will be happy to know that I actually finished a book. It's next month's book and only because it was on audio. (I'm looking forward to the discussion.) However, Peter, I am on page 184 of your book, and I fully intend to finish it even though it will probably be after you start this discussion sometime this week. I also finished Season 2 of Lost.
Other things I've been meaning to say:
Jesse, you really need to finish the post that's been sitting in the draft section for months, so I can comment on it.
Karl, I have a cousin on a mission in Poland, Elder Hughes, if your brother ever runs into him.
Everybody, I said in an earlier post that I would disregard the Prophet's counsel to vote for the marriage amendment. I regretted it as soon as I posted it. My post was poorly reasoned. I won't rehash everything right now, but I had to clarify that and get that off my chest.
Well PBJ, I hope you have a fabulous day. If you ever want to be roommates again, you can always bring your family and live in my basement. I hope you include this blog on your list of great accomplishments during the last year. You rock!
Alvin
PS Sorry I don't know anyone else's birthday (except Paul's, which I missed in May), but if you want to tell me your birthday (vanordens@gmail.com), I'd be happy to write you a birthday post or email.
Thursday, September 11, 2008
Year of Wonders: Warning
I finished September's book yesterday and October's book today. As I had mentioned in the previous post, I had borrowed the audio version from the library, and it didn't take too long to finish it while walking the dog, commuting to school, working in the yard, etc. Being responsible for the content of the book, I wanted to finish the book early and be able to give warning if need be, as Paul did for State of Fear. I'm glad I did. I may be ruining the book for some, or perhaps jumping the gun a month early by sharing some of my feelings about the book, but it seems appropriate to me.
Two years ago I read Lost Boys by Orson Scott Card. At the end of the novel I felt cheated, betrayed, and disturbed, especially because I am a parent. This book caused me similar emotional strain, especially because I am human. Don't get me wrong, I enjoyed the book, but like the atrocities of the Nephites in chapter 9 of Moroni, certain images from Years of Wonder shook me.
One more point of disclosure. While Geraldine Brooks was for the most part tactful when writing about matters of a sexual nature, two scenes very near the end of the book read similar to what I imagine a romance novel to be. For those of you listening to the audiobook, as I did, if you stop after track 1 of disc 9 and pick up again at 1 min 55 sec into track 5, you will avoid the worst of it while not really losing anything in the story. I used the "Search Inside" feature on Amazon.com to figure out what pages correlate with that section of the audiobook: stop at the end of page 274 and pick up again at 279.
...can't wait for the discussion on this one.
Two years ago I read Lost Boys by Orson Scott Card. At the end of the novel I felt cheated, betrayed, and disturbed, especially because I am a parent. This book caused me similar emotional strain, especially because I am human. Don't get me wrong, I enjoyed the book, but like the atrocities of the Nephites in chapter 9 of Moroni, certain images from Years of Wonder shook me.
One more point of disclosure. While Geraldine Brooks was for the most part tactful when writing about matters of a sexual nature, two scenes very near the end of the book read similar to what I imagine a romance novel to be. For those of you listening to the audiobook, as I did, if you stop after track 1 of disc 9 and pick up again at 1 min 55 sec into track 5, you will avoid the worst of it while not really losing anything in the story. I used the "Search Inside" feature on Amazon.com to figure out what pages correlate with that section of the audiobook: stop at the end of page 274 and pick up again at 279.
...can't wait for the discussion on this one.
Tuesday, September 9, 2008
"Hard" and "Soft" Power
Last Saturday I went to a lecture by Joseph Nye. His premise was that there are two types of power: hard power, characterized by coercion, and soft power, characterized by persuasion. I thought his ideas were good, but his presentation was soft-headed (way too "soft science"). So my summary here probably reflects more my thoughts about the subject than what he said directly.
The premise is that power is the ability to compel others to do what you want them to do. You can accomplish this through coercing them, either through threats or bribes, or you can do it by changing their fundamental feelings about the task, through persuasion. The former is accomplished through exogenous stimuli (carrots and sticks) and the latter through endogenous stimuli (he called this honey, but I think that's a lousy metaphor. It's more like uncovering and exciting latent desires). He further suggested that "hard" power has been the bread and butter of industry and military organizations for the past 200 years, but that "soft" power is currently ascendant and will be increasingly important as organizations shift from being "pyramids" to being "networks."
As a result of this duality of power, Nye outlined six skills that he sees as necessary in order to lead effectively. Three he correlates with "soft" power, two with "hard" power, and one with balancing between the two.
Soft Power Skills: (1) Emotional IQ (in his formulation, but I'd call it more like self-knowledge or self-mastery). A clear knowledge of and control over yourself. (2) A vision which is inspirational and realistic (his phrase was "grand but not grandiose) and (3) communication (verbal and non-verbal). What it boils down to is, if you want to persuade people you need to discover and exploit something you are personally passionate about (self-knowledge), formulate it in a way that others can buy into it (vision) and then communicate it to them in a way that resonates (communication). Being quantitatively biased, I see this as an energy transfer problem: persuasive leaders have within themselves large stores of potential energy on some subject. They create a mechanism to transfer that energy to others. Then they jumpstart the process. And the tighter the resonance, the purer the energy transfer. Anyway, kind of geeky but it's the way my mind works.
Hard Power Skills: (1) Organizational ability (but what he really means is ability to acquire information, whether it supports or weakens your own agenda) and (2) Machiavellian insight into others fears and desires. I don't have any snazzy physical analogy here, perhaps because he spent a lot less time here, and being a more standard view of "power" it's less intellectually interesting.
The final skill: contextual intelligence (essentially the meta-skill of knowing what recipe to apply in any given situation).
In relation to previous subjects of discussion, I go back to our reaction to the Paul Farmer book. Here is a leader who offers no carrots or sticks to us (he has no ability to reward or punish us directly), but who seemed to inspire a degree of devotion and desire to change behaviors among us. Other examples of "soft" power leaders given during the seminar were (as you would expect) Ghandi, MLK, and the Dalai Lama.
I'm not completely convinced that there is a qualitative difference between "hard" and "soft" power. In some ways I see "soft" power as just another form of coercion, in which the bribe is the approbation of the charismatic leader. I guess it gets to whether people's private utilities can really be changed through endogenous stimuli.
The premise is that power is the ability to compel others to do what you want them to do. You can accomplish this through coercing them, either through threats or bribes, or you can do it by changing their fundamental feelings about the task, through persuasion. The former is accomplished through exogenous stimuli (carrots and sticks) and the latter through endogenous stimuli (he called this honey, but I think that's a lousy metaphor. It's more like uncovering and exciting latent desires). He further suggested that "hard" power has been the bread and butter of industry and military organizations for the past 200 years, but that "soft" power is currently ascendant and will be increasingly important as organizations shift from being "pyramids" to being "networks."
As a result of this duality of power, Nye outlined six skills that he sees as necessary in order to lead effectively. Three he correlates with "soft" power, two with "hard" power, and one with balancing between the two.
Soft Power Skills: (1) Emotional IQ (in his formulation, but I'd call it more like self-knowledge or self-mastery). A clear knowledge of and control over yourself. (2) A vision which is inspirational and realistic (his phrase was "grand but not grandiose) and (3) communication (verbal and non-verbal). What it boils down to is, if you want to persuade people you need to discover and exploit something you are personally passionate about (self-knowledge), formulate it in a way that others can buy into it (vision) and then communicate it to them in a way that resonates (communication). Being quantitatively biased, I see this as an energy transfer problem: persuasive leaders have within themselves large stores of potential energy on some subject. They create a mechanism to transfer that energy to others. Then they jumpstart the process. And the tighter the resonance, the purer the energy transfer. Anyway, kind of geeky but it's the way my mind works.
Hard Power Skills: (1) Organizational ability (but what he really means is ability to acquire information, whether it supports or weakens your own agenda) and (2) Machiavellian insight into others fears and desires. I don't have any snazzy physical analogy here, perhaps because he spent a lot less time here, and being a more standard view of "power" it's less intellectually interesting.
The final skill: contextual intelligence (essentially the meta-skill of knowing what recipe to apply in any given situation).
In relation to previous subjects of discussion, I go back to our reaction to the Paul Farmer book. Here is a leader who offers no carrots or sticks to us (he has no ability to reward or punish us directly), but who seemed to inspire a degree of devotion and desire to change behaviors among us. Other examples of "soft" power leaders given during the seminar were (as you would expect) Ghandi, MLK, and the Dalai Lama.
I'm not completely convinced that there is a qualitative difference between "hard" and "soft" power. In some ways I see "soft" power as just another form of coercion, in which the bribe is the approbation of the charismatic leader. I guess it gets to whether people's private utilities can really be changed through endogenous stimuli.
Wednesday, September 3, 2008
October's book(s), part II
After reading the first chapter of the Film Club and flipping randomly through the rest of the book, I was disappointed, but perhaps not surprised, at the content and attitude of the book; while I am glad the author has a relationship with his son that fosters open communication, I don't think he should be telling his son that it's OK to $@#% a girl as long as he doesn't get her pregnant. It shouldn't be difficult to find thought provoking books devoid of profanity and vulgarity, but this book and one other that I had tried to read last year (The Curious Incident of the Dog in the Night-Time) seemed determined to challenge that idea. So as much as I looked forward to discuss parenting styles, I am instead formally proposing Geraldine Brooks' first novel, Year of Wonders. I have already listened to the first chapter (the reader of the audio version does a wonderful job, Alvin) and am completely wrapped up in the beauty the author can paint from such a bleak point in history.
Enjoy.
Enjoy.
Saturday, August 30, 2008
I have an irrational fear of policemen
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?
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?
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.
Wednesday, July 30, 2008
Waiting...
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)