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.
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.
Sunday, July 27, 2008
Howdy from Texas
Well, I suppose it's time for me to stop lurking and finally post something. I've been reading the discussions for a while now and am finally up to date. I've found it to be a great forum for discussions of many different views.
Anyway, a little about myself. I'm currently a software engineer for Bibble Labs in Austin, Texas. We do photography workflow software, primarily focusing on processing RAW images from Digital-SLR cameras faster than any other software available. As such I get to play with just about any DSLR that comes out; if only that made me a better photographer.
I made my way to Austin by first working with Karl at another software company - Corda Technologies in Lindon, Utah. I actually started working there way back when we were all still in Merrill Hall, at that time it was only me and my Boss. After I served my mission in the Philippines I returned to Corda and worked there while I finished my BS in Computer Science at BYU. I graduated in the fall of 2002 only a few days after I got married.
Marriage inevitably took me to New York City where I worked for Nikon doing photography software similar to what I'm doing now. I lived in the Upper East Side of Manhattan for about 3 years. This time unfortunately saw the end of my marriage which also indirectly led me to Austin. Being single again let me entertain opportunities that I otherwise might not have considered.
That's me in a nutshell. Throughout most of that time I've had a big black lab named Pungi who is featured frequently in the pictures I post on my blog, Cutterpillow.com. Unfortunately Pungi hasn't quite mastered the art of taking pictures so there are very few pictures of me there. One of these days I'll get Pungi trained and then hopefully there'll be more pictures of me up there.
Climate Change
Lastly to contribute somewhat to the discussion I'll share some of my views on climate change. I must admit that I don't have a large knowledge of the subject, but since when has that ever stopped anyone from having strong opinions? First of all I despise the term "global warming" as it implies that global temperatures will only ever get warmer and never cooler and that claim is pretty much preposterous. I tend to agree with the following quote by The Viscount Monckton of Brenchley which I referenced on my blog:
A careful study of the substantial corpus of peer-reviewed science reveals that Mr. Gore's film, An Inconvenient Truth, is a foofaraw of pseudo-science, exaggerations, and errors, now being peddled to innocent schoolchildren worldwide.Now when you've got a title like The Viscount Monckton of Brenchley, who's going to mess with you? Seriously though, as for Peter's scale in the previous article I'd have to say that I fall in at #1 and don't go beyond that, that is I believe that on average global temperatures are currently increasing. I don't have any conclusive beliefs one way or another regarding #2 but I am highly skeptical that we have anything to do with the rise in the average global temperature. My belief is that the primary force behind climate change is that big burning ball of gas that our planet orbits. I just don't think that there's enough information to determine that our activity is the driving force behind the current trend in climate change, after all the entire history of civilized mankind is only a blink in the history of this planet. And the period of time that we've actually kept records of global climate trends is a mere blink of that - a blink of a blink in the history of the world. To claim that we have any solid understanding of global climate trends over large periods of time is fairly foolish in my opinion, let alone trying to predict how the climate will trend in the future.
Something I like to remind myself of is how wrong science has been throughout the history of mankind. The one thing that is constant in science is change, yet there are many who believe that out current understanding of science is an absolute authority. There was once time when we knew that the Earth was the center of the Solar System. Later a time that we knew that the planets orbited the sun in perfect circles. I think that our understanding of the global climate system is still in its infancy and trying to enact any policy based on our current limited knowledge is premature and potentially dangerous. It was only 34 years ago that Time magazine published an article titled Another Ice Age? The consensus at that time was that "global cooling" was occurring and potentially a problem. Not to mention that they thought that man might have been the cause. Whatever the cause of the current change in global climates I believe that it is premature to take any significant actions based on our limited understanding of global climate patterns, especially any actions that might try to significantly change global climates. Who knows, we might cause our own manmade ice age if we were to undertake radical efforts to prevent "global warming."
I do think that doing things to ensure a clean environment are a good thing. Everyone wants clean water and air and we should recycle as best we can. But imposing costly measures on businesses and individuals (Carbon Credits) is foolish in my opinion.
Musings on the Judiciary, Gay Rights, Principles and Practices, and the Church
I have thoroughly enjoyed reading various posts on the judiciary and contitutional interpretation and the gay marriage question. Each of your insights are intriguing and demonstrate a scintillating level of intellectual acumen. I offer a few thoughts...
Right vs. Wrong in Judicial Opinions
In reading Scott's and Karl's missives about whether the Supreme Court can ever decide a case wrongly, I find myself in agreement with Karl. Scott set forth a common argument that the Dred Scott and Plessy cases were "wrongly" decided. However, Jesse's point -- wrong, by whose standards -- compellingly reveals the inherent dangers in untethering constitutional interpretation from some sort of firmly established moorings. Originalism or contextualism thus serves a vital role in constitutional interpretation because it provides such moorings. This is not to say, however, that we should be completely locked into 18th century thought when interpreting the constitution. As I stated in a previous post, there must be a balance sought between originalism and viewing the constitution as a living document that continues to have vitality nearly 250 years after its adoption. Moreover, we must recognize that the document itself provides for a means to amend it. Thus, if the high court were to stick with pure originalism, and such interpretation ran afoul of currently accepted social norms, the People are empowered to amend the Constitution and clarify or even change its meaning.
Such, ultimately occured with the infamous Dred Scott case. In that 1857 decision, Dred Scott, a slave and direct descendant of African blood, brought an action at law in federal court against his slave owner for his freedom. It must be recognized that unlike state courts, federal courts are courts of limited jurisidiction and that such courts can only assert jurisidiction as authorized under Article III of the Constitution. In this case, in order to establish federal jurisdiction, the plaintiff, Dred Scott, asserted he was a citizen of Missouri and the defendant, Stanford, was a citizen of New York. This would then vest the federal court with what is known as "diversity" jurisdiction -- the plaintiffs and defendants being diverse to each other as citizens of different states.
The question in Dred Scott was whether he was a "citizen" within the meaning of the Constitution and could thereby bring an action at law in the federal courts against a citizen of a different state. Dred Scott had lived in different states that had abolished slavery and had enacted laws declaring former slaves to be citizens in those states. In concluding that Dred Scott was not a "citizen" of Missouri, the Supreme Court explained that at the time the Constitution was drafted, adopted, and ratified, no persons of African descent were considered to be "citizens;" instead they were "property." Of course, there were other issues at play in the Dred Scott case, including the powers of Congress to declare new territories to the Union to be free, the powers of the States to declare whether one is a citizen of the Union, etc. In addressing each of these issues, the high court appealed to the 1789 understanding of the Constitution.
The high court tacitly acknowledged how repugnant its holdings were when it wrote, "[i]t is not the province of the court to decide upon the justice or injustice, the policy or impolicy, of these laws..." Nevertheless, repugnant or not, the court's approach in this case, demonstrates a considerable, and perhaps even commendable, amount of judicial restraint and a recognition that the body politic rather than the judiciary is charged with the responsibility of changing the laws. Change ultimately came after the Civil War with the 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments. These Reconstruction Amendments abolished slavery and granted citizenship with all its attendant due process and equal protection rights to the former slaves and all those who are born or naturalized in the United States.
Now, as to the notion of wrongly decided cases, Scott urges that the Dred Scott (and Plessy - a case announcing the separate but equal doctrine) decisions were patently wrong. However, this begs the question, as Jesse already poignantly pointed out, wrong by whose standards? Indisputably, the case was wrong and thus superceded, once the Reconstruction Amendments were ratified. However, at the time the Dred Scott case was decided in 1857, it certainly was not wrong by the standards of the antebellum South. The North probably would have had a different view, but the international community, which was busily engaged in empire building, likely would not have balked too terribly at the Dred Scott decision. The Framers, whose intent the high court sought to divine, also probably would reached some form of compromise (as some were for slavery and others against), such that the Dred Scott decision would have resonated with them.
Just because the holding of a case might be repugnant to some, does not automatically make it wrongly decided. For this reason, perhaps originalism is the safest method to interpret the Constitution. At the very least, by going back to the context of when the document was drafted, we are able to come up with a set of bedrock principles as a starting point for constitutional interpretation. If the resultant interpretation is too repugnant to be tenable, then amending the document is always an option. By just cavalierly stating that the meaning of the Constitution changes with the times inherently diminishes the document from standing for something, to standing for nothing.
Gay Rights and Marriage
I find the discussion on "gay rights" to be a fascinating tangent to the discussion on marriage. I think no one could rightly argue that a person should be denied the rights, privileges, and immunities bestowed by the government on the basis of sexual orientation. However, why does the foregoing inalienable truth then mean that the institution of marriage itself is a "right, privilege, or immunity" bestowed by the government? A married couple may have certain rights, privileges, or immunities bestowed upon them as a result of the marriage, but the marriage itself is not a right, privilege, or immunity. I have to agree that benfits (and burdens) of tax laws, insurance laws, intestacy laws, property laws, etc. should be extended to all people who are similarly situated. Therefore, I favor domestic partnership laws that confer the same governmental benefits granted to married persons to homosexual partners that have registered as domestic partners.
However, defining homosexual partners as "married" is not a benefit that comes from the government. Long before governments existed, marriage existed. It is a religious institution ordained by God. Consequently, we cannot speak of gay rights as including some sort of "right to marry."
The Church and its Prop. 8 Involvement in California
In a related vein, as you know, the First Presidency issued a letter to all wards in California asking members of the church to give of their time and means to promote the passage of Proposition 8, which is the proposed amendment to the California Constitution defining marriage as being only between one man and one woman. (Here is an example of amending the Constitution in light of a judicial opinion; though I disagree with the decision and some of its reasoning, it was not necessarily "wrongly" decided.)
I am curious to know what your thoughts are as to the Church's involvement in this debate. I have heard sentiments, and perhaps you share them, that the Church should not get involved in this political issue, that the Church is endangering its tax-exempt status, that the Church needs to learn where to draw the line between political questions and moral issues, etc. I have also heard Latter-day Saints question: What does it affect me? How does this issue harm my marriage? Even if gay and lesbian couples can "marry," what harm will come of that? Who am I to impose my moral views on others?
I, for one, am shocked at what I have heard. Do we sustain President Monson as a prophet, seer, and revelator, or not? If the prophet says support Prop. 8, you can bet your boots I'm supporting Prop. 8. I know President Monson is a prophet and I know that when he speaks as a prophet of God, he is distilling upon us prophetic insight. What harm can come of gay marriage? No puny mortal can possibly imagine all the potential harm. But God knows; and I thank Him for His prophet on Earth to issue a prophetic voice of warning to us.
I firmly believe that times are only going to get more divisive -- the gulf between where we stand as Latter-day Saints and where the world is headed is only going to widen. As this gulf widens, we will not be able to continue speaking in pleasant conciliatory tones without compromising our own convictions. Consequently, I am eternally grateful we have prophets, seers, and revelators, who have spoken as plainly and as clearly as they have. I am grateful for the counsel we have received to continually keep our arms open in the spirit of love and fellowship for our brothers and sisters who struggle with the inclination of same-sex attraction while maintaining our firm resolve that marriage, which is central to our Father's Plan, is nothing short of a divinely appointed relationship between a man and woman.
I am convinced that the Church will speak out on moral issues more frequently in the future as more and more of those moral issues continue to make their way onto our ballots. If the Lord's servants speak to such issues, our safest assurance is to listen and hearken.
Who are we to impose our sense of morality upon society? We are citizens of that society and have an obligation to strive to define its moral contours. Moreover, we are citizens of God's kingdom here on Earth and have covenanted to stand as witnesses of God at all times, in all things, and in all places. If we sit quietly, then we have failed.
Right vs. Wrong in Judicial Opinions
In reading Scott's and Karl's missives about whether the Supreme Court can ever decide a case wrongly, I find myself in agreement with Karl. Scott set forth a common argument that the Dred Scott and Plessy cases were "wrongly" decided. However, Jesse's point -- wrong, by whose standards -- compellingly reveals the inherent dangers in untethering constitutional interpretation from some sort of firmly established moorings. Originalism or contextualism thus serves a vital role in constitutional interpretation because it provides such moorings. This is not to say, however, that we should be completely locked into 18th century thought when interpreting the constitution. As I stated in a previous post, there must be a balance sought between originalism and viewing the constitution as a living document that continues to have vitality nearly 250 years after its adoption. Moreover, we must recognize that the document itself provides for a means to amend it. Thus, if the high court were to stick with pure originalism, and such interpretation ran afoul of currently accepted social norms, the People are empowered to amend the Constitution and clarify or even change its meaning.
Such, ultimately occured with the infamous Dred Scott case. In that 1857 decision, Dred Scott, a slave and direct descendant of African blood, brought an action at law in federal court against his slave owner for his freedom. It must be recognized that unlike state courts, federal courts are courts of limited jurisidiction and that such courts can only assert jurisidiction as authorized under Article III of the Constitution. In this case, in order to establish federal jurisdiction, the plaintiff, Dred Scott, asserted he was a citizen of Missouri and the defendant, Stanford, was a citizen of New York. This would then vest the federal court with what is known as "diversity" jurisdiction -- the plaintiffs and defendants being diverse to each other as citizens of different states.
The question in Dred Scott was whether he was a "citizen" within the meaning of the Constitution and could thereby bring an action at law in the federal courts against a citizen of a different state. Dred Scott had lived in different states that had abolished slavery and had enacted laws declaring former slaves to be citizens in those states. In concluding that Dred Scott was not a "citizen" of Missouri, the Supreme Court explained that at the time the Constitution was drafted, adopted, and ratified, no persons of African descent were considered to be "citizens;" instead they were "property." Of course, there were other issues at play in the Dred Scott case, including the powers of Congress to declare new territories to the Union to be free, the powers of the States to declare whether one is a citizen of the Union, etc. In addressing each of these issues, the high court appealed to the 1789 understanding of the Constitution.
The high court tacitly acknowledged how repugnant its holdings were when it wrote, "[i]t is not the province of the court to decide upon the justice or injustice, the policy or impolicy, of these laws..." Nevertheless, repugnant or not, the court's approach in this case, demonstrates a considerable, and perhaps even commendable, amount of judicial restraint and a recognition that the body politic rather than the judiciary is charged with the responsibility of changing the laws. Change ultimately came after the Civil War with the 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments. These Reconstruction Amendments abolished slavery and granted citizenship with all its attendant due process and equal protection rights to the former slaves and all those who are born or naturalized in the United States.
Now, as to the notion of wrongly decided cases, Scott urges that the Dred Scott (and Plessy - a case announcing the separate but equal doctrine) decisions were patently wrong. However, this begs the question, as Jesse already poignantly pointed out, wrong by whose standards? Indisputably, the case was wrong and thus superceded, once the Reconstruction Amendments were ratified. However, at the time the Dred Scott case was decided in 1857, it certainly was not wrong by the standards of the antebellum South. The North probably would have had a different view, but the international community, which was busily engaged in empire building, likely would not have balked too terribly at the Dred Scott decision. The Framers, whose intent the high court sought to divine, also probably would reached some form of compromise (as some were for slavery and others against), such that the Dred Scott decision would have resonated with them.
Just because the holding of a case might be repugnant to some, does not automatically make it wrongly decided. For this reason, perhaps originalism is the safest method to interpret the Constitution. At the very least, by going back to the context of when the document was drafted, we are able to come up with a set of bedrock principles as a starting point for constitutional interpretation. If the resultant interpretation is too repugnant to be tenable, then amending the document is always an option. By just cavalierly stating that the meaning of the Constitution changes with the times inherently diminishes the document from standing for something, to standing for nothing.
Gay Rights and Marriage
I find the discussion on "gay rights" to be a fascinating tangent to the discussion on marriage. I think no one could rightly argue that a person should be denied the rights, privileges, and immunities bestowed by the government on the basis of sexual orientation. However, why does the foregoing inalienable truth then mean that the institution of marriage itself is a "right, privilege, or immunity" bestowed by the government? A married couple may have certain rights, privileges, or immunities bestowed upon them as a result of the marriage, but the marriage itself is not a right, privilege, or immunity. I have to agree that benfits (and burdens) of tax laws, insurance laws, intestacy laws, property laws, etc. should be extended to all people who are similarly situated. Therefore, I favor domestic partnership laws that confer the same governmental benefits granted to married persons to homosexual partners that have registered as domestic partners.
However, defining homosexual partners as "married" is not a benefit that comes from the government. Long before governments existed, marriage existed. It is a religious institution ordained by God. Consequently, we cannot speak of gay rights as including some sort of "right to marry."
The Church and its Prop. 8 Involvement in California
In a related vein, as you know, the First Presidency issued a letter to all wards in California asking members of the church to give of their time and means to promote the passage of Proposition 8, which is the proposed amendment to the California Constitution defining marriage as being only between one man and one woman. (Here is an example of amending the Constitution in light of a judicial opinion; though I disagree with the decision and some of its reasoning, it was not necessarily "wrongly" decided.)
I am curious to know what your thoughts are as to the Church's involvement in this debate. I have heard sentiments, and perhaps you share them, that the Church should not get involved in this political issue, that the Church is endangering its tax-exempt status, that the Church needs to learn where to draw the line between political questions and moral issues, etc. I have also heard Latter-day Saints question: What does it affect me? How does this issue harm my marriage? Even if gay and lesbian couples can "marry," what harm will come of that? Who am I to impose my moral views on others?
I, for one, am shocked at what I have heard. Do we sustain President Monson as a prophet, seer, and revelator, or not? If the prophet says support Prop. 8, you can bet your boots I'm supporting Prop. 8. I know President Monson is a prophet and I know that when he speaks as a prophet of God, he is distilling upon us prophetic insight. What harm can come of gay marriage? No puny mortal can possibly imagine all the potential harm. But God knows; and I thank Him for His prophet on Earth to issue a prophetic voice of warning to us.
I firmly believe that times are only going to get more divisive -- the gulf between where we stand as Latter-day Saints and where the world is headed is only going to widen. As this gulf widens, we will not be able to continue speaking in pleasant conciliatory tones without compromising our own convictions. Consequently, I am eternally grateful we have prophets, seers, and revelators, who have spoken as plainly and as clearly as they have. I am grateful for the counsel we have received to continually keep our arms open in the spirit of love and fellowship for our brothers and sisters who struggle with the inclination of same-sex attraction while maintaining our firm resolve that marriage, which is central to our Father's Plan, is nothing short of a divinely appointed relationship between a man and woman.
I am convinced that the Church will speak out on moral issues more frequently in the future as more and more of those moral issues continue to make their way onto our ballots. If the Lord's servants speak to such issues, our safest assurance is to listen and hearken.
Who are we to impose our sense of morality upon society? We are citizens of that society and have an obligation to strive to define its moral contours. Moreover, we are citizens of God's kingdom here on Earth and have covenanted to stand as witnesses of God at all times, in all things, and in all places. If we sit quietly, then we have failed.
Saturday, July 26, 2008
Believing IN Al Gore and Believing Al Gore
Besides Jurassic Park in middle school, this is the only Michael Crichton book I've ever read. After reading it, I've relegated him to my "Dan Brown" list; i.e., authors who write compulsively readable material that has essentially no redemptive value from an artistic perspective. Not to be confused with guilty pleasures (like, in my case for instance, Orson Scott Card), there is nothing pleasurable about the experience. Its the difference between cheesecake and cheesepuffs; in both cases I can't help but eat the food, but only in one do I enjoy it while eating.
Specific things that struck me as miserable about this book: 1) Narrow scope of cursing. I mean, c'mon, expand your expletive vocabularly beyond the words that start with "f." 2) Strawmen: he was great at setting them up and knocking them down. It was like he wanted us to be impressed with hitting a home run off a tee. With a juiced ball. In a little league park. From somewhere around 2nd base. 3) Two dimensional characters. A few characters actually had fewer. In fact, that lawyer neice of Kenner had no dimension at all, so far as I could tell. I have no idea why she was even introduced to the story. 4) Well, let's not beat a dead horse. Suffice it to say, great literature this is not.
Now, to the policy issue, I did find the book useful in goading me to examine my own feelings about global warming and climate change a bit more. Here's my most cogent thought:
"Believing" in global warming has lots of different levels:
1) Believing that, on average, the temperature on the surface of the earth is currently increasing
2) Believing that the increase is anthropogenic
3) Believing that the primary anthropogenic factor is carbon dioxide/greenhouse gases
4) Believing that the Global Climate Models accurately project the effects of increased greenhouse gases
5) Believing that the costs associated with limiting greenhouse gas emissions are worth the benefits
So where do I find myself?
(1) I feel pretty confident; I don't think a cabal is manipulating the data.
(2) I've become more confident in recent years. I used to doubt this quite a bit. I can't think of any specific thing that won me over to anthropogenic warming rather than a natural trend in the earth's climate cycle, but I'm pretty well won over at this point.
(3) Well, now things get a little dicey for me. I don't know whether Crichton's "urban heat island" effect is a good explanation, or whether there might be other unexplored ideas, but I can tenatively accept this proposition.
(4) Here I'm pretty well completely off the ship. I don't believe that any of the long range forecasts are remotely accurate. As far as I can tell, neither do the climate scientists. The system is far too complex, the variables too intertwined. This is why climate scientists don't issue predictions; they offer projections. It's because they are unable and unwilling to explore the full variable space, so instead they make some pretty curves and call it something else, even though they know people will assume it has some bearing in objective reality. And this is precisely where the hysteria does in fact set in. For more on this, I like the series of blog posts on the blog Prometheus by Roger Pielke, Jr. (a political scientist who often works with his climatologist father) in late 2007/early 2008 in which he attempted to evaluate the quality of major projections that have been made over the last 20 years. I was going to do the same thing, so I appreciated that he already did the leg work. You can see the index of the various attempts at verification/refutation of the predictions here.
(5) And finally, I don't think the massive expenditures of wealth and shackling of industry is worth it, given the complete (to my mind) uncertainty of outcome. I think the idea that any developing country is going to voluntarily limit greenhouse gases is naive in the extreme. I think that most of the proposals are deeply flawed (although if I had to choose one I would hold my nose and pick Carbon taxes. I think "cap and trade" is a recipe for maintaining global inequality).
On the balance, I think clean air and more balanced land use (less slash and burn in developing countries, reforestation in America/Europe) is a better goal for ecological effort than limiting GHG output.
Final thought: the chief scientist for BP did a very engaging lecture on the future of energy at Lincoln Lab recently. He's given similar lectures elsewhere, and here is a youtube link of his presentation (he begins around 8:00 in). There are tons and tons of numbers and charts and stats in this presentation, which (as a stats head) I really like. Koonin confronts the energy question from two sides: 1) global warming and 2) security. There's interesting things throughout, and if you have an hour to burn you could certainly do worse, but the things I found most interesting were how much of our global energy is spent on transportation (20%) vs. electricity (40%) vs. heating (40%). So when we think about conservation, don't just jump to buying a Prius. There are other significant steps that should be taken.
Real final thought: I think the likely future path is an almost immediate (i.e. within five years) move to electric vehicles. Watch out for the Chevy Volt, coming out next year. As a result, we will consume less foreign oil, which will make security types (like me) happy. However, we will consume more coal (the primary source of electricity in the US) which will make the GHG people angry, since for an equivalent amount of energy, coal releases twice as much GHG as oil. But they won't have the same traction with the general populace, because people feel less bad about polluting when it isn't coming out of their own tailpipe.
Specific things that struck me as miserable about this book: 1) Narrow scope of cursing. I mean, c'mon, expand your expletive vocabularly beyond the words that start with "f." 2) Strawmen: he was great at setting them up and knocking them down. It was like he wanted us to be impressed with hitting a home run off a tee. With a juiced ball. In a little league park. From somewhere around 2nd base. 3) Two dimensional characters. A few characters actually had fewer. In fact, that lawyer neice of Kenner had no dimension at all, so far as I could tell. I have no idea why she was even introduced to the story. 4) Well, let's not beat a dead horse. Suffice it to say, great literature this is not.
Now, to the policy issue, I did find the book useful in goading me to examine my own feelings about global warming and climate change a bit more. Here's my most cogent thought:
"Believing" in global warming has lots of different levels:
1) Believing that, on average, the temperature on the surface of the earth is currently increasing
2) Believing that the increase is anthropogenic
3) Believing that the primary anthropogenic factor is carbon dioxide/greenhouse gases
4) Believing that the Global Climate Models accurately project the effects of increased greenhouse gases
5) Believing that the costs associated with limiting greenhouse gas emissions are worth the benefits
So where do I find myself?
(1) I feel pretty confident; I don't think a cabal is manipulating the data.
(2) I've become more confident in recent years. I used to doubt this quite a bit. I can't think of any specific thing that won me over to anthropogenic warming rather than a natural trend in the earth's climate cycle, but I'm pretty well won over at this point.
(3) Well, now things get a little dicey for me. I don't know whether Crichton's "urban heat island" effect is a good explanation, or whether there might be other unexplored ideas, but I can tenatively accept this proposition.
(4) Here I'm pretty well completely off the ship. I don't believe that any of the long range forecasts are remotely accurate. As far as I can tell, neither do the climate scientists. The system is far too complex, the variables too intertwined. This is why climate scientists don't issue predictions; they offer projections. It's because they are unable and unwilling to explore the full variable space, so instead they make some pretty curves and call it something else, even though they know people will assume it has some bearing in objective reality. And this is precisely where the hysteria does in fact set in. For more on this, I like the series of blog posts on the blog Prometheus by Roger Pielke, Jr. (a political scientist who often works with his climatologist father) in late 2007/early 2008 in which he attempted to evaluate the quality of major projections that have been made over the last 20 years. I was going to do the same thing, so I appreciated that he already did the leg work. You can see the index of the various attempts at verification/refutation of the predictions here.
(5) And finally, I don't think the massive expenditures of wealth and shackling of industry is worth it, given the complete (to my mind) uncertainty of outcome. I think the idea that any developing country is going to voluntarily limit greenhouse gases is naive in the extreme. I think that most of the proposals are deeply flawed (although if I had to choose one I would hold my nose and pick Carbon taxes. I think "cap and trade" is a recipe for maintaining global inequality).
On the balance, I think clean air and more balanced land use (less slash and burn in developing countries, reforestation in America/Europe) is a better goal for ecological effort than limiting GHG output.
Final thought: the chief scientist for BP did a very engaging lecture on the future of energy at Lincoln Lab recently. He's given similar lectures elsewhere, and here is a youtube link of his presentation (he begins around 8:00 in). There are tons and tons of numbers and charts and stats in this presentation, which (as a stats head) I really like. Koonin confronts the energy question from two sides: 1) global warming and 2) security. There's interesting things throughout, and if you have an hour to burn you could certainly do worse, but the things I found most interesting were how much of our global energy is spent on transportation (20%) vs. electricity (40%) vs. heating (40%). So when we think about conservation, don't just jump to buying a Prius. There are other significant steps that should be taken.
Real final thought: I think the likely future path is an almost immediate (i.e. within five years) move to electric vehicles. Watch out for the Chevy Volt, coming out next year. As a result, we will consume less foreign oil, which will make security types (like me) happy. However, we will consume more coal (the primary source of electricity in the US) which will make the GHG people angry, since for an equivalent amount of energy, coal releases twice as much GHG as oil. But they won't have the same traction with the general populace, because people feel less bad about polluting when it isn't coming out of their own tailpipe.
Friday, July 25, 2008
My perspective(s) on the rightness of judicial decisions
Hmm, with regards to Jesse's statement, "Karl mentioned his dislike for the term 'legislating from the bench'; that is, he thought it exaggerated or inappropriate or overused or...", I'm glad someone's managed to clearly explain what I mean :)
It dawned on me that I never responded to Jesse's question, so I suppose I should.
The relativist in me says no, the Supreme Court cannot wrongly decide a case, because, legally speaking, right and wrong changes as society changes, and we, via our constitution, have entrusted them to be the ultimate authorities as to what is right or wrong in our society.
I suppose they could actually make a technical legal error independent from any interpretation of "right" or "wrong." But that's not going to happen too often with how rigourously their decisions are reviewed, and besides I don't think that's what the question was getting at.
From an absolute moral standpoint, yes they can make a "wrong" decision. But seeing as there's only one person I trust on absolute morals (and it's not me), I don't think it does a lot of good for us, as a society, to classify decisions as right/wrong from an absolute moral standpoint. Besides, the court is not intended to be an authority on absolute morality.
Now, another option is would be to say that the Court's rightness depends on how well it substitutes as a proxy for the prevailing social attitudes in the current historical context. But what if they make a decision that runs counter to prevailing social attitudes? Is that wrong? Again, such a classification is not very useful because it requires that one can capture, at any time, the exact social attitudes of the nation. But, even if one could do that, I don't particulalry favor this perspective because in the past they've made decisions that I'm fairly certain ran counter to then-prevailing social attitiudes, but that would today be considered "right."
Here's yet another perspective on it... One of the best aspects of our American system is that we have a judiciary to keep government in check. Unfortunately, we have to rely on humans to serve the function of the judiciary, and so we inevitably are going to disagree with our judiciary some of the time. However, to preserve the integrity of the system, we must operate under the assumption that the Court produces "right" results. When they produce results with which we disagree, we can work within the system to change the law and/or social sentiment, thereby creating different results. But until the law is changed, the Court's decision is still "right." In fact, by acting in compliance with the result, impute "rightness" to the result.
Not quite sure where I'm going with these different perspectives, other than to say that, from a legal perspective, I do not believe that the Court is likely to ever be "wrong" within the current historical moment. Barring technical errors, the only time a decision may ever be classified as legally wrong is when a decision is later overturned by the Court itself.
From my personal perspective, the Court can reach decisions that yield "wrong" results--i.e. results to which I am opposed. But I would be very reluctant to say that a still-standing decision was itself "wrong" or "incorrect."
It dawned on me that I never responded to Jesse's question, so I suppose I should.
The relativist in me says no, the Supreme Court cannot wrongly decide a case, because, legally speaking, right and wrong changes as society changes, and we, via our constitution, have entrusted them to be the ultimate authorities as to what is right or wrong in our society.
I suppose they could actually make a technical legal error independent from any interpretation of "right" or "wrong." But that's not going to happen too often with how rigourously their decisions are reviewed, and besides I don't think that's what the question was getting at.
From an absolute moral standpoint, yes they can make a "wrong" decision. But seeing as there's only one person I trust on absolute morals (and it's not me), I don't think it does a lot of good for us, as a society, to classify decisions as right/wrong from an absolute moral standpoint. Besides, the court is not intended to be an authority on absolute morality.
Now, another option is would be to say that the Court's rightness depends on how well it substitutes as a proxy for the prevailing social attitudes in the current historical context. But what if they make a decision that runs counter to prevailing social attitudes? Is that wrong? Again, such a classification is not very useful because it requires that one can capture, at any time, the exact social attitudes of the nation. But, even if one could do that, I don't particulalry favor this perspective because in the past they've made decisions that I'm fairly certain ran counter to then-prevailing social attitiudes, but that would today be considered "right."
Here's yet another perspective on it... One of the best aspects of our American system is that we have a judiciary to keep government in check. Unfortunately, we have to rely on humans to serve the function of the judiciary, and so we inevitably are going to disagree with our judiciary some of the time. However, to preserve the integrity of the system, we must operate under the assumption that the Court produces "right" results. When they produce results with which we disagree, we can work within the system to change the law and/or social sentiment, thereby creating different results. But until the law is changed, the Court's decision is still "right." In fact, by acting in compliance with the result, impute "rightness" to the result.
Not quite sure where I'm going with these different perspectives, other than to say that, from a legal perspective, I do not believe that the Court is likely to ever be "wrong" within the current historical moment. Barring technical errors, the only time a decision may ever be classified as legally wrong is when a decision is later overturned by the Court itself.
From my personal perspective, the Court can reach decisions that yield "wrong" results--i.e. results to which I am opposed. But I would be very reluctant to say that a still-standing decision was itself "wrong" or "incorrect."
Judiciary (Re: Scott)
To clarify:
Karl mentioned his dislike for the term "legislating from the bench"; that is, he thought it exaggerated or inappropriate or overused or...well read his post to understand what he meant. I obviously was not advocating "legislating from the bench" by asking him to clarify why he disliked the term.
My questions were (are) twofold:
1. Is it possible for the Supreme Court to wrongly decide a case
2. If your answer to #1 is yes, tell me how you would know it was wrongly decided
Your answers if I understand them were:
1. Yes
2. ? When you disagree with them? Or when the majority of people do? Or when some group (you, me, a majority, maybe everyone) deems something racist? Or if 50+ years later most everyone agrees it was wrong?
I'm not sure I clearly understand your view on question 2. Suppose the court made a decision today. How would you know whether it was wrongly decided? On what basis would you make an argument with someone who disagreed with you?
Karl mentioned his dislike for the term "legislating from the bench"; that is, he thought it exaggerated or inappropriate or overused or...well read his post to understand what he meant. I obviously was not advocating "legislating from the bench" by asking him to clarify why he disliked the term.
My questions were (are) twofold:
1. Is it possible for the Supreme Court to wrongly decide a case
2. If your answer to #1 is yes, tell me how you would know it was wrongly decided
Your answers if I understand them were:
1. Yes
2. ? When you disagree with them? Or when the majority of people do? Or when some group (you, me, a majority, maybe everyone) deems something racist? Or if 50+ years later most everyone agrees it was wrong?
I'm not sure I clearly understand your view on question 2. Suppose the court made a decision today. How would you know whether it was wrongly decided? On what basis would you make an argument with someone who disagreed with you?
Weather and Other Weapons of Mass Destruction
Let me start by saying that I love having this forum to discuss interesting topics with intelligent people. I'm glad that there are a wide variety of opinions and ideas. Thanks Peter, for getting this started and organizing it. In reference to your book choice, I'd really enjoy a discussion on the temple, so that would be my first choice. But I'd be happy with any of the three choices.
As for this month's book, I have only read the cover page and the bibliography/appendix thing at the back, but I am very impressed with the title. How our fears shape our public decision making is a very interesting topic.
In my contemplation this morning, I found a surprising number of parallels between global warming and the war in Iraq. Let me explain.
Pollution vs. Saddam Hussein
Saddam was a problem for a number of years. Nobody in the world argued the assertion that Saddam was a bad man, doing lots of bad things. However, this in and of itself was not enough to justify our invasion of Iraq. Not even after he invaded Kuwait. An invasion of Iraq needed to be justified by a bigger fear (see below). Similarly, no one is arguing that pollution is bad.
Global Warming vs. Weapons of Mass Destruction
Saddam alone wasn't worth the sacrifice of American lives and money, but Saddam with WMDs is an unimaginable worst case scenario that justified the cost. Similarly, pollution alone isn't worth the cost of slowing down our economy and the extra burden, but global warming and the unimaginable thought of "Waterworld", "The Day After Tomorrow" or "Wall-E", now that's worth sacrificing for.
Consensus
Not fair, you say. We KNOW there is global warming, but we didn't know if there were WMDs. I agree, we do know there is global warming, but we don't know if it will be catastrophic. That's a key difference. We knew that Saddam had weapons, just not weapons of mass destruction. We knew that Saddam was avoiding UN inspectors and acting like he had WMDs. There was a consensus in the political community that Saddam had WMDs, even among those that didn't go to war with us. Which leads to my next point...
No Coalition
Bush gets ripped to shreds for not forming a broad coalition before going into Iraq. He called it leadership. We are, after all, the only superpower. Now, there's a call for leadership in climate change without the agreement of important contributers, namely China and India.
Going in without the right plan
According to the great vision of hindsight, many have said that we could have avoided many of the problems in Iraq if we had just gone in with the right plan. Well, personally I think that many environmentalists have been going about things the wrong way. From what I've read, biofuels and wind power don't appear to be the solutions they've been touted to be. I think the cap and trade system will be a bureaucratic mess that will have very little impact on our net Carbon emissions.
Al Gore vs. Dick Cheney
Haliburton benefitted nicely from the war in Iraq, and similarly, many of the todays most fervent environmentalists will have "greener" wallets as the global warming movement picks up steam.
How long we'll be there
For some, the problem with Iraq wasn't that we went in, but that we can't get back out. Similarly, if the government bolsters up its payrolls with green collar workers, I imagine it will be tough to let those workers off when the job is over. It's never politically popular to let people go. And the effects of a cap and trade system will linger just as long as our troops stay in Iraq.
The "What if..." factor
Getting out of Iraq is complicated by several fears and hopes, namely the fear of a terrorist breeding ground if we leave and the hope of a democratic Iraq and eventually a democratic Middle East. History may one day see George Bush as a hero and one of our greatest presidents. Stranger things have happened. Interestingly, it's the fear, more than the hope that drives people's opinions. Similarly, the fear of cataclysmic weather is much more motivating than the hope of a pristine environment. The "What If..." factor will ensure that we never leave Iraq and that we will always worry and legislate our effect on the environment.
My Conclusion
There are intelligent people that support the war in Iraq, and there are more intelligent people that support drastic government intervention to reduce our impact on the environment. I respect both groups, even though often they are either of vastly different political persuasions or they voted for McCain. I don't know the correctness of either cause. There will always be that "What if..." factor. However, I have stopped believing the argument that there are people smarter than me that have a lot more information than I do, and that I should just trust them. (Note: I have no doubt that there are people smarter than me and with more experience, but I now require a higher level of evidence from them. If they're so smart, they should be able to explain it to me and not just require me to trust them. (Note: That means if they want me to trust a computer model's output for 10 years down the road, they should start by predicting one year down the road.))
I know it's becoming a bit cliche to blame Bush, but I like to blame him for making me more cynical. I got sucked into the justification for the war in Iraq, thinking that he had access to information that I didn't, and when I felt deceived later, I tried to learn from my mistakes. After the dot.com bubble, you've got to recognize the signs of a housing bubble. While I think that a big government-backed environmental movement is inevitable, I still have a faint hope that they will go in with a good plan.
In the meantime, I will try to do my part to help the environment. We recycle, and while I don't bike to work like Paul, I do work from home 2 days a week. And if the government wants to save the environment, they can ask me to work from home every day.
As for this month's book, I have only read the cover page and the bibliography/appendix thing at the back, but I am very impressed with the title. How our fears shape our public decision making is a very interesting topic.
In my contemplation this morning, I found a surprising number of parallels between global warming and the war in Iraq. Let me explain.
Pollution vs. Saddam Hussein
Saddam was a problem for a number of years. Nobody in the world argued the assertion that Saddam was a bad man, doing lots of bad things. However, this in and of itself was not enough to justify our invasion of Iraq. Not even after he invaded Kuwait. An invasion of Iraq needed to be justified by a bigger fear (see below). Similarly, no one is arguing that pollution is bad.
Global Warming vs. Weapons of Mass Destruction
Saddam alone wasn't worth the sacrifice of American lives and money, but Saddam with WMDs is an unimaginable worst case scenario that justified the cost. Similarly, pollution alone isn't worth the cost of slowing down our economy and the extra burden, but global warming and the unimaginable thought of "Waterworld", "The Day After Tomorrow" or "Wall-E", now that's worth sacrificing for.
Consensus
Not fair, you say. We KNOW there is global warming, but we didn't know if there were WMDs. I agree, we do know there is global warming, but we don't know if it will be catastrophic. That's a key difference. We knew that Saddam had weapons, just not weapons of mass destruction. We knew that Saddam was avoiding UN inspectors and acting like he had WMDs. There was a consensus in the political community that Saddam had WMDs, even among those that didn't go to war with us. Which leads to my next point...
No Coalition
Bush gets ripped to shreds for not forming a broad coalition before going into Iraq. He called it leadership. We are, after all, the only superpower. Now, there's a call for leadership in climate change without the agreement of important contributers, namely China and India.
Going in without the right plan
According to the great vision of hindsight, many have said that we could have avoided many of the problems in Iraq if we had just gone in with the right plan. Well, personally I think that many environmentalists have been going about things the wrong way. From what I've read, biofuels and wind power don't appear to be the solutions they've been touted to be. I think the cap and trade system will be a bureaucratic mess that will have very little impact on our net Carbon emissions.
Al Gore vs. Dick Cheney
Haliburton benefitted nicely from the war in Iraq, and similarly, many of the todays most fervent environmentalists will have "greener" wallets as the global warming movement picks up steam.
How long we'll be there
For some, the problem with Iraq wasn't that we went in, but that we can't get back out. Similarly, if the government bolsters up its payrolls with green collar workers, I imagine it will be tough to let those workers off when the job is over. It's never politically popular to let people go. And the effects of a cap and trade system will linger just as long as our troops stay in Iraq.
The "What if..." factor
Getting out of Iraq is complicated by several fears and hopes, namely the fear of a terrorist breeding ground if we leave and the hope of a democratic Iraq and eventually a democratic Middle East. History may one day see George Bush as a hero and one of our greatest presidents. Stranger things have happened. Interestingly, it's the fear, more than the hope that drives people's opinions. Similarly, the fear of cataclysmic weather is much more motivating than the hope of a pristine environment. The "What If..." factor will ensure that we never leave Iraq and that we will always worry and legislate our effect on the environment.
My Conclusion
There are intelligent people that support the war in Iraq, and there are more intelligent people that support drastic government intervention to reduce our impact on the environment. I respect both groups, even though often they are either of vastly different political persuasions or they voted for McCain. I don't know the correctness of either cause. There will always be that "What if..." factor. However, I have stopped believing the argument that there are people smarter than me that have a lot more information than I do, and that I should just trust them. (Note: I have no doubt that there are people smarter than me and with more experience, but I now require a higher level of evidence from them. If they're so smart, they should be able to explain it to me and not just require me to trust them. (Note: That means if they want me to trust a computer model's output for 10 years down the road, they should start by predicting one year down the road.))
I know it's becoming a bit cliche to blame Bush, but I like to blame him for making me more cynical. I got sucked into the justification for the war in Iraq, thinking that he had access to information that I didn't, and when I felt deceived later, I tried to learn from my mistakes. After the dot.com bubble, you've got to recognize the signs of a housing bubble. While I think that a big government-backed environmental movement is inevitable, I still have a faint hope that they will go in with a good plan.
In the meantime, I will try to do my part to help the environment. We recycle, and while I don't bike to work like Paul, I do work from home 2 days a week. And if the government wants to save the environment, they can ask me to work from home every day.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)