Here's how big a city containing the entire world population of 6.9 billion would have to be if it were the same density as some of the world's cities:
Paris:
New York:
Singapore:
San Francisco:
London:
Houston:
Most of you are idiots
Most of You are Idiots with Nothing to Say:
We've occasionally discussed the problem -- usually in the context of music -- of "Where are our Wagners?" Eric reminds us that we are in a time of extraordinary richness of sharing: we can hear forms of music that most of the greats never heard while they were composing; and those great composers; and many other forms as well.
This should be producing some magnificent synthesis, Beethoven with punk rock: but what we're getting instead is... well, it's garbage. Literature and academic thought is likewise drowning in sewage.
What is to be done about this? Also, what does it mean that more variety -- even more access to the greatest that history has ever produced -- does not reliably produce greats, but seems instead to drown them? I have heard that happiness is often imperiled by having too many choices; this seems like another problem of that type.
It is a problem not often considered in philosophy, which often follows Aristotle's formula that 'the good' is what things desire, and they desire those things because they lack them in some sense. Here is a case where we lack nothing -- not the best. Yet, lacking nothing, we are unable to make good things ourselves. It is as if the magic has broken, and the spell receded: all that is left are the old things, the works we cannot make alone.
Present company excepted, of course. However, that is the conclusion of two separate articles treating the bounty of literature being published today.
Why read?
If we take the argument a step further, we face the possibility that the humanities are actually countereconomic; the notion of alterity and sympathy, taken seriously, would undo the profit motive and put a fair amount of grit into the workings of economic activity. It would undermine the individualism upon which exchange, in its current forms, is based.Why write?
A loud, swarming noise of hundreds of thousands of books published each year, one almost indistinguishable from the next. Here are three new biographies of Coco Chanel, published almost simultaneously. A giant stack of memoirs about being sexually abused as a child. A dozen or so fantasy trilogies that begin with a poor girl who, upon the death of her mother, discovers she’s actually heir to the throne and must fight off usurpers.Surely, though, the best ideas float to the top?
Does one dare to raise one’s voice above the commotion, try to draw some attention away from those taking up the spotlight? Who gets in that rarefied space is still determined by the writer’s gender, connections, beauty, nepotism, youth, or “platform.” Not even the most idealistic among the cultural critics bother to argue that the system is merit-based.That's from a female author, by the way.
We've occasionally discussed the problem -- usually in the context of music -- of "Where are our Wagners?" Eric reminds us that we are in a time of extraordinary richness of sharing: we can hear forms of music that most of the greats never heard while they were composing; and those great composers; and many other forms as well.
This should be producing some magnificent synthesis, Beethoven with punk rock: but what we're getting instead is... well, it's garbage. Literature and academic thought is likewise drowning in sewage.
What is to be done about this? Also, what does it mean that more variety -- even more access to the greatest that history has ever produced -- does not reliably produce greats, but seems instead to drown them? I have heard that happiness is often imperiled by having too many choices; this seems like another problem of that type.
It is a problem not often considered in philosophy, which often follows Aristotle's formula that 'the good' is what things desire, and they desire those things because they lack them in some sense. Here is a case where we lack nothing -- not the best. Yet, lacking nothing, we are unable to make good things ourselves. It is as if the magic has broken, and the spell receded: all that is left are the old things, the works we cannot make alone.
A Solution to Global Warming
A Solution to Global WarmingAccording to the San Francisco Business Times, marijuana grown indoors is responsible for 1% of U.S. electrical production and contributes 17 million metric tons of carbon per year, not counting exhalations.
A couple of years ago, I spent a little over a year representing the bankrupt owners of a large redwood timber company in Humboldt County, California. The few local towns are tiny. They used to depend almost entirely on the timber industry, before it was ripped to shreds. More recently, the local economy has given the superficial impression of depending on tourism (it's an extremely beautiful, remote area), but it's widely believed that the actual source of income buoying the place up is grow-houses. Locals believe that most of the rental house stock is in use as indoor pot farms. A very small town supports two fully-stocked hydroponics-supply stores.
The S.F. Business Times asserts that, after medical marijuana was legalized in 1996, residential electricity use in Humboldt County jumped 50% in comparison with other parts of California. One of the issues complicating my bankruptcy case was the presence of squatters in the redwood forests, who grew pot in the clearings and had a distressing tendency to start small brush wars in response to intruders. Paradise, man! Global warming probably will make the pot crop even more vigorous.
HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE ON MARGINAL TAX RATES
Discuss amongst your ownselves.
While I mostly agree that raising taxes on the rich isn't the answer to erasing the federal deficit, I can't help observing that there's precious little evidential support for the view that allowing marginal tax rates for the highest income bracket to climb to 40% is either unprecedented or gol-durned unAmerican.
The fact is that for the past century, the top marginal tax rate was nearly ALWAYS been higher than 35%. Not that "it's always/usually been that way" is a particularly solid normative argument for taxing the living daylights out of the Chinese toy-loving minions of the richest one percent.
On the otter heiny, "it's always/usually been that way" makes a pretty good argument against the notion that Armaggedon will result if we raise taxes on Teh Evil Rich (among whom the blog princess is mildly disturbed to find herself) :p
UPDATE: the argument conservatives *should* be making:
Discuss amongst your ownselves.
While I mostly agree that raising taxes on the rich isn't the answer to erasing the federal deficit, I can't help observing that there's precious little evidential support for the view that allowing marginal tax rates for the highest income bracket to climb to 40% is either unprecedented or gol-durned unAmerican.
The fact is that for the past century, the top marginal tax rate was nearly ALWAYS been higher than 35%. Not that "it's always/usually been that way" is a particularly solid normative argument for taxing the living daylights out of the Chinese toy-loving minions of the richest one percent.
On the otter heiny, "it's always/usually been that way" makes a pretty good argument against the notion that Armaggedon will result if we raise taxes on Teh Evil Rich (among whom the blog princess is mildly disturbed to find herself) :p
UPDATE: the argument conservatives *should* be making:
I find this simply fascinating.
In a blog post that I thought was about Congress, a self described progressive suddenly takes a hard left turn into fatty-hate:
I wonder if this is going to be the new meme, now that hating on Republicans seems to be becoming passe', especially since the supposedly progressive President is starting to sound like one. And since obesity knows no color line, there are all sorts of entertaining implications to this line of thinking.
I suspect that this particular blogger is a retired baby-boomer, since he (the voice sounds like a he to me) has the time to post dozens of posts a day. I notice this blog showing up on memorandum much too often for a blog that appears to have no readers. Or at least no one who comments.
That gives me a thought.
Ymar, your mission, should you choose to accept it, is to show this person error of their ways in your winning style. See how long it takes for him to start deleting your comments. (Anyone else who wishes to, can join in as well.) There is certainly enough to comment on over there.
We are a nation of sacred cows. I'm talking about two aspects of America. One is our personal tonnage and the other is our indignation when anyone looks askance at someone who is obese. If feeling disgust and annoyance around people who are seriously obese is unfair, well, count me as one of the unfair. One reason has to do with feeling uncomfortable and frustrated in the company of people who are both self-destructive and heedless. The other has to do with those whose addictions add to everyone's difficulties. They cost us all a lot. The losses are measurable exactly as war's costs are measurable -- in young lives and a nation's treasure.
I wonder if this is going to be the new meme, now that hating on Republicans seems to be becoming passe', especially since the supposedly progressive President is starting to sound like one. And since obesity knows no color line, there are all sorts of entertaining implications to this line of thinking.
I suspect that this particular blogger is a retired baby-boomer, since he (the voice sounds like a he to me) has the time to post dozens of posts a day. I notice this blog showing up on memorandum much too often for a blog that appears to have no readers. Or at least no one who comments.
That gives me a thought.
Ymar, your mission, should you choose to accept it, is to show this person error of their ways in your winning style. See how long it takes for him to start deleting your comments. (Anyone else who wishes to, can join in as well.) There is certainly enough to comment on over there.
Budget Spectacles
Eat the RichObviously last week's budget drama -- the impending doom of a shut-down of non-essential federal government activity -- was just a warm-up for the festivities surrounding the impending doom of a failure to raise the debt ceiling. (I'll add here my apologies to households expecting a military paycheck, as I would have considered freezing those funds a cause for a general public uprising, almost alone among the proposed effects of a shut-down. Cutting off paychecks to Congress would have been more my speed.)
Most of the excitement is generated by two sides shouting "Spend less!" and "Tax more!" at each other. So now might be a good time to consider Iowahawk's no-nonsense approach to finding the additional tax money to fund the nation's $10 billion-a-day spending habit:
12:01 AM, January 1
Let's start the year out right by going after some evil corporations and their obscene profits. And who is more evil than those twin spawns of Lucifer himself, Exxon Mobil and Walmart? Together these two largest American industrial behemoths raked in, between them, $34 billion in 2010 global profits. Let's teach 'em both a lesson and confiscate it for the public good. This will get us through...
9:52 AM January 4 . . .
Iowahawk manages to make it through the end of 2011 with a series of confiscations, then finds himself at the beginning of 2012 needing to do it again. Anyone know, he wonders, where we can get more plutocrats?
MORON WATCH
The United Nations, an organization that never met a pressing human rights issue it wasn't willing to pretend to care about bloviate into submission, has decided to deploy its unique brand of Multisyllabic Might against Gaia-raping capitalist running pig-dogs everywhere:
Because Goddess knows, there is nothing your average Gaia-raper fears more than those four little words: "We need to talk." Look for this latest humyn rights initiative to be just as wildly successful as their last effort:
Is there anything the sternly wagging finger of international consensus can't do?
We think not.
The United Nations, an organization that never met a pressing human rights issue it wasn't willing to Bolivia will this month table a draft United Nations treaty giving "Mother Earth" the same rights as humans — having just passed a domestic law that does the same for bugs, trees and all other natural things in the South American country.
The bid aims to have the UN recognize the Earth as a living entity that humans have sought to "dominate and exploit" — to the point that the "well-being and existence of many beings" is now threatened.
The wording may yet evolve, but the general structure is meant to mirror Bolivia's Law of the Rights of Mother Earth, which Bolivian President Evo Morales enacted in January.
That document speaks of the country's natural resources as "blessings," and grants the Earth a series of specific rights that include rights to life, water and clean air; the right to repair livelihoods affected by human activities; and the right to be free from pollution.
It also establishes a Ministry of Mother Earth, and provides the planet with an ombudsman whose job is to hear nature's complaints as voiced by activist and other groups, including the state.
Because Goddess knows, there is nothing your average Gaia-raper fears more than those four little words: "We need to talk." Look for this latest humyn rights initiative to be just as wildly successful as their last effort:
A month after the United Nations last summer announced the creation of a new, $500 million-a-year organization to promote equality for women in global affairs, the U.N.’s own investigators revealed that 15 years of “gender mainstreaming” efforts within the UN Secretariat have been a sweeping and costly failure.
The report, issued in August 2010, evaluates how gender mainstreaming -- the term that the U.N. uses to describe achieving equality between the sexes in all walks of life -- is being incorporated in all U.N. work to “ensure that the different needs and circumstances of women and men are identified and taken into account when policies and projects are developed and implemented.”
Is there anything the sternly wagging finger of international consensus can't do?
We think not.
Eek - a Republican
Eek -- a RepublicanAnother Maggie's Farm find: this essay in Slate by a woman who's struggling to understand how her best friend can be a Republican. She seems like an honest, caring friend whose opinions are based on carefully educated thought -- and yet she opposes Obamacare and the federal funding of Planned Parenthood! How can the author reconcile her revulsion with her love?
Nowhere in this amazing piece do I find even a glimmer of recognition that the Republican friend might also have to struggle to deal with her progressive friend's beliefs, or with her circle's casual assumption of superiority.
O wad some Pow'r the Giftie gie us
To see oursels as ithers see us
Republican Virtues vs. Servile Institutions
Republican Virtues vs. Servile Institutions
I recommend these two video lectures from the American Enterprise Institute website, recommended to me over at Maggie's Farm. The first is Charles Murray, summarizing a book he's nearly completed on changing patterns of industriousness, honesty, marriage, and religious involvement in the lower and upper thirds of the American population in terms of education and income. His main observation is that, while the upper third always has had stronger showings in these areas than the lower third, the divergence between the two groups has grown over the last 50 years even as both groups have dropped off in their "scores." A favorite snippet: he believes that the upper group is afraid to "preach what it practices," perhaps out of some diffidence about the propriety of pushing on others the practices that have worked so well for them and their families.
The other lecture is Bill Kristol, speaking about a collection of the neo-conservative essays of his father, Irving Kristol. A favorite snippet: a neo-liberal is someone who's been mugged by reality, but refuses to press charges.
Western Waters
Western Waters:
I imagine some of you are getting curious about my continued absence. A few weeks ago I got a call from BLACKFIVE's Mr. Wolf, who asked me to come down and help him out with something. I'm still down here, and I'm not sure how long I'll be. As I settle in, though, it'll be easier to find time for the Hall.
If you were curious about whether Mr. Wolf lives up to his nickname -- "Winston Wolf. I solve problems." -- here's the view off the back porch of the quarters he arranged for us.
So, when we're not working, it's not a bad place to be. Still, all this sun and wind can get you a bit dehydrated after a while. There was some good news about that today, though.
QUOTE OF THE DAY:
Heh... :)
I just wasn’t cut out to be a Chinese Tiger Mom. I’m more of an Irish Setter Dad. Here are some of the things my daughters, Muffin and Poppet, and my son, Buster, were never allowed to do:
• go to Mass naked
• attend a sleepover at Charlie Sheen’s house
• mix Daddy a martini using sweet vermouth
• play the violin within earshot of me
Have you ever heard a kid learning to play the violin? A cat in the microwave is nothing to it. And let me add an addendum to the things my children were never allowed to do—put a cat in the microwave. I’m not saying it didn’t happen; I’m just saying they weren’t allowed to do it.
Whose children are going to succeed in life, Amy Chua’s or mine? Her Lulu has that violin going for her—there’s hardly a Silicon Valley billionaire, Wall Street plutocrat, senator, four-star general, or pope who isn’t a violin virtuoso. And Sophia, who tickles the ivories, can always say, “Don’t tell Mom I work for Goldman Sachs, she thinks I play piano in a house of ill repute.” But my kids practice too, hour after hour every day. They practice being jerks. And since almost every boss I’ve ever had was a jerk, this gives them a leg up. Plus there’s the cat in the microwave. That shows an inquisitive, experimental turn of mind. You can see how electronic cat-zapping could lead directly to the invention of something like Facebook.
Heh... :)
WHY DOES LINDSEY GRAHAM HATE OUR FREEDOMS? MILLER TIME EDITION
In the last post I threw out a few Inflammatory Debate Questions:
The Intrepid MikeD was kind enough toput himself in the line of fire respond to my anguished cri de coeur:
As it turns out, Graham later explained the comment (which was by no means clear):
Maybe I hate America too, but I don't have any problem with any of this. Repeat after me: Lindsey Graham does not have the ability to single handedly pass laws against Koran burning. Nor did he advocate doing so (hand waving and hyperbolic mischaractizations notwithstanding).
I'm fine with people disagreeing with Senator Graham. But I get off the bus when I see people arguing that it's "dangerous" to limit free speech... and then go ballistic when a U.S. citizen says something they disagree with. I thought the whole point was that robust debate was a *good* thing?
As for the second part of Mike's commment, I'm going to take exception to that, too (what is this? Pick on MikeD day? :)
First of all, it's not at all clear to me that Graham is advocating that the U.S. government hold Koran burners accountable:
Secondly, if you stop to realize that one of the major goals of the Taliban/Al Qaeda is to turn Abdul SixPack against us, then it's hard to imagine a better propaganda tool than some moron burning a Koran. Let's not forget that Afghanistan ain't Manhattan. It's a foreign culture that views honor in a way that is... well, foreign to us. And it's not too hard to whip up a mob in a country with where law and order are both fragile and precarious. I would argue that if you make it easy for our enemies to turn the general public against us, you ARE aiding and abetting the enemy (leaving aside the question of appropriate response).
A few years ago when the anti-war Left were hysterically accusing Der BusHitler of violating the Constitution, I read an interesting book. The man who wrote it - Richard Posner - is not a liberal by any stretch of the imagination. His thesis was that war is different from peacetime and the Constitution was never intended to be a suicide pact:
I agree with Mike that we should view any infringement on our civil rights (whether it be during war or peacetime) with a suspicious eye. But I also see the wisdom in Justice Jackson's famous maxim in his dissent to Terminiello v. Chicago. It's an interesting case.
If a lifetime of reading history has given me an appreciation for anything, it has strengthened my faith in the natural ebb and flow of liberty in this country and the robustness of our system of government. Certainly there have been abuses and the majority of those abuses have occurred during time of war. From the vantage point of hindsight, it's easy to look back at our forebears and blithely say, "They overreacted", or conversely, "Gee... all those abuses and yet somehow the Republic endured!"
To me, the latter view makes more sense. To pretend that wartime (and we ARE fighting two wars and our servicemen and women ARE just as important as their civilian counterparts) restrictions of liberty are unprecedented, unAmerican, or the last gasp of a dying democracy on the otter slide to jackbooted repression and the Rise of the 4th Reich seems (at least when viewed from the perspective of history) a tad overwrought.
As does much of the rhetoric I've seen aimed at Senator Graham. Disagree with him on the merits if you wish. I would add, though, that not only is he an attorney (which leads me to suspect he might just understand the First Amendment and 1A jurisprudence better than does your average pundit) but he is one of the few Congresscritters who has actually deployed to both Iraq and Afghanistan.
The "gutless coward".
In the last post I threw out a few Inflammatory Debate Questions:
1. Is it really a threat to democracy for Lindsey Graham to say that there's ample precedent in American history for wartime limitations on "speech"?
2. Does expressing an opinion that differs from your own make a politician "unfit for office"?
3. Is America really so fragile that we can't discuss the trade offs between liberty and security without imperiling the Republic?
The Intrepid MikeD was kind enough to
I wish we could find a way to hold people accountable. Free speech is a great idea, but we’re in a war,” Graham told CBS’ Bob Schieffer on Sunday.
How do we hold people accountable in this country? A civil suit, perhaps. Criminal law? Occasionally. The fact that he's a lawmaker makes this a monumentally stupid thing for him to say.
As it turns out, Graham later explained the comment (which was by no means clear):
NRO: How do you do that?
GRAHAM: Push back. Let the world know that we don’t condone this, that this is not America. Let people see that this is not who the American people are. To be a Christian, you don’t have to prove you’re a Christian by burning the Koran. We are nation where we tolerate religious differences and that’s what makes us great. We want to push the Muslim world to tolerate Christianity better. It’s pretty hard for us to stand up for freedom of religion in Islamic counties when you can’t stand up for it here.
NRO: If Koran burning puts troops at risk, should the New York Times be banned from publishing classified memos, since that is a form of First Amendment expression that potentially puts our troops at risk?
GRAHAM: Yes. I was very consistent. I wanted to investigate the WikiLeaks case to see if it compromised our national security. See, I believe that we are at war. I am not talking about Koran burning in isolation. I am talking about it in response to what General Petraeus said. If this is important enough to him to issue a statement, then it ought to be important enough for us in government to listen to what he has to say.
This is not some theoretical case of free speech; this is a case that is impacting the security of our forces, according to our general on the ground. WikiLeaks was the release of classified information, and I don’t believe that the private in question has a free-speech defense. Those who release classified information, even for those in the media, they are not above the law. The First Amendment doesn’t allow people to publish state secrets.
NRO: But don’t you fear that if we let Islamic extremists determine the speech debate in the United States, then we’ve lost something?
GRAHAM: No. Here’s what I fear: I fear that politicians don’t have any problem pushing against laws in the Middle East that are outrageous. It’s perfectly acceptable for me to push back against prosecutions by Islamic countries against people of my faith. And it is perfectly appropriate for me to condemn Koran burning when the general who is in charge of our troops believes that such action would help. I’m not letting Islamists determine what free speech in America is, but I am, as a political leader, trying to respond to the needs of our commander. You’ve got to remember, General Petraeus decided that this was important enough to get on the record as being inappropriate. And I want to be on the record with General Petraeus.
NRO: Instead of being an advocate for Petraeus, should you not first and foremost be an advocate for the First Amendment?
GRAHAM: You know what? Let me tell you, the First Amendment means nothing without people like General Petraeus. I don’t believe that the First Amendment allows you to burn the flag or picket the funeral of a slain service member. I am going to continue to speak out and say that’s wrong. The First Amendment does allow you to express yourself and burn a Koran. I’m sure that’s the law, but I don’t think it’s a responsible use of our First Amendment right.
Where does this end? How many more things are going to happen in the world that is going to incite violence against our service members overseas? I am just asking Americans, don’t do that, please. For God’s sake, no matter how you feel about religion, please keep it within the confines of realizing that we have thousands of people serving our nation, fighting for those First Amendment rights. They’ve got enough problems.
Just be responsible, that’s all I’m trying to say. Burning the Bible would not justify murder, burning the Koran doesn’t justify violence. The people who are committing this violence, I condemn them. That’s what I said Sunday. I don’t think I said anything Sunday that was inconsistent with what General Petraeus said.
Maybe I hate America too, but I don't have any problem with any of this. Repeat after me: Lindsey Graham does not have the ability to single handedly pass laws against Koran burning. Nor did he advocate doing so (hand waving and hyperbolic mischaractizations notwithstanding).
I'm fine with people disagreeing with Senator Graham. But I get off the bus when I see people arguing that it's "dangerous" to limit free speech... and then go ballistic when a U.S. citizen says something they disagree with. I thought the whole point was that robust debate was a *good* thing?
As for the second part of Mike's commment, I'm going to take exception to that, too (what is this? Pick on MikeD day? :)
But what is really the icing on my cake is "Free speech is a great idea..." No, the HELL it's NOT Senator, it's the CONSTITUTION. It superceeds the law. As far as your oath of office is concerned, it is your primary focus in your JOB. And what war are we in? ... Unless that moron pastor in Florida is inciting riots, committing treason, or aiding and abetting the enemy (which pissing them off hardly seems like abetting them), I see no need for the United States Government to "hold him accountable."
First of all, it's not at all clear to me that Graham is advocating that the U.S. government hold Koran burners accountable:
NRO: The question about your comments is about imposing any kind of legal pushback during a time of war.
GRAHAM: If I could, I would make it a crime to burn the flag, but the only way you could do that is through a constitutional amendment.
NRO: What I don’t understand is, if would you support an amendment to ban flag burning, why do you not support one to ban Koran burning?
GRAHAM: In my view, the flag represents who we are as a nation. It is a symbol of who we are. If you start talking about individual acts of religious intolerance, the amendment doesn’t make any sense. It does make sense, to me, to focus on the symbol of the country, the flag. I’m not proposing that we propose a ban on religious disagreement. I am saying that you can disagree with America; you can disagree with me, but don’t burn the one symbol that holds us together. That’s not an act of speech. They say that is symbolic speech, but I think that is a destructive act. It’s the one thing that unites us.
Yet when it comes to regulating what individual churches may do, or what individual citizens may do under the guise under religion, you are not going to be able to write a constitutional amendment to ban those practices. There is no way to do that. I wish we could hold people accountable for their actions, but under free speech, you can’t.
Secondly, if you stop to realize that one of the major goals of the Taliban/Al Qaeda is to turn Abdul SixPack against us, then it's hard to imagine a better propaganda tool than some moron burning a Koran. Let's not forget that Afghanistan ain't Manhattan. It's a foreign culture that views honor in a way that is... well, foreign to us. And it's not too hard to whip up a mob in a country with where law and order are both fragile and precarious. I would argue that if you make it easy for our enemies to turn the general public against us, you ARE aiding and abetting the enemy (leaving aside the question of appropriate response).
A few years ago when the anti-war Left were hysterically accusing Der BusHitler of violating the Constitution, I read an interesting book. The man who wrote it - Richard Posner - is not a liberal by any stretch of the imagination. His thesis was that war is different from peacetime and the Constitution was never intended to be a suicide pact:
Posner, who sits on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, inaugurates a new series on inalienable rights. The series is intended to stimulate debate, and Posner's work will do exactly that, drilling energetically into a set of issues raised by what he sees as an unprecedented emergency. In the fact of terrorism and the threat of WMDs, he argues, the scope of constitutional rights must be adjusted—i.e., narrowed—in a pragmatic but rational manner. Saying we must balance the harm new security measures inflict on personal liberty against the increased security those measures provide, Posner comes down, in most but not quite all respects, on the side of increased government power. He advocates that coercive and even brutal forms of interrogation should be allowed in proper circumstances, that all communications within the United States should be subject to interception, and that government should have authority to enjoin publication of classified information. Posner (An Affair of State) would impose limits and qualifications on these assertions of government power, but even so, his views will provoke Category 5 protest from civil libertarians. You may agree with or be appalled by Posner's cost-benefit analyses, but the author's premises are explicit, his writing is economical and precise, and he ably makes the case for his side in the national debate.
I agree with Mike that we should view any infringement on our civil rights (whether it be during war or peacetime) with a suspicious eye. But I also see the wisdom in Justice Jackson's famous maxim in his dissent to Terminiello v. Chicago. It's an interesting case.
If a lifetime of reading history has given me an appreciation for anything, it has strengthened my faith in the natural ebb and flow of liberty in this country and the robustness of our system of government. Certainly there have been abuses and the majority of those abuses have occurred during time of war. From the vantage point of hindsight, it's easy to look back at our forebears and blithely say, "They overreacted", or conversely, "Gee... all those abuses and yet somehow the Republic endured!"
To me, the latter view makes more sense. To pretend that wartime (and we ARE fighting two wars and our servicemen and women ARE just as important as their civilian counterparts) restrictions of liberty are unprecedented, unAmerican, or the last gasp of a dying democracy on the otter slide to jackbooted repression and the Rise of the 4th Reich seems (at least when viewed from the perspective of history) a tad overwrought.
As does much of the rhetoric I've seen aimed at Senator Graham. Disagree with him on the merits if you wish. I would add, though, that not only is he an attorney (which leads me to suspect he might just understand the First Amendment and 1A jurisprudence better than does your average pundit) but he is one of the few Congresscritters who has actually deployed to both Iraq and Afghanistan.
The "gutless coward".
SINCE I'M FEELING FEISTY TODAY...
...here's Yet Another Potentially Inflammatory Set of Debate Questions:
1. Is it really a threat to democracy for Lindsey Graham to say that there's ample precedent in American history for wartime limitations on "speech"?
2. Does expressing an opinion that differs from your own make a politician "unfit for office"?
Wow. Really?
3. Is America really so fragile that we can't discuss the trade offs between liberty and security without imperiling the Republic?
...here's Yet Another Potentially Inflammatory Set of Debate Questions:
1. Is it really a threat to democracy for Lindsey Graham to say that there's ample precedent in American history for wartime limitations on "speech"?
2. Does expressing an opinion that differs from your own make a politician "unfit for office"?
Wow. Really?
3. Is America really so fragile that we can't discuss the trade offs between liberty and security without imperiling the Republic?
HOW POLITICALLY INCORRECT OF HIM...
Apparently, Charles Murray is just a big, mean spirited misandrist:
Debate questions:
1. How does what Murray just said differ from Kay Hymowitz's latest effort, which has produced the most amusing (if deafening) howls of outrage - along with cries of "Misandry!!!1!!!!111!!!!" - from quite a few righty bloggers?
2. Is Murray's message "misandry"?
3. If so, is John Hawkins a misandrist, too?
From what I've seen, liberals have plenty of company on the right side of the blogosphere. Just sayin'.
Apparently, Charles Murray is just a big, mean spirited misandrist:
Note the discrepancy between what I just said and our common perceptions of what's going on with marriage. The very common impression is that it's the upper class that's had problems with marriage...
...For the upper middle class, marriage is alive and well. It has collapsed in the working class.
Why is it a big deal that fewer than half of working class whites ages 30-49 are married? Well, there are several reasons.
One is that marriage civilizes men. Married men... their incomes go up. Their productivity goes up. In a more general sense, adult males who are single are kind of a kind of disheveled population....disheveled in a variety of ways culturally and socially and they clean up their acts when they get married with fairly good regularity.
Another reason is that single people are not good producers of social capital. They seldom coach Little League teams and chair civic fund drives, or take the lead in getting a 4 way stop sign at an intersection where children play.
A third, more fundamental reason is the one that de Tocqueville saw. It's worth quoting directly:"I consider the domestic virtue of the Americans [domestic virtue referring to married life in America] as the principal source of all their other qualities.
He then goes on to enumerate those qualities and concludes:"In short, domestic virtue does more for the preservation of peace and good order than all the laws enacted for that purpose, and is a better guarantee for the permanency of the American government than any written instrument - the Constitution not excepted.
Debate questions:
1. How does what Murray just said differ from Kay Hymowitz's latest effort, which has produced the most amusing (if deafening) howls of outrage - along with cries of "Misandry!!!1!!!!111!!!!" - from quite a few righty bloggers?
2. Is Murray's message "misandry"?
3. If so, is John Hawkins a misandrist, too?
Is it controversial to note that people in their twenties are a lot less grown up and responsible than they used to be? Yes, it’s nice that so many Americans can waste their twenties clubbing and playing Madden — and I mean that. The fact that so many young Americans even have the option to do that shows we have an extremely prosperous society.
Of course, there’s also a price to be paid for that prosperity: Percentage wise, we have a lot of “adults” in this country who think like children because they’ve never been forced to grow up and deal with the real world the way Americans did in past generations.
Pointing this out apparently infuriates liberals, who in their ignorance, tend to confuse hedonism with happiness.
From what I've seen, liberals have plenty of company on the right side of the blogosphere. Just sayin'.
Criminal Faces
Criminal Faces
See how proficient you are at identifying a criminal, relying only on his face when set in a "neutral" expression. I got them 75% right, which is too good to be accounted for by chance. It turns out I'm reliable at identifying assaulters (something about the deadness of the eyes and the set of the mouth), so-so at identifying arsonists and drug dealers, and terrible at identifying rapists. The key can be found here, if you'll scroll down all the way to the last page of the article. (H/t Assistant Village Idiot.)
Nature abhors a vacuum.
These new “secondary” forests are emerging in Latin America, Asia and other tropical regions at such a fast pace that the trend has set off a serious debate about whether saving primeval rain forest — an iconic environmental cause — may be less urgent than once thought. By one estimate, for every acre of rain forest cut down each year, more than 50 acres of new forest are growing in the tropics on land that was once farmed, logged or ravaged by natural disaster.“There is far more forest here than there was 30 years ago,” said Ms. Ortega de Wing, 64, who remembers fields of mango trees and banana plants.
I've seen this before. I've spent some time around the battle field at Monmouth, NJ, and several years ago the park started an initiative to 'restore' parts of the battle field to its condition at the time of the battle in 1778. This pretty much involved cutting down a whole lot of vegetation that had grown up since end of intensive cultivation in central NJ. (by that I mean people who were doing tings like gathering firewood in addition to working the land) Grim knows what I mean.
It's hubris to think we really can damage nature on any long-term scale.
Traveling
Traveling:
I'm traveling again, this time on business, so I can't promise to be around much for a bit.
POLITICS: APPARENTLY IT REALLY *IS* A BLOOD SPORT...
Yikes:
In case you can't read the text in the screen snap, it says "Lawmaker Wants Grilling Of Libya Minister on Lockerbie"
These Congress Wallahs are just a bunch of big brutes.
Yikes:
In case you can't read the text in the screen snap, it says "Lawmaker Wants Grilling Of Libya Minister on Lockerbie"
These Congress Wallahs are just a bunch of big brutes.
BWAHAHAHA
Bwhahaahaha!
My hat's off to you, ma'am.
I'm sorry, I should come up with something more significant to say about hahahahahaha:
Moments before a conference call with reporters was scheduled to get underway on Tuesday morning, Charles E. Schumer of New York, the No. 3 Democrat in the Senate, apparently unaware that many of the reporters were already on the line, began to instruct his fellow senators on how to talk to reporters about the contentious budget process....You do have to give them some credit here. It took a certain amount of guts to go ahead and hold the call. The guts it took to go ahead and repeat the spin with a straight face?
Mr. Schumer told them to portray John A. Boehner of Ohio, the speaker of the House, as painted into a box by the Tea Party, and to decry the spending cuts that he wants as extreme. “I always use the word extreme,” Mr. Schumer said. “That is what the caucus instructed me to use this week.”
A minute or two into the talking-points tutorial, though, someone apparently figured out that reporters were listening, and silence fell.
Then the conference call began in earnest, with the Democrats right on message.
“We are urging Mr. Boehner to abandon the extreme right wing,” said Ms. Boxer[.]
My hat's off to you, ma'am.
DON'T YOU JUST HATE IT WHEN THAT HAPPENS?
Some days it seems as though nothing goes right:
I know just how she feels.
Some days it seems as though nothing goes right:
An eagle ray weighing as much as 300 pounds landed on top of a woman on a boat in the Florida Keys last week, throwing her to the deck and pinning her underneath it -- the "scariest thing" that's ever happened to her, she said.
The woman, Jenny Hausch, was on the chartered boat Friday with her husband and three children, taking pictures of a group of eagle rays as they flew out of the water.
.... the ray kept "slamming and slamming on top of (Hausch), trying to swim away."
...Klein said the animal measured 8-feet across, and probably weighed a good 300 pounds.
"It's just massive, it has a 10-foot tail," she added.
I know just how she feels.
Against the Law
Against the Law:
The rule of law is a means to that end; when it becomes destructive to those ends, the law must be set aside in spite of itself.
If the law is unjust, "the rule of law" means the rule of injustice. Before we the People speak of 'giving the Devil the benefit of the law,' we must not forget that the Devil often has the best lobbyists. We should not commit to a moral principle that commits us to pursuing injustice on those occasions when the wicked have captured the law.
----------------------------------------
There is a second argument that applies even when the law is not unjust; even when it may be perfectly just.
The law is an exercise of the power of the state, and the power of the state is coercive -- it is based on violence, that is, even when an individual instance is not violent. Every act of "law enforcement" is an act of coercion.
Many times in life we find ourselves in disputes with others, and we could rely on rules and force to push people to accept our way. We might also be able to sit down, talk things through, and achieve a compromise position that everyone can live with. The second approach means that we do not get exactly what we wanted, but we do get a society that is more pleasant to live in. Very often, this second approach is the foundation of friendships and good relations with neighbors.
This is why we respect the old breed of "peace officers" more than the sort who consider themselves "law enforcement officers." A peace officer is preserving the order of society, but this often means letting certain things slide if an agreement can be reached between the parties in dispute. The law here is a tool, certainly, but he does not stand on 'the rule of law.' He mentions the law, and then talks people into sorting out their problems so that no one has to go to jail. The "law enforcement officer" is a tool of state coercion with his every act; the "peace officer" often is able to preserve the peace and common order through agreement.
The fact that the law permits us to do something is almost irrelevant to the moral question of whether or not we should do it. If the law forbids something, that fact is relevant to our moral calculations because breaking the law is a serious act, to be done only in cases of the type discussed in the first section. There are some laws we must morally break; the rest we must not break.
Once we have determined that the law permits something, however, the law is finished informing our moral decision. We have to make the choice of whether to do what the law permits us to do, or to refrain from doing it, on other grounds.
Like the peace officer, we often have powers we choose not to use. We often don't use our legal freedom to spend all our money on booze and gambling. We often have disputes with neighbors that we settle out of court. We often don't arrange protests just-this-side of our neighbor's property.
We often treat people better than we must, and that is a very good thing. The more a society relies upon the law to settle its disputes, the less stable that society is. That is to say that the more the People turn to the state to resolve their disputes, the more of their power they are ceding to the state.
A society that resolves its disputes according to the law instead of socially has given all its power to the state, and is at the mercy of the state. Do you wish to be at the mercy of ours? Do you trust our politicians to 'give the Devil the benefit of the law', or would you rather have the hedge of your neighbors just in case? You will have it only if you extend it to them as well.
It may be the case that our society has grown so unstable that we are running out of options. While last chances exist, to extend hands and rebuild some of the social power that guards us against exposure to state power, I think we ought to try. Certainly when we are dealing with thugs on the other side, or on our own, we should do nothing for them; but when we are dealing with ordinary and decent people, it is in all of our interests to try.
One of the points of unity among you in our recent debate about Dr. Cronon was the importance of the concept of "the rule of law." I want to set aside the particulars of that case entirely, and discuss the idea of "the rule of law" independently. This is an idea that has always struck me something other than an unalloyed good (to use Cassandra's phrase). I want to offer some objections to the idea of adopting it as a principle for ourselves.
Before I do, I want to recognize that I understand why so many people have adopted "the rule of law" as a principle. The principle is laid out so beautifully in A Man for All Seasons:
The principle as Sir Thomas More lays it out is exactly correct, and I don't dispute it at all.
To understand how I can dispute the principle and not Sir Thomas More, it is necessary to recognize the distinction between the People and the state; and that Sir Thomas More was speaking as an agent of the state. The argument that an officer of the state should 'give the Devil the benefit of the law' is an argument about the state recognizing legal limits to its power. Just as the play says, if we accept the state setting aside the lawful limits of its power to deal with evildoers, we will soon find it accepts no limits when it deals with anyone else.
The "we" who are accepting or rejecting the state's powers here are "We, the People." The distinction between the People and the State is that the People are those who retain the power described in the Declaration of Independence:
[T]hey are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness."The rule of law" is therefore not a principle for the People to accept as a first principle. They are the judges of whether "the rule of law" has become destructive to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." Their first principles must be these three things.
The rule of law is a means to that end; when it becomes destructive to those ends, the law must be set aside in spite of itself.
If the law is unjust, "the rule of law" means the rule of injustice. Before we the People speak of 'giving the Devil the benefit of the law,' we must not forget that the Devil often has the best lobbyists. We should not commit to a moral principle that commits us to pursuing injustice on those occasions when the wicked have captured the law.
----------------------------------------
There is a second argument that applies even when the law is not unjust; even when it may be perfectly just.
The law is an exercise of the power of the state, and the power of the state is coercive -- it is based on violence, that is, even when an individual instance is not violent. Every act of "law enforcement" is an act of coercion.
Many times in life we find ourselves in disputes with others, and we could rely on rules and force to push people to accept our way. We might also be able to sit down, talk things through, and achieve a compromise position that everyone can live with. The second approach means that we do not get exactly what we wanted, but we do get a society that is more pleasant to live in. Very often, this second approach is the foundation of friendships and good relations with neighbors.
This is why we respect the old breed of "peace officers" more than the sort who consider themselves "law enforcement officers." A peace officer is preserving the order of society, but this often means letting certain things slide if an agreement can be reached between the parties in dispute. The law here is a tool, certainly, but he does not stand on 'the rule of law.' He mentions the law, and then talks people into sorting out their problems so that no one has to go to jail. The "law enforcement officer" is a tool of state coercion with his every act; the "peace officer" often is able to preserve the peace and common order through agreement.
The fact that the law permits us to do something is almost irrelevant to the moral question of whether or not we should do it. If the law forbids something, that fact is relevant to our moral calculations because breaking the law is a serious act, to be done only in cases of the type discussed in the first section. There are some laws we must morally break; the rest we must not break.
Once we have determined that the law permits something, however, the law is finished informing our moral decision. We have to make the choice of whether to do what the law permits us to do, or to refrain from doing it, on other grounds.
Like the peace officer, we often have powers we choose not to use. We often don't use our legal freedom to spend all our money on booze and gambling. We often have disputes with neighbors that we settle out of court. We often don't arrange protests just-this-side of our neighbor's property.
We often treat people better than we must, and that is a very good thing. The more a society relies upon the law to settle its disputes, the less stable that society is. That is to say that the more the People turn to the state to resolve their disputes, the more of their power they are ceding to the state.
A society that resolves its disputes according to the law instead of socially has given all its power to the state, and is at the mercy of the state. Do you wish to be at the mercy of ours? Do you trust our politicians to 'give the Devil the benefit of the law', or would you rather have the hedge of your neighbors just in case? You will have it only if you extend it to them as well.
It may be the case that our society has grown so unstable that we are running out of options. While last chances exist, to extend hands and rebuild some of the social power that guards us against exposure to state power, I think we ought to try. Certainly when we are dealing with thugs on the other side, or on our own, we should do nothing for them; but when we are dealing with ordinary and decent people, it is in all of our interests to try.
Dissidents and Migration
Dissidents and MigrationMark mentioned migration in a comment thread below about one of the possible responses to a dissatisfaction with government. By coincidence, I just received an email today from my sister about her genealogical studies of our family. It turns out that our family tree is stuffed full of folks who fled Europe to escape religious persecution:
We have Elder John White, Puritan, who came to Massachusetts in the 1630s; Alexander Kilpatrick, Presbyterian, who left Northern Ireland and the boot of the Church of England (this is the story of the "Scots-Irish") in 1730; Jacob Hermann Arndt (later the name was changed to Arrant) who came to Philadelphia in the 1730s, when virtually all German immigrants to Pennsylvania were German Pietists (a religion with much in common with Quakerism) who were being persecuted or burned at the stake in Germany; and the Huguenots forbears who had to escape the massacres in France. . . . Then there is the story of all the folks after they got here. As far as I can tell, no matter which line you trace back, no family stayed in one place more than a generation or so. This may seem more normal to you, but there are many, many people I know in Philadelphia whose families have been here for centuries . . . .I suppose the family trees in Texas are more likely to include the wandering branches than those on the East Coast. By moving to Philadelphia as an adult, my sister was making a retrograde movement that placed her among people with a much stronger tendency to put down roots generation after generation.
It seems that my ancestors had a higher-than-average problem with authority. For myself, if I have a problem with authority, it has scarcely revealed itself in geographical movement. I've barely moved from the location of my birth, and that only at a time in my life when I was not starting either a business or a family. On the other hand, I'm in a part of the U.S. that has been settled by Europeans only for what amounts to the blink of an eye, and therefore retains something of the tradition of exiles or malcontents. Our home is built on property that, as far as I know, had never been occupied by Europeans at all before us. At most, some had run a few cattle here, more than a century ago, before most of the present woods grew up. There was a bit of commerce here before the Civil War, and even a salt works not too far away, but the Union forces put an end to all that. Things mostly grew wild again until about the middle of the 20th century, when a slow trickle of people began to move back in. These were not, to put it mildly, the sort of people who would be living in New York if only they could figure out how to get there.
Would my fugitive ancestors be horrified that I joined the Episcopal Church, barely distinguishable from the historically oppressive Church of England? Perhaps not, since the Episcopal Church today would probably strike my most dissident ancestors as a hotbed of heretical license.
Starship Troopers
Starship Troopers
And now, for the same kind of ingenuity, but in a sillier vein (but I definitely want one):
Ahead of Our Time
Ahead of Our Time
I go further and apply this aesthetic to my person. Maybe I should start a magazine.
My husband maintains that, once again, we're on the cutting edge culturally. The WSJ ran a piece today on "The Artfully Disheveled Home." Out: professional decor. In:
[C]leverness over money, taste over expense, personality over hired expertise, idiosyncrasy over polish . . . . The fantasy of the undecorated house is Tuesday morning as it is actually lived, not as we would like other people to imagine it; it is the idea of energy, of chaos, of motion, of mess (well, mess within very circumscribed and aesthetically pleasing limits: children lying in a pile of books, artfully unmade beds, one piece of clothing strewn across a couch).Our version of "un-decoration" is fabrics artlessly covered with tasteful dog hair, casually draped with the fascinating detritus of our complex lives, covered in a quirky patina of grime, giving our home that charming "lived-in" look. Boy, howdy.
I go further and apply this aesthetic to my person. Maybe I should start a magazine.
Fukushima Update
Fukushima Update
The news coverage has mostly moved on to Libya and other stories, but the Fukushima troubles are hardly over. Good information continues to be posted on the PhysicsForum site, a thread with over 1,300 posts now, whose members are exerting an admirable discipline on each other by relentlessly pointing out the difference between speculation and credible sources. Commenters on that site recently posted these two excellent links. First, YouTube is carrying video footage of several helicopter flyovers. This footage, previously almost unwatchable, has been run through a terrific piece of software that stabilizes the bumping and jerking of the camera.
Second, a slideshow from AREVA, a French public power company with a strong presence in nuclear energy projects of all kinds, depicts the unfolding accident in fairly clear schematic form, with due attention given to which conclusions are the most speculative. It is unfortunately clear that fissile products have escaped into the environment. The damage, nevertheless, still is not of Chernobyl-like proportions. The nearby crops, for instance, may have been ruined for this year, but it does not appear that the land is permanently contaminated. (We take our blessings where we can find them.) Workers have been injured, but reports of deadly doses so far appear to be alarmist and inaccurate. (I very much hope.)
This picture keeps bothering me, though. For several days, the participants at PhysicsForum have been discussing whether these could be fuel rods that were blown out of the spent-fuel pool at Unit #3 when that unit exploded on March 14. They don't really look like ordinary structural rods, and yet the radiation readings in and around the unit don't suggest that a lot of fuel rods could be lying around in the open air, either. Considering how much contamination already has escaped in the form of steam and coolant-water runoff, the last thing the suffering residents of the area need is another explosion and/or fire that might blow pieces of fuel rods into the air.
If this disaster does nothing else, it has demonstrated that on-site storage of fuel rods, coupled with vulnerable cooling systems, is a less-than-perfect solution to the public distaste for permanent nuclear waste facilities of the Yucca Mountain variety. The core containments have held up pretty well at Fukushima, but the spent-fuel pools were nowhere near as well contained as the reactor vessel.
Wisconsin Open Records Laws
Wisconsin's Open Records Laws
Does the law matter? I think it does. And because I think the law matters, I must take exception to a few of Grim's statements on the Cronin brouhaha. He begins by putting forth a hypothetical that differs in several crucial respects from the Cronin case and those respects are not distinctions without a difference. Grim's hypothetical begins:
Federal (and some state and local) employees are prohibited by law from participating in partisan political activities at work. The FBI is subject to an even stricter set of rules than those applied to other government employees. So the first question to ask would be: is there any evidence that Grim's G-man blogged on a government computer or during working hours? Because if he did, that alone puts him in violation of the law.
Because of the Hatch Act, I never sent even politically themed jokes to my husband's work email, nor did he ever send such materials. That's how strict the law is. Because my best friend (a liberal Democrat who voted for Kerry and Obama) works for Social Security, she doesn't send or receive political jokes or any other political material from her work email account.
EVER. UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES.
Has my progressive friend been "stripped of her right to question or challenge the government"? Of course not. It's just that if she wants to do so, she must do so on her own time, using her private email account. That's the problem with Grim's argument: he is conflating the rights and privileges of private citizens with their duties as employees of the government. He is also conflating public records with private ones:
Has anyone tried to strip this man of his right to question or challenge the government? If so, I must have missed it. The fact of the matter is that Grim's G-man is prohibited BY LAW from participating in partisan political activity AT WORK. And the Hatch Act applies to state and local employees if the entity they work for accepts federal funds (as do nearly all state universities). But there's yet another law that applies to Prof. Cronin: Wisconsin's Open Records law. And that law is stunningly broad. I don't have time to dissect it in detail, but here's a taste:
WHO CAN REQUEST RECORDS: "[A]ny requester has a right to inspect any record." Wis. Stat. § 19.35(1)(a) (2003-04)
PURPOSE OF REQUEST: "Except as authorized under this paragraph, no request . . . may be refused because the person making the request is unwilling . . . to state the purpose of the request." Wis. Stat. § 19.35(1)(i)
These brief excerpts are by no means a thorough examination of Wisconsin's Open Records law, but they are sufficient to rebut the notion that government employees, using government sponsored email accounts, have the same right to privacy as private citizens. They absolutely and categorically do not.
As for the notion that Professor Cronin would be "silenced" if he were asked to obey the same laws any government employee is bound by, that is a canard. He may participate in all the political activity he wants to... on his own time and so long as he does so in his capacity as a private citizen.
The real irony here is that, though I am NOT employed by a federal, state, or local government, I do not engage in political activity using my company-issued email account. I do not do so because, were a politically charged email of mine to fall into the wrong hands, I would be creating the appearance that my company encourages or endorses my political beliefs, and that appearance could damage my company's reputation or business interests. When I am at work, I am not "Cass" - I am Company X's Technical Manager. That is what my signature block says - it does not list my home address and phone but the address and phone number of my employer.
Yes, it is an old fashioned idea - the notion that private actions are private and that while we are at work, using computers and resources we don't own, we ought to be doing our jobs and not engaging in other pursuits.
It's also a damned good practice.
Does the law matter? I think it does. And because I think the law matters, I must take exception to a few of Grim's statements on the Cronin brouhaha. He begins by putting forth a hypothetical that differs in several crucial respects from the Cronin case and those respects are not distinctions without a difference. Grim's hypothetical begins:
Let's say an FBI agent started a blog called "The G-Man as Citizen." On this blog he investigated liberal interest groups and posted apparently factual information about the special interests and big money behind their proposed legislation.
Federal (and some state and local) employees are prohibited by law from participating in partisan political activities at work. The FBI is subject to an even stricter set of rules than those applied to other government employees. So the first question to ask would be: is there any evidence that Grim's G-man blogged on a government computer or during working hours? Because if he did, that alone puts him in violation of the law.
Because of the Hatch Act, I never sent even politically themed jokes to my husband's work email, nor did he ever send such materials. That's how strict the law is. Because my best friend (a liberal Democrat who voted for Kerry and Obama) works for Social Security, she doesn't send or receive political jokes or any other political material from her work email account.
EVER. UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES.
Has my progressive friend been "stripped of her right to question or challenge the government"? Of course not. It's just that if she wants to do so, she must do so on her own time, using her private email account. That's the problem with Grim's argument: he is conflating the rights and privileges of private citizens with their duties as employees of the government. He is also conflating public records with private ones:
The fact that a man works for the government does not, and should not, strip him of his right to question or challenge the government. To some degree we accept limits on that in the military, but only to some degree: and the military is a very special case.
...In the absence of any criminal accusations, security in one's person and papers should be absolute. The fact that the government owns the email sever is no more germane than the fact that it may own the letterhead and envelopes on which Dr. Cronon may have written a sealed letter; that fact bestows no right on them to open the letter and read it. If they wish to do so, they should get a warrant. If there is no cause for a warrant, they can go to hell.
Has anyone tried to strip this man of his right to question or challenge the government? If so, I must have missed it. The fact of the matter is that Grim's G-man is prohibited BY LAW from participating in partisan political activity AT WORK. And the Hatch Act applies to state and local employees if the entity they work for accepts federal funds (as do nearly all state universities). But there's yet another law that applies to Prof. Cronin: Wisconsin's Open Records law. And that law is stunningly broad. I don't have time to dissect it in detail, but here's a taste:
WHO CAN REQUEST RECORDS: "[A]ny requester has a right to inspect any record." Wis. Stat. § 19.35(1)(a) (2003-04)
PURPOSE OF REQUEST: "Except as authorized under this paragraph, no request . . . may be refused because the person making the request is unwilling . . . to state the purpose of the request." Wis. Stat. § 19.35(1)(i)
These brief excerpts are by no means a thorough examination of Wisconsin's Open Records law, but they are sufficient to rebut the notion that government employees, using government sponsored email accounts, have the same right to privacy as private citizens. They absolutely and categorically do not.
As for the notion that Professor Cronin would be "silenced" if he were asked to obey the same laws any government employee is bound by, that is a canard. He may participate in all the political activity he wants to... on his own time and so long as he does so in his capacity as a private citizen.
The real irony here is that, though I am NOT employed by a federal, state, or local government, I do not engage in political activity using my company-issued email account. I do not do so because, were a politically charged email of mine to fall into the wrong hands, I would be creating the appearance that my company encourages or endorses my political beliefs, and that appearance could damage my company's reputation or business interests. When I am at work, I am not "Cass" - I am Company X's Technical Manager. That is what my signature block says - it does not list my home address and phone but the address and phone number of my employer.
Yes, it is an old fashioned idea - the notion that private actions are private and that while we are at work, using computers and resources we don't own, we ought to be doing our jobs and not engaging in other pursuits.
It's also a damned good practice.
Security in Papers
Security in Papers:
Let's say an FBI agent started a blog called "The G-Man as Citizen." On this blog he investigated liberal interest groups and posted apparently factual information about the special interests and big money behind their proposed legislation.
Let's say that the Democrats in Congress responded by filing a FOIA request for all of his government emails that might contain certain key words. We're not talking about a legal investigation -- no one is suggesting he violated any laws or even any policies. Rather, you have a political party trying to intimidate government employees from expressing political opinions... or even insight into our political reality.
That's a rough analogy to what is going on with Dr. William Cronon, except that he works for the state, not the Federal government; he is liberal, not conservative; and he is a history professor, not a G-man.
Some liberal bloggers are speaking up in his defense, but this strikes me as an issue that isn't a left/right question. He is clear about his political leanings, and his scholarship has the potential to be of benefit to all of us. I learned several things I didn't know reading Dr. Cronon's posts, and I'd suggest you read them too. We should want to have those with insight into these systems helping lay them bare; and if we prefer conservative to liberal policies, nevertheless the answer is to try to do the same kind of work to lay bare the organizations operating on the other side.
In any case, no political group -- no Republican and no Democratic legislator, at any level of government -- should feel they can harrass American citizens into silence. The fact that a man works for the government does not, and should not, strip him of his right to question or challenge the government. To some degree we accept limits on that in the military, but only to some degree: and the military is a very special case.
Too, Dr. Cronon is right to say that some emails caught in such a request may come from students who have political concerns; to publish their names and private thoughts is to violate a trust between student and teacher. I am sure we can all think of teachers we confided in, or looked to for guidance at points in our lives. This is a relationship that ought to be honored and protected. In the absence of any criminal accusations, security in one's person and papers should be absolute. The fact that the government owns the email sever is no more germane than the fact that it may own the letterhead and envelopes on which Dr. Cronon may have written a sealed letter; that fact bestows no right on them to open the letter and read it. If they wish to do so, they should get a warrant. If there is no cause for a warrant, they can go to hell.
Mileage Tax
Economy:
It shouldn't be acceptable, even so, because there's no reason poorer Americans -- who may not be able to afford the higher taxes necessary to 'opting out' -- should not enjoy the same privacy protections as rich Americans. This is not the first time this issue has arisen.
Keeping the roads in good condition is one of the legitimate functions of the government, and even the Federal government in the case of what the Constitution calls "post roads." They must be funded one way or another. However, our right to be free from unreasonable searches is not to be sacrificed for it.
For years and years, I've heard arguments that higher gas prices would make Americans morally better people. It would break our dependence on consumer culture. It would make Americans less fat. It would make Americans less greedy for energy. It would make Americans buy more fuel efficient cars. This last article actually has a pile of moral arguments: Americans would stay closer to home, enjoying their communities and building relationships. They would gamble less. They would use less credit.
So, I was not surprised to see that nobody in the political class is all that worried about gas prices: after all, they're convinced that high gas prices will be good for us. Given that the political class thinks we're not capable of making good decisions on our own, naturally it follows that the political class would be fine with high gas prices.
That is not to say that they would want to be blamed for those high prices. So, instead of the occasionally-floated 'European style gas tax,' we've gotten increasing restrictions on refineries in the United States; bans on drilling in lots and lots of places inside the country; a "moratorium" on offshore drilling; etc., etc. It looks like market forces if you aren't paying attention -- which allows blame to be shifted to the oil companies. If you look closely, though, you see that there is a lot of pressure being added by the 'hand of government.'
None of that is surprising.
So now you're paying a lot more for gas, but your job is just as far away as it ever was. You may not be taking a vacation or flying anywhere, and you certainly won't be living it up at the casinos! You'll be spending time closer to home, building communities, etc.
Still, you can't really sell your house and move closer to work because the real estate market is broken. So, you do what you've been told to do, and trade in your much-derided SUV for a more fuel-efficient car. Say, one of those praiseworthy Prius-type cars we've heard so much about. Or a Leaf. Whatever.
Good work. You've done everything right. Obviously, you must be punished.
The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) this week released a report that said taxing people based on how many miles they drive is a possible option for raising new revenues....You can read the report here. The report does consider among the "cons" the implications for privacy -- to whit, the fact that your every move will be monitored by the government to ensure they get paid for each exercise of your right to travel. Sensing the danger of trying to impose such a regime upon Americans, the report ponders possibly allowing some people to choose to pay higher taxes elsewhere in return for 'opting out' of the system. The wording here is careful: "Allowing users with the strongest concerns about privacy to opt out... might serve as a safety valve to make the system more acceptable to the public."
The report discussed the proposal in great detail, including the development of technology that would allow total vehicle miles traveled (VMT) to be tracked, reported and taxed, as well as the pros and cons of mandating the installation of this technology in all vehicles....
[Sen. Conrad] noted the possibility of a VMT tax as a way to solve the problem of collecting less in taxes as people move to more fuel-efficient vehicles.
"Do we do gas tax?" Conrad asked. "Do we move to some kind of an assessment that is based on how many miles vehicles go, so that we capture revenue from those who are going to be using the roads who aren't going to be paying any gas tax, or very little, with hybrids and electric cars?"
It shouldn't be acceptable, even so, because there's no reason poorer Americans -- who may not be able to afford the higher taxes necessary to 'opting out' -- should not enjoy the same privacy protections as rich Americans. This is not the first time this issue has arisen.
Keeping the roads in good condition is one of the legitimate functions of the government, and even the Federal government in the case of what the Constitution calls "post roads." They must be funded one way or another. However, our right to be free from unreasonable searches is not to be sacrificed for it.
Variations
Variations:
'Going down to Georgia, to knock down my last game... I had not been in Washington/ many more weeks than three...'
The song is traditional, so the way they switch verses may suggest they mean Washington, as well as Georgia. There is, though, a Washington, Georgia: I was there just recently. It was the first city named after George Washington in the United States; it was also the place where the Confederate States of America was officially dissolved by Jefferson Davis and the remains of a government in flight before the Union army. It's a beautiful place.
Like many traditional songs, this one has several variations. Here is a famous one:
Here is another variation, by the lead singer of Social Distortion on his solo album:
Well, we've got lots of gamblers down Georgia way, in any case.
Um, No
Warning:
I'm under the weather a bit, and the doc gave me some antibiotics. The warnings include this:
Although most antibiotics probably do not affect hormonal birth control pills, some antibiotics may decrease their effectiveness. This could cause pregnancy.I'm pretty sure that's not actually true.
Aptly named "Badass of the week" (and probably year, decade and century at this point...)
When asked by Southeast Asia Bureau reporter Rick Westhead why he risked his life to save his wife, he simply replied “She is very important for me” through his interpreter.
Well said.
Making a Star
Making a Star:
The Killer talks about how it all got started, and he talks about it from his age.
Picking cotton and corn, and hoping all the time.
Pegleg
Pegleg:
Hat tip to DL Sly:
Actually, the horse's name is Midnight. What most people don't realize about horses is that their legs are part of their circular system. There is a part of the bottom of the foot called the "frog," which acts as a pump to push blood back up the legs when the horse is walking. This is why horses with broken legs are often put down: without the ability to move, they can't live.Pegleg Midnight doesn't need all four frogs to function perfectly, but does have 3/4 functionality because of the prosthetic. That's enough to keep the animal alive and functional. Pretty nifty stuff they can do these days!
Ejjication
EjjicationWeren't we just talking about education? I find that I can't understand how our President uses some very simple words. He has said several times recently that Moammar Qaddafi "needs to go" or "has to go." So far, so good: this doesn't pretend to be much more than a meaningless statement using a vague idiom. Obviously Qaddafi has no such need and is under no such compulsion. The speaker merely describes his preference, carefully avoiding any commitment to action.
Today, however, the President took it a step further and announced that it is U.S. policy that Qaddafi has to go. It seems an odd use of the word "policy." I normally associate that word with an intention to engage in certain behavior toward a specific goal. There's no mystery about the goal here, but the means to the desired end are less clear, particularly since the President and his spokesmen are at pains to explain that our current military mission does not include as one of its goals the ousting of Qaddafi. As an exasperated Stephen Hayes asked this evening, do we propose to arm our diplomats, then?
In this context, "policy" seems to mean "wish." Our actual policy, in the traditional meaning of the word, is harder to make out. It can't be to interpose ourselves between every homicidal leader and his suffering people, or we'd have a lot more hot wars going on around the world. I can see why Mr. Obama is in no rush to address Congress on this issue and ask for a vote.
Didn't the President go to one of those fancy schools? They ought to have taught him better than to sound like such an empty bumper-sticker: Visualize No Qaddafi.
Update (Clearing That Up):
Deputy National Security Adviser Ben Rhodes explains:
We're clarifying, as we’ve said repeatedly, that the effort of our military operation is not regime change, that as we actually say in this readout, it’s the Libyan people who are going to make their determinations about the future . . . . We support their aspirations, their democratic aspirations, and have stated that Gadhafi should go because he’s lost their confidence.
Correct and Unwanted
True but Unwanted:
This author is one of those who is on to something exactly correct, but entirely unfashionable.
Home from the Road
Home from the Road:
It was a good ride. 
Here we are encamped on Skidaway Island. The nearby Skidaway Narrows had a battery defense during the Civil War; you can hike out to the remains of the earthworks.
This is a bar called Spanky's Beachside, on Tybee Island. We stopped for lunch. I ordered the steak sandwich, expecting sliced or chipped steak. Instead, it was a whole ribeye, served on a bun. The thing was covered with melted cheese, sauteed onions and mushrooms. Delicious.
The Chatham Artillery claims to be "the oldest military organization of record" in Georgia, dating to 1786. You can find the punch recipe there too. I think they mean to claim to be the oldest surviving such organization, though. General Oglethorpe's Colonial Rangers predate them, as did the Georgia Continentals; but I believe that the 1st of the 118th FA claims descent from the Chatham Artillery. They returned from Afghanistan about a year ago now.
We visited the tomb of Gunnery Sergeant Pearson, KIA in the Beruit bombing. His tomb, located at the northern end of Forsyth Park, is also the Marine Corps monument in the city of Savannah.
Kevin Barry's second floor includes a large hall called "The Hall of Heroes," which is dedicated to celebrating our armed forces. Fort Stewart is not far away, but they've gotten quite a lot of display pieces given to them by others as well: for example, there's an impressive Army Ranger display featuring a black powder rifle, and a few things devoted to the 160th SOAR.
I was mistakenly served an entire pitcher of Guinness when I had actually ordered only a single pint. Any other day of my life this would have been wonderful news; but since I was the only driver available, I had to send it back. This was the only tragic event to mar an otherwise perfect trip.
The wife is inspecting my rigging of the bike for the ride home. She found nothing wrong with it, I'm pleased to say.
What Do They Teach Them in These Journalism Schools?
What Do They Teach Them in These Journalism Schools?
Over at Maggie's Farm, they're having one of their frequent debates about the content of a good curriculum. The low level of reporting in recent years on controversial aspects of climate change, nuclear power, and economics does suggest to me that the public and nearly all reporters could use better training in basic math and science, if nothing else. Just watching reporters and their audience struggle with the difference between "micro," "mili," "million," "billion," and "trillion" is enough to make me want to add a whole year that focuses on the location of the decimal point.
The Maggie's Farm post proposes a broad curriculum, intended to be covered by a combination of high school and college. It all seems like a good idea, though I confess I had to self-instruct in many of the recommended areas well after I had completed college. I somehow managed to get all the way through my formal schooling, for instance, before learning anything at all about geology.
I have my elder sister to thank for whatever balance was in my high school curriculum. My parents weren't the sort to interfere in my choice of classes, or really even notice whether I was going to school; they seemed to have a lot of confidence in me and would check in periodically to confirm that I was keeping my grades up. My father would provide additional instruction in any area where I showed curiosity, without insisting on a comprehensive approach. At the beginning of 9th grade, however, my public school expected me to develop a "four-year plan" for the remainder of my high school career. I began filling it in with all kinds of nonsense. My sister happened by and explained that we would be doing things a little differently. "Four years of science," she said, "four years of math, two foreign languages, and all the core subjects like English and History. You may have one elective each year." I took her word for it, and things worked out well.
The protagonist in Kurt Vonnegut's wonderful novel "Slapstick" describes himself as a good, if uninspired, student: someone who could "sort out good ideas from heaps of balderdash." When it comes to news reports on nuclear power accidents, public health, or national budget policy, our citizens need at least enough education to do that much. It would be nice if our journalists got it, too.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)