Today the Rules and Bylaws Committee of the Democratic National Committee is meeting to determine the status of primary election delegates from the states of Florida and Michigan. Those two states were stripped of their delegates after their state Democratic Parties went back on their agreement to hold primaries no earlier than February 5.
All of the presidential candidates agreed not to campaign in the two states, and the voters in those states were told that no delegates would be seated. Before Michigan held its primary January 15, four of the candidates removed their names from the ballot, leaving only Hillary Clinton, who declined to do so, Chris Dodd, who did not have the resources to withdraw his name, and Dennis Kucinich, who presumably thought he would have received the same number of votes either way. There was relatively low turnout compared to the number of Democrats who voted in other primaries, which is understandable considering that everyone knew at the time that it wouldn't mean anything. DailyKos urged Democrats to vote in the Republican primary and rejuvenate the floundering campaign of Mitt Romney to disrupt Republican campaign. The contributors to that blog were not happy when Republicans did the same to the Democrats in Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Indiana. At any rate, 56% of the Michiganders voted for Clinton, while 31% marked "uncommitted."
Florida held it primary on January 29. Hillary Clinton won 50% of the vote, Barack Obama garnered 33%, and John Edwards barely missed winning a delegate with 14%. It was accepted by all parties that the primaries would not count because they violated the schedule set by the DNC. The Clinton campaign did not care, for the most part, because they believed that they would have a lock on the nomination by Super Tuesday. Unfortunately for them, Obama performed well that day and won a series of 12 victories thereafter because Clinton had no campaign infrastructure in any of the subsequent states. Clinton began to push to have the primaries from Florida and Michigan legitimized.
The RBC has a number of options before it after it hears testimony from the Obama and Clinton campaigns. It could refuse to seat any delegates, seat all of the delegates from both states but allow each only half a vote at the convention, or seat half the delegates from each state. The Committee does not have the authority to grant either state more than half its votes at the convention. It might split Michigan's 108 delegates evenly or it might assign 69 to Clinton and 56 to Obama, giving him the uncommitted delegates.
If the DNC has any integrity, it will not seat any delegates from either state. Everyone was explicitly notified in January that the votes would not count. The Clinton campaign has no respect for the rules, and the Obama campaign doesn't have much to gain by standing up for them, so they are pushing for a compromise. This fiasco is a major blow to the credibility of the Democratic Party, if that party can be said to have any credibility to begin with. Not only is their selection process arcane and antidemocratic, allowing high-level party officials to weigh against a candidate with popular support in their role as superdelegates; the DNC also tolerates relocation of its goalposts at the very end of the primary game.
None of the proposed solutions provide any remedy for the people in both states who sat out the vote because they were told it would not count. Clinton loyalist Howard Ickes insists that Obama should not receive any delegates from Michigan, essentially punishing Obama for following the rules. This is the level of hypocrisy that I have come to expect from her and band of inept crooks. Michigan was completely expendable to them until Obama pulled ahead of them. Now they are pushing to change the rules in hopes of surviving.
As a registered Democrat, I feel slighted by the attempt to count invalid votes. My vote in the Pennsylvania primary was valid, as far as I know, and now it will likely be debased by the inclusion of votes from a pair of sham elections. This is precisely the kind of behavior that made me resist registering with this party in the first place. If democracy mattered to these people, they would have pushed for another set of primaries so that every Democrat's vote could be counted. Instead they are left with a bitter and divisive episode which will necessarily disenfranchise someone.
The RBC will likely seat at least some of the delegates from the two states, placating the bitter supporters of the losing candidate. The best possible outcome for Clinton still leaves her
chances very slim, so this abrogation of the party's rules will have little meaningful effect. Come to think of it, many of her supporters will still refuse to vote for Obama once he wins the nomination, regardless of what concessions are made to them.
The notable exception might be Clinton's installation on the bottom half of the Democratic ticket. This would unite the party, but it would lose my vote. Obama's political brand, built upon the notion that he is separate from the Washinton politics that have flourished under Bush and Clinton, already strains my suspension of disbelief. Taking Clinton, whom he has decried as an exemplar of that kind of politics, under his wing would dramatically undermine that image. Almost nothing could persuade me to vote for Clinton in any capacity.
Saturday, May 31, 2008
Wednesday, May 28, 2008
No historical understanding necessary
I like this cartoon by Pulitzer Prize winner Mike Ramirez. In particular, I like the way it casually eviscerates its own point. The bust of Lincoln is included to demonstrate that far more qualified presidents would be baffled that someone so inexperienced as Barack Obama could hold the highest office in the land.While Lincoln is indubitably one of the greatest presidents in American history, his example is inapt because he had about as much government experience when he was elected president as Obama does today. Lincoln served eight years as a member of the state legislature in Illinois, equal to Obama's time there. Lincoln taught himself law during his early years in the legislature and eventually became a distinguished attorney. He was elected to a single term in the House of Representatives, where he was a vocal advocate against the Mexican War, but was not a prominent or successful legislator. In 1858 he ran unsuccessfully against Stephen A. Douglas for the Senate seat now held by Richard Durbin. Douglas and Lincoln ran for president two years later; the Electoral College was split among them and two other candidates, but Lincoln had a commanding plurality in the popular vote and a solid bloc of victories in Northern states.
Anyone who follows presidential politics is familiar with Obama's résumé. He graduated from Columbia University, worked briefly for a publishing company, then moved to Chicago to become a community organizer. After graduating from Harvard Law school in 1991, he worked as an attorney in Chicago and taught constitutional law at the University of Chicago. He served eight years as a legislator before defeating carpetbagger and all-around embarrassment Alan Keyes in what was essentially a bye election for the Senate in 2004. He has served for three years and, while not a star legislator, I submit that he has been more successful than Lincoln.
Obama's is far from the most impressive curriculum vitae to show up in this year's crop of presidential candidates, but the parallels between him and Lincoln should be enough to demolish the "lack of experience" meme. While there is little to indicate that an Obama presidency would be as historic and Lincoln's, a lack of executive experience should not automatically disqualify a presidential candidate.
It is surprising that Ramirez chose Lincoln as the president who, presumably, would be most offended by an Obama presidency. He might have chosen Ronald Reagan, who remains a conservative icon to this day and had served two terms as governor of California before ascending to the Oval Office. That might neuter the right's criticism of Obama's fanatical supporters, who are no less enthusiastic than the Cult of the Deified Ronald. At least a Reagan bust would have allowed the cartoonist to avoid decapitating his own argument, though. Critiquing the Obama brand could be the work of other cartoons, so the contradiction would be less obvious.
Tuesday, May 20, 2008
The aesthetics of science
I wanted to respond to a comment that Maddie left on my second Templeton post, but I couldn't fit in all I wanted to say, so I'll use this post to cover all the ground I couldn't in my response.
Maddie wrote about the standards of evidence that would be necessary to justifiably believe in a god. The only thing even approaching positive evidence would be a demonstration of some phenomenon that cannot be explained by any natural cause. Even then, attributing any specific characteristics to this hypothetical supernatural force is completely baseless. The human race has learned enough to graduate beyond that level of thinking.
When I was a child, I struggled to reconcile the stories in the bible with things that I knew to be fact- stories like the creation (I didn't realize at the time that there were two mutually exclusive stories in Genesis), the Noachian Flood, the sun standing still in the sky so Joshua could complete his genocide against the Amorites, etc. The more I thought about those stories, the clearer it became that they could not have happened. I was pulled in both directions, but I had always found the science more compelling than the myths. Everything I learned about science made sense. To borrow a phrase from physicist Brian Greene, the universe is elegant. The stories in the bible, with all of their contradictions are other various absurdities, never came together in the same way.
That is an aesthetic judgment, I guess. Based on that judgment, though, I can't figure out the appeal of pseudoscience. It isn't enough that we, a horribly limited species in an insignificant little corner of space, have found a way to reach out across the universe and determine with a very high level of precision how it works? We also need to look at the planets moving through the sky and come up with a way that they supposedly affect our daily lives? Science is so much more proactive, using our own faculties to reach out into the cold beauty of the universe and snatch a little piece of it for ourselves. The notion that our personalities and the details of our lives are dictated by some hazy astrological mechanism is so much less life-affirming.
I see the same glaring discrepancy in homeopathy. The growth of our medical knowledge is perhaps more astounding than our progress in astrophysics- it roughly doubles every two years. The exponential gains of medical science are not merely an inspiring display of the human capacity for discovery- they mean advances in the human condition on a daily basis. The fundamental changes that medicine promises in the coming decades are startling in their scope and brilliance. Medicine is a branch of science that should generate awe in every human being. And yet some are not impressed- they insist on buying into homeopathy, which operates on the principle that water 'remembers' the properties of past solutes, so that medicine diluted to absurdly low concentrations retains its beneficial effect. This seems to me an obscene abdication of reason.
Are we somehow not packaging the truth properly? Surely, the comforting appeal of homeopathy and other myths must pale in comparison to the inherent beauty of the truths that human endeavor has revealed. Reality should need no marketing campaign. And yet people look askance at you if you say you don't believe in these myths. Granted, most who believe the Christian mythology wouldn't link their historical 'get out of reality free' card to the 'get out of reality free' cards others use for astronomy and medicine and so forth, but I challenge anyone to point out a substantive distinction.
What am I going on about? If all those good folks in the heartland think the world is only 6,000 years old, well, shucks, they just can't be wrong.
Maddie wrote about the standards of evidence that would be necessary to justifiably believe in a god. The only thing even approaching positive evidence would be a demonstration of some phenomenon that cannot be explained by any natural cause. Even then, attributing any specific characteristics to this hypothetical supernatural force is completely baseless. The human race has learned enough to graduate beyond that level of thinking.
When I was a child, I struggled to reconcile the stories in the bible with things that I knew to be fact- stories like the creation (I didn't realize at the time that there were two mutually exclusive stories in Genesis), the Noachian Flood, the sun standing still in the sky so Joshua could complete his genocide against the Amorites, etc. The more I thought about those stories, the clearer it became that they could not have happened. I was pulled in both directions, but I had always found the science more compelling than the myths. Everything I learned about science made sense. To borrow a phrase from physicist Brian Greene, the universe is elegant. The stories in the bible, with all of their contradictions are other various absurdities, never came together in the same way.
That is an aesthetic judgment, I guess. Based on that judgment, though, I can't figure out the appeal of pseudoscience. It isn't enough that we, a horribly limited species in an insignificant little corner of space, have found a way to reach out across the universe and determine with a very high level of precision how it works? We also need to look at the planets moving through the sky and come up with a way that they supposedly affect our daily lives? Science is so much more proactive, using our own faculties to reach out into the cold beauty of the universe and snatch a little piece of it for ourselves. The notion that our personalities and the details of our lives are dictated by some hazy astrological mechanism is so much less life-affirming.
I see the same glaring discrepancy in homeopathy. The growth of our medical knowledge is perhaps more astounding than our progress in astrophysics- it roughly doubles every two years. The exponential gains of medical science are not merely an inspiring display of the human capacity for discovery- they mean advances in the human condition on a daily basis. The fundamental changes that medicine promises in the coming decades are startling in their scope and brilliance. Medicine is a branch of science that should generate awe in every human being. And yet some are not impressed- they insist on buying into homeopathy, which operates on the principle that water 'remembers' the properties of past solutes, so that medicine diluted to absurdly low concentrations retains its beneficial effect. This seems to me an obscene abdication of reason.
Are we somehow not packaging the truth properly? Surely, the comforting appeal of homeopathy and other myths must pale in comparison to the inherent beauty of the truths that human endeavor has revealed. Reality should need no marketing campaign. And yet people look askance at you if you say you don't believe in these myths. Granted, most who believe the Christian mythology wouldn't link their historical 'get out of reality free' card to the 'get out of reality free' cards others use for astronomy and medicine and so forth, but I challenge anyone to point out a substantive distinction.
What am I going on about? If all those good folks in the heartland think the world is only 6,000 years old, well, shucks, they just can't be wrong.
Monday, May 19, 2008
Superstition v. progress
The British House of Commons is currently dealing with a series of bills laying down guidelines for embryology in the UK. There are provisions dealing with abortion regulation and in virto fertilization, but the main provision at issue would allow government researchers to work with hybrid embryos, which are animal cells implanted with the nuclei of human cells and used to produce human tissue. Essentially, they are synthetic human stem cells used to make up for a shortage of human embryos available for research.
Predictably, the main opponents of the research are Catholic MPs, clergy and laypeople. They argue that the research is an affront to "human dignity," a frustratingly nebulous term used by opponents to make the case against a broad range of biomedical research. Similarly, the admixture of human and animal tissue is labeled "obscene." These are subjective distinctions which have no place in a scientific debate. Why should the sensibilities of a few Tory MPs be enshrined in law? Why would their view of dignity or obscenity be privileged over that of other Brits?
There is a parallel debate going on in this country, highlighted by Human Dignity and Bioethics, a collection of essays recently submitted to the president by his Council on Bioethics. The essays are fraught throughout with biblical references, which is not surprising given the proclivities of the current administration. The Council was assembled by the president's main adviser on bioethics, Dr. Leon Kass. Kass is the man behind the ban on federal funding for stem cell research. In his essay, he cites Genesis 9:6 as the basis for preventing murder. "Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed; for in the image of God has God made man."
He uses his view of the inviolate human form to justify his opposition to any drastic changes by biomedicine- even those that would lengthen the human lifespan or alleviate suffering. For Kass, the problem with using embryos in research is not merely that the microscopic clusters of human tissue are destroyed in the process- though he is assuredly offended by that- the problem is with the results of successful research. For Kass, genetic disorders are an essential part of the human condition and efforts to cure them are an abomination. I don't know which of those I find more ridiculous. The perverse fetish on human suffering is more offensive, though.
Kass retains a very biblical understanding of human life. He wrote in 1994 that all involuntary bodily functions are shameful, bestial, and indecent. Yawning, coughing, sneezing, and especially blushing reveal a subhuman susceptibility to one's impulses. All should hidden from public view. (I shudder to think how Kass would react if someone farted in his presence.) Add to that antiquated but harmless list of taboos the assertion that women exist for one teleological purpose: to procreate. There is simply no justification for allowing this man's views to be imposed on a modern, secular society. The dietary and social proscriptions of the Hebrews in the Pentateuch are of no use to us 2,800 years later. We are not the same culture. The Hebrews in the later books of the Old Testament didn't even retain the same Mosaic outlook. Imposing Leviticus and Numbers on modern America is just irrational.
Impeding stem cell research is not merely irrational but criminal. It would seem onerous to find a greater affront to human dignity than the material status granted to women in the OT, but I think allowing others to die of Alzheimer's disease fits the bill. We have a profound moral responsibility to advance medical treatments for Alzheimer's and other genetic disorders. There is simply no comparison between the interest of inanimate nucleic compounds in not being manipulated by lab equipment and the interest of human beings in living lives free of unnecessary, painful and disruptive ailments like Parkinson's and cystic fibrosis. As long as the prospect of developing successful treatments justifies the cost of the research, there should be no question whether or not it goes forward. The argument against it is superstition.
Dr. Steven Pinker argues that the meaningful standard in bioethics ought to be autonomy. Human beings should be allowed to decide for themselves whether they undergo pain for some later benefit and whether they live or die. Embryos can't feel pain, so their informed consent is irrelevant. The very idea is nonsensical. "Dignity" is far too subjective a concept to define by legislation. In my view, for instance, there is no greater expression of human dignity, no more eloquent demonstration of our ascension beyond an animal level of existence, than the ability of our species to extract from nature the means to better our own condition. It is an assault on that dignity to block human progress with primitive and superstitious mores. A book of myths written nearly three millennia ago should not dictate who lives or dies today.
Predictably, the main opponents of the research are Catholic MPs, clergy and laypeople. They argue that the research is an affront to "human dignity," a frustratingly nebulous term used by opponents to make the case against a broad range of biomedical research. Similarly, the admixture of human and animal tissue is labeled "obscene." These are subjective distinctions which have no place in a scientific debate. Why should the sensibilities of a few Tory MPs be enshrined in law? Why would their view of dignity or obscenity be privileged over that of other Brits?
There is a parallel debate going on in this country, highlighted by Human Dignity and Bioethics, a collection of essays recently submitted to the president by his Council on Bioethics. The essays are fraught throughout with biblical references, which is not surprising given the proclivities of the current administration. The Council was assembled by the president's main adviser on bioethics, Dr. Leon Kass. Kass is the man behind the ban on federal funding for stem cell research. In his essay, he cites Genesis 9:6 as the basis for preventing murder. "Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed; for in the image of God has God made man."
He uses his view of the inviolate human form to justify his opposition to any drastic changes by biomedicine- even those that would lengthen the human lifespan or alleviate suffering. For Kass, the problem with using embryos in research is not merely that the microscopic clusters of human tissue are destroyed in the process- though he is assuredly offended by that- the problem is with the results of successful research. For Kass, genetic disorders are an essential part of the human condition and efforts to cure them are an abomination. I don't know which of those I find more ridiculous. The perverse fetish on human suffering is more offensive, though.
Kass retains a very biblical understanding of human life. He wrote in 1994 that all involuntary bodily functions are shameful, bestial, and indecent. Yawning, coughing, sneezing, and especially blushing reveal a subhuman susceptibility to one's impulses. All should hidden from public view. (I shudder to think how Kass would react if someone farted in his presence.) Add to that antiquated but harmless list of taboos the assertion that women exist for one teleological purpose: to procreate. There is simply no justification for allowing this man's views to be imposed on a modern, secular society. The dietary and social proscriptions of the Hebrews in the Pentateuch are of no use to us 2,800 years later. We are not the same culture. The Hebrews in the later books of the Old Testament didn't even retain the same Mosaic outlook. Imposing Leviticus and Numbers on modern America is just irrational.
Impeding stem cell research is not merely irrational but criminal. It would seem onerous to find a greater affront to human dignity than the material status granted to women in the OT, but I think allowing others to die of Alzheimer's disease fits the bill. We have a profound moral responsibility to advance medical treatments for Alzheimer's and other genetic disorders. There is simply no comparison between the interest of inanimate nucleic compounds in not being manipulated by lab equipment and the interest of human beings in living lives free of unnecessary, painful and disruptive ailments like Parkinson's and cystic fibrosis. As long as the prospect of developing successful treatments justifies the cost of the research, there should be no question whether or not it goes forward. The argument against it is superstition.
Dr. Steven Pinker argues that the meaningful standard in bioethics ought to be autonomy. Human beings should be allowed to decide for themselves whether they undergo pain for some later benefit and whether they live or die. Embryos can't feel pain, so their informed consent is irrelevant. The very idea is nonsensical. "Dignity" is far too subjective a concept to define by legislation. In my view, for instance, there is no greater expression of human dignity, no more eloquent demonstration of our ascension beyond an animal level of existence, than the ability of our species to extract from nature the means to better our own condition. It is an assault on that dignity to block human progress with primitive and superstitious mores. A book of myths written nearly three millennia ago should not dictate who lives or dies today.
Saturday, May 17, 2008
Templeton Conversation, pt. 2: Christoph Cardinal Schönborn
Whenever I hear someone talk about God, except in the Einsteinian sense, I am reminded of the stunning vastness and elegance of the universe. The Old Testament God, which Steven Pinker dealt a few posts ago, is simply incompatible with reality as we know it today. Even ignoring the bible's cosmology and all of its problems, the character depicted as the world's author in the OT is far too small and petty to account for all the astounding things we have learned in the intervening centuries.
evolved in Greece and Israel over a period known as the Axial Age, spanning 800-200 BCE. While it is true that many thinkers in those two areas shifted toward a more naturalistic understanding of the world, they were not involved in a cohesive movement. The Hebrews came to question the vengeful, intercessory God of their oral tradition after an extended period of suffering and misfortune; it was not at all apparent that the deity who made a covenant with Abraham was interested in coming down and fighting battles on behalf of His Chosen People. The Greeks moved away from their earlier ontology in which melodramatic, anthropomorphic gods were responsible for what went on in the world at about the same time, but their transition was the result of a relatively comfortable lifestyle that became available to their upper classes, making the "contemplative life" possible. Their worldview changed as a result of rational contemplation rather than empirical experiences. While the Hebrews and the Greeks made this advance roughly simultaneously, it's inaccurate to describe them as part of a single movement.
Those two points really don't have that much to do with the rest of the essay, but obviously they meant a lot to me. In any event, moves on to explain why the discovery of a rational, ordered world "fully vindicate[s]" the theistic worldview. He describes the world as a "teleological hierarchy," meaning that it is arranged in levels and that a group of subordinate levels exists for the benefit of a primary level, on which humans exist. This is a common view among theists. It demonstrates what I like to refer to as the "anthropocentric conceit."
Humans generally believe that the universe exists, in one sense or another, for their benefit. Early Mesopotamian cultures believed that the world did not extend far beyond the Tigris and Euphrates valleys in which they lived (once again, there's that Old Testament cosmology that I won't shut up about). Later thinkers such as Augustine knew more about geography but still assumed that the Southern Hemisphere was uninhabitable and that only the North had been created for human beings to inhabit. The anthropocentric worldview has gradually yielded more ground as it has been contradicted by new facts about the world around us. When Edwin Hubble showed that our galaxy is one of a vast number and that the universe has no discernible physical center, anthropocentrism retreated into the notion that humans are the ontological center of the universe. I see no reason to assume that, as we investigate further into the fundamental nature of the universe, we will not discover new details which make
evolved in Greece and Israel over a period known as the Axial Age, spanning 800-200 BCE. While it is true that many thinkers in those two areas shifted toward a more naturalistic understanding of the world, they were not involved in a cohesive movement. The Hebrews came to question the vengeful, intercessory God of their oral tradition after an extended period of suffering and misfortune; it was not at all apparent that the deity who made a covenant with Abraham was interested in coming down and fighting battles on behalf of His Chosen People. The Greeks moved away from their earlier ontology in which melodramatic, anthropomorphic gods were responsible for what went on in the world at about the same time, but their transition was the result of a relatively comfortable lifestyle that became available to their upper classes, making the "contemplative life" possible. Their worldview changed as a result of rational contemplation rather than empirical experiences. While the Hebrews and the Greeks made this advance roughly simultaneously, it's inaccurate to describe them as part of a single movement.
Those two points really don't have that much to do with the rest of the essay, but obviously they meant a lot to me. In any event, moves on to explain why the discovery of a rational, ordered world "fully vindicate[s]" the theistic worldview. He describes the world as a "teleological hierarchy," meaning that it is arranged in levels and that a group of subordinate levels exists for the benefit of a primary level, on which humans exist. This is a common view among theists. It demonstrates what I like to refer to as the "anthropocentric conceit."
Humans generally believe that the universe exists, in one sense or another, for their benefit. Early Mesopotamian cultures believed that the world did not extend far beyond the Tigris and Euphrates valleys in which they lived (once again, there's that Old Testament cosmology that I won't shut up about). Later thinkers such as Augustine knew more about geography but still assumed that the Southern Hemisphere was uninhabitable and that only the North had been created for human beings to inhabit. The anthropocentric worldview has gradually yielded more ground as it has been contradicted by new facts about the world around us. When Edwin Hubble showed that our galaxy is one of a vast number and that the universe has no discernible physical center, anthropocentrism retreated into the notion that humans are the ontological center of the universe. I see no reason to assume that, as we investigate further into the fundamental nature of the universe, we will not discover new details which make
Friday, May 16, 2008
The vile hypocrisy of George W. Bush
I consider myself a rational guy who approaches politics with critical thinking and a due understanding that there are few binary moral judgments involved. The Iran/Contra scandal has long been a topic which sends me into a Carrollian fantasy land of spite and unreason, but I'm going to try to talk about it and related matters for a little while without switching into that mode.
In one of the most galling displays I have witnessed in my years of political awareness, President Bush used a speech commemorating the 60th anniversary of Israel's founding to call out Barack Obama. It was not the uncouth timing of the attack that offends me; I couldn't care any less about such propriety. It was the incomprehensible stupidity of the remark that set me off. Speaking before the Israeli legislature, Bush drew a parallel between Iran and Nazi Germany.
The remark was intended as a swipe at Obama, who has taken fire for his suggestion that the United States should open diplomatic relations with governments that it does not approve of, such as Syria and Iran. The president's obvious dearth of understanding of how diplomacy works was effectively critiqued by Sen. Joe Biden (D-Del.) on MSNBC's Hardball last night. Bush's elision of the distinction between communicating with another power and making concessions to that power is not what primarily concerns me. Biden is right to point out that the Bush administration has communicated with Muammar al-Gaddafi of Libya and Kim Jong-Il of North Korea, and that Secretary of Defense Robert Gates advocates opening diplomatic relations with Iran. But Bush's hypocrisy is deeper and more disturbing than that.
The history of the president's family makes his Godwinning of his opponents particularly hapless. Bush's grandfather Prescott, the patriarch of the Bush political dynasty and generator of much of the family fortune, was a Nazi supporter and a financier of German militarization until 1942. Documents released from the National Archives in 2004 confirmed that Harriman Bank, a company under the direction of Prescott Bush, financed the German steel company Thyssen, an essential cog in the Nazi war machine. The company's owner fled Germany after turned against the Nazi regime, but Bush did not have a similar change of heart. He continued to finance the nationalized German steel operation until his assets were seized under the Trading with the Enemy Act on October 20, 1942. The records of the incident were sealed in the National Archives and Bush later went on to be elected to the U.S. Senate from Connecticut. George W. Bush should be one of the last people who would want to elicit images of Nazi tanks rolling across Europe.
On a similar note, there was long speculation about Prescott Bush's involvement in the so-called Business Plot, an attempt by Wall Street leaders to stage a military coup against President Franklin Roosevelt in 1934. Those rumors were also confirmed by documents released in 2007 from the National Archives. A group known as the American Liberty League planned to overthrow Roosevelt and approached Marine Gen. Smedley Butler to do the job. Butler had done a series of similar numbers in Latin America under President Woodrow Wilson, but those experiences had only made him a staunch critic of military/industrial juntas. He told Congress, and after a congressional committee conducted an investigation and confirmed the involvement of a number of America's leading corporate figures, the evidence was sealed in the National Archives. No one was prosecuted for treason.
Given the record of his own grandfather, the current President Bush would be well advised not to raise the charge of facilitating Nazi conquest. He still enjoys the wealth accumulated by Prescott Bush and owes his presidency to the dynasty that man established. It's astounding that, in the gelatinous mold of guilt-by-association that is American politics, more is not made of this connection. Besides Harper's Magazine the the BBC program Document, the only people who ever mention the elder Bush's financing of Nazi steelmakers are simple-minded Web denizens who insist that Bush is a modern-day reincarnation of Hitler. Plainly, George W. is not culpable for what his grandfather did in the decade before he was born, but the unbroken lineage from the Nazi financier to current president renders W.'s ostentation of moral superiority disgusting. I don't expect of him enough maturity to frankly discuss the source of the wealth and influence that made his ascension possible, but the least he could do is abstain from accusing others of moral equivalence with Nazi appeasement.
All of this says nothing of the Iran/Contra affair, which I mentioned above. The connection here is more direct: a number of George Herbert Walker Bush's colleagues in the Reagan administration were convicted of lying about weapons deals with the Iranian government (the same regime that Bush yesterday labeled the "world's leading state sponsor of terror") and used the funds to train right-wing death squads (the Contras) in Nicaragua. Apparently it was acceptable to negotiate with the Iranian regime 22 years ago, because W.'s father pardoned six of the I/C convicts when he succeeded Reagan as president. The weapons deal was justified, he wrote in part, because it had stabilized the political situation in the Middle East. This is true only in the sense that it helped Iran to balance the power of Saddam Hussein, then a U.S. ally (this shit gets crazier the farther down the rabbit hole you go, and it's all true). Many recurring Bush allies are close associates of the I/C pardon beneficiaries. Anyone familiar with the history of the neoconservative movement must recognize the hypocrisy of their cherry-picking moral indignation.
The preceding barrage of more-depressing-than-fiction shenanigans reveals the moral and intellectual bankruptcy of Bush and his clique. And yet the most damning thing you'll find the media in the wake of the Bush speech is Biden's explanation of why diplomacy is a good idea. It is with rapt anticipation that I await the termination of Bush's tenure in office.
In one of the most galling displays I have witnessed in my years of political awareness, President Bush used a speech commemorating the 60th anniversary of Israel's founding to call out Barack Obama. It was not the uncouth timing of the attack that offends me; I couldn't care any less about such propriety. It was the incomprehensible stupidity of the remark that set me off. Speaking before the Israeli legislature, Bush drew a parallel between Iran and Nazi Germany.
"Some seem to believe that we should negotiate with the terrorists and radicals, as if some ingenious argument will persuade them they have been wrong all along. We have heard this foolish delusion before. As Nazi tanks crossed into Poland in 1939, an American senator declared: 'Lord, if I could only have talked to Hitler, all this might have been avoided.' We have an obligation to call this what it is - the false comfort of appeasement, which has been repeatedly discredited by history."
The remark was intended as a swipe at Obama, who has taken fire for his suggestion that the United States should open diplomatic relations with governments that it does not approve of, such as Syria and Iran. The president's obvious dearth of understanding of how diplomacy works was effectively critiqued by Sen. Joe Biden (D-Del.) on MSNBC's Hardball last night. Bush's elision of the distinction between communicating with another power and making concessions to that power is not what primarily concerns me. Biden is right to point out that the Bush administration has communicated with Muammar al-Gaddafi of Libya and Kim Jong-Il of North Korea, and that Secretary of Defense Robert Gates advocates opening diplomatic relations with Iran. But Bush's hypocrisy is deeper and more disturbing than that.
The history of the president's family makes his Godwinning of his opponents particularly hapless. Bush's grandfather Prescott, the patriarch of the Bush political dynasty and generator of much of the family fortune, was a Nazi supporter and a financier of German militarization until 1942. Documents released from the National Archives in 2004 confirmed that Harriman Bank, a company under the direction of Prescott Bush, financed the German steel company Thyssen, an essential cog in the Nazi war machine. The company's owner fled Germany after turned against the Nazi regime, but Bush did not have a similar change of heart. He continued to finance the nationalized German steel operation until his assets were seized under the Trading with the Enemy Act on October 20, 1942. The records of the incident were sealed in the National Archives and Bush later went on to be elected to the U.S. Senate from Connecticut. George W. Bush should be one of the last people who would want to elicit images of Nazi tanks rolling across Europe.
On a similar note, there was long speculation about Prescott Bush's involvement in the so-called Business Plot, an attempt by Wall Street leaders to stage a military coup against President Franklin Roosevelt in 1934. Those rumors were also confirmed by documents released in 2007 from the National Archives. A group known as the American Liberty League planned to overthrow Roosevelt and approached Marine Gen. Smedley Butler to do the job. Butler had done a series of similar numbers in Latin America under President Woodrow Wilson, but those experiences had only made him a staunch critic of military/industrial juntas. He told Congress, and after a congressional committee conducted an investigation and confirmed the involvement of a number of America's leading corporate figures, the evidence was sealed in the National Archives. No one was prosecuted for treason.
Given the record of his own grandfather, the current President Bush would be well advised not to raise the charge of facilitating Nazi conquest. He still enjoys the wealth accumulated by Prescott Bush and owes his presidency to the dynasty that man established. It's astounding that, in the gelatinous mold of guilt-by-association that is American politics, more is not made of this connection. Besides Harper's Magazine the the BBC program Document, the only people who ever mention the elder Bush's financing of Nazi steelmakers are simple-minded Web denizens who insist that Bush is a modern-day reincarnation of Hitler. Plainly, George W. is not culpable for what his grandfather did in the decade before he was born, but the unbroken lineage from the Nazi financier to current president renders W.'s ostentation of moral superiority disgusting. I don't expect of him enough maturity to frankly discuss the source of the wealth and influence that made his ascension possible, but the least he could do is abstain from accusing others of moral equivalence with Nazi appeasement.
All of this says nothing of the Iran/Contra affair, which I mentioned above. The connection here is more direct: a number of George Herbert Walker Bush's colleagues in the Reagan administration were convicted of lying about weapons deals with the Iranian government (the same regime that Bush yesterday labeled the "world's leading state sponsor of terror") and used the funds to train right-wing death squads (the Contras) in Nicaragua. Apparently it was acceptable to negotiate with the Iranian regime 22 years ago, because W.'s father pardoned six of the I/C convicts when he succeeded Reagan as president. The weapons deal was justified, he wrote in part, because it had stabilized the political situation in the Middle East. This is true only in the sense that it helped Iran to balance the power of Saddam Hussein, then a U.S. ally (this shit gets crazier the farther down the rabbit hole you go, and it's all true). Many recurring Bush allies are close associates of the I/C pardon beneficiaries. Anyone familiar with the history of the neoconservative movement must recognize the hypocrisy of their cherry-picking moral indignation.
The preceding barrage of more-depressing-than-fiction shenanigans reveals the moral and intellectual bankruptcy of Bush and his clique. And yet the most damning thing you'll find the media in the wake of the Bush speech is Biden's explanation of why diplomacy is a good idea. It is with rapt anticipation that I await the termination of Bush's tenure in office.
Tuesday, May 13, 2008
Down the McMemory Hole
John McCain made an embarrassing mistake during the speech that I just posted about. When I read the transcript of the speech at his Web site, I noted a conspicuous omission: he did not refer to Kelo v. City of New London (2005), a rallying point for self-proclaimed strict constructionists. In a surprisingly pro-corporate decision, the liberal justices, as well as Anthony Kennedy, ruled that the state of Connecticut could use eminent domain to seize private property and sell it to a developer who would pay more in taxes than the original owner.
It turns out, however, that McCain did mention the case, but displayed an unfortunate misunderstanding of the Fifth Amendment, which led his campaign to edit the comment from the video on his Web site and scrub it from the transcript. He claimed that "Not only just compensation" is required during the exercise of eminent domain, "but also, private property may not be taken for public use."
One wonders what McCain's version of eminent domain actually entails. Eminent domain is the purchase of private property for public use, with or without the consent of the owner but always with due compensation. Since the Supreme Court has always been a strong defender of property rights, the definition of acceptable public use was narrow until the Kelo decision. I have no idea how McCain and his speechwriters thought eminent domain worked. I imagine that this was something of a Freudian slip, in which he imposed his own views on the text of the Constitution. If this is so (and I certainly could be wrong), it only serves to heap more suspicion on his
loud complaints about original intent. I certainly hope the next president knows more about the Constitution than this man.
It turns out, however, that McCain did mention the case, but displayed an unfortunate misunderstanding of the Fifth Amendment, which led his campaign to edit the comment from the video on his Web site and scrub it from the transcript. He claimed that "Not only just compensation" is required during the exercise of eminent domain, "but also, private property may not be taken for public use."
One wonders what McCain's version of eminent domain actually entails. Eminent domain is the purchase of private property for public use, with or without the consent of the owner but always with due compensation. Since the Supreme Court has always been a strong defender of property rights, the definition of acceptable public use was narrow until the Kelo decision. I have no idea how McCain and his speechwriters thought eminent domain worked. I imagine that this was something of a Freudian slip, in which he imposed his own views on the text of the Constitution. If this is so (and I certainly could be wrong), it only serves to heap more suspicion on his
loud complaints about original intent. I certainly hope the next president knows more about the Constitution than this man.
Defending the McConstitution
In an attempt to gain some media attention on the day of two large Democratic primaries, Sen. John McCain delivered a speech May 6 at Wake Forest University in Winston-Salem, NC. After pontificating on the art of compensating for poor grades and inexplicably showcasing former Sen. and GOP primary failure Fred Thompson of Tenn., he moved on to talk about his respect for the Constitution.
This is the same man who in February voted to extend revisions to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act which give law enforcement the ability to spy on Americans without warrants. FISA, as it was originally passed 30 years ago, provided law enforcement the ability to conduct wiretaps of phone conversations between a phone in America and one in a foreign country and seek retroactive court permission within 72 hours. This was a compromise between the Fourth Amendment protection against unreasonable searches and seizures and the necessities of intelligence work. In order to preserve the constitutional protection, the Supreme Court's precedent is that, given probable cause, a federal agent should seek a warrant if at all possible. This is a fundamental protection installed in the Constitution to prevent overextension of executive power.
In 2005, McCain took a principled stand against torture by the U.S. armed forces, attaching Amendment 1977 to the Detainee Treatment Act of 2005. The amendment prohibited military interrogators from using "cruel, inhumane, or degrading" treatment to extract information from prisoners, including those at Guantanamo Bay. McCain had long cultivated a reputation as a strong opponent of torture, often appealing to his own brutal treatment as a prisoner of war in Vietnam. This position was subject to a reversal when the Military Commissions Act of 2006 came to a vote. This Act allowed the government to deny habeas corpus to U.S. citizens accused of terrorism and gave the CIA permission to use techniques barred to the armed services under the DTA.
At first, it may seem that the use of torture is not a constitutional issue; indeed some conservatives, such as Antonin Scalia, argue that the Constitution does not prohibit cruel interrogative techniques because interrogation is not a form of punishment. That's a specious distinction which relies on a pedantic and overly literal reading of the Eighth Amendment. American jurisprudence does not apply the same strict reading to other amendments, notably I, II, and IV. To suggest that the men who wrote the Eighth Amendment and the legislatures that ratified it wished merely to prevent gruesome treatment after conviction is facially ridiculous. If anything, a prisoner who has not yet enjoyed due process of law has more protection under the Constitution than a convict.
All of this says nothing about the suspension of habeas corpus, which is expressly prohibited by Article 1, Section 9 of the Constitution. Even if we were to concede that the Constitution has nothing to say about torture, it is obvious that the MCA is an expansion of the executive's law enforcement powers beyond those envisioned in the Constitution. Far from the overweening judiciary that McCain and other conservatives complain about, the real constitutional crisis in this country is President Bush's belief in the unitary executive.
McCain takes offense at the lengthy opinion in an obscure case from 2005, Deck v. Missouri, ridiculing the "penumbra," a legal concept used to protect rights not expressly named in the Constitution and a favorite target of those who style themselves strict constructionists. The minute extension of additional protections to capital defendants in the Missouri case is apparently more troubling to McCain than the signing statements that Bush has routinely used to ignore the law. McCain disapproves of the practice, but not as much as he disapproves of the Court's deciding what is acceptable treatment of a prisoner under the Constitution.
After running through a litany of issues on which he disagreed with the rulings of the courts, McCain accused Democrats in Congress of voting against judicial appointees based on personal disagreements rather than qualifications. But why should judicial philosophy not be a qualification for judicial office? The complaints against John Roberts and Samuel Alito, Bush's two (successful) Supreme Court nominations, were grounded at least in part on their view of the proper role of the courts. The Democrats who voted against their confirmation appealed to their actions as federal judges. Roberts, for instance, repeatedly voted to narrow the protections given to various minorities by the courts. This is an abdication of the courts' duty, upholding and encouraging the expansions of executive power by the Bush administration.
Inexplicably, McCain pointed out, with righteous indignity, that he voted to approve Justices Stephen Breyer and Ruth Bader Ginsburg when they were appointed by President Bill Clinton. He did not let his differences with them determine his vote, he said. Why he would approve of two justices he now criticizes as subverting the Constitution and showing contempt for democracy is unclear. Both served as federal judges prior to their appointments; their understanding of the role of the judiciary should have been obvious. And yet it seems that before he needed to shore up support with the Republican Party's base, he was not concerned about judicial activism.
McCain's entire speech reeks of hypocrisy. He plainly advocates for judges that adhere to the party line of the GOP. Roberts and Alito support broader federal power on issues important to conservatives and a narrower reading on liberal concerns (like equal protection). The next president will appoint activists amenable to his political views. Republican talking points notwithstanding, almost all federal judges are now pragmatists. Conservatives are not any more consistent in their obedience to the Constitution's original intent than liberals.
All the powers of the American presidency must serve the Constitution, and thereby protect the people and their liberties. For the chief executive or any other constitutional officer, the duties and boundaries of the Constitution are not just a set of helpful suggestions. They are not just guidelines, to be observed when it's convenient and loosely interpreted when it isn't. The clear powers defined by our Constitution, and the clear limits of power, lose nothing of their relevance with time, because the dangers they guard against are found in every time.To the naïve, it would seem with such an introduction McCain is preparing for a major break with the Bush administration. The Bush Department of Justice has logged seven years of extraordinary disrespect for the checks and balances of the Constitution. The senator seems to be laying the groundwork for a precipitous shift from the Bush approach, with its warrantless wiretaps and suspenison of habeas corpus. Sadly, after all that he decided that Tessio should stay on with the family but Clemenza needed to die. The crux of our constitutional crisis, the asserted, is "the common and systematic abuse of our federal courts." That's right, folks. The malfunction in Washington is all the fault of the courts. The big threat to our democracy is unaccountable judges who don't care about public opinion.
This is the same man who in February voted to extend revisions to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act which give law enforcement the ability to spy on Americans without warrants. FISA, as it was originally passed 30 years ago, provided law enforcement the ability to conduct wiretaps of phone conversations between a phone in America and one in a foreign country and seek retroactive court permission within 72 hours. This was a compromise between the Fourth Amendment protection against unreasonable searches and seizures and the necessities of intelligence work. In order to preserve the constitutional protection, the Supreme Court's precedent is that, given probable cause, a federal agent should seek a warrant if at all possible. This is a fundamental protection installed in the Constitution to prevent overextension of executive power.
In 2005, McCain took a principled stand against torture by the U.S. armed forces, attaching Amendment 1977 to the Detainee Treatment Act of 2005. The amendment prohibited military interrogators from using "cruel, inhumane, or degrading" treatment to extract information from prisoners, including those at Guantanamo Bay. McCain had long cultivated a reputation as a strong opponent of torture, often appealing to his own brutal treatment as a prisoner of war in Vietnam. This position was subject to a reversal when the Military Commissions Act of 2006 came to a vote. This Act allowed the government to deny habeas corpus to U.S. citizens accused of terrorism and gave the CIA permission to use techniques barred to the armed services under the DTA.
At first, it may seem that the use of torture is not a constitutional issue; indeed some conservatives, such as Antonin Scalia, argue that the Constitution does not prohibit cruel interrogative techniques because interrogation is not a form of punishment. That's a specious distinction which relies on a pedantic and overly literal reading of the Eighth Amendment. American jurisprudence does not apply the same strict reading to other amendments, notably I, II, and IV. To suggest that the men who wrote the Eighth Amendment and the legislatures that ratified it wished merely to prevent gruesome treatment after conviction is facially ridiculous. If anything, a prisoner who has not yet enjoyed due process of law has more protection under the Constitution than a convict.
All of this says nothing about the suspension of habeas corpus, which is expressly prohibited by Article 1, Section 9 of the Constitution. Even if we were to concede that the Constitution has nothing to say about torture, it is obvious that the MCA is an expansion of the executive's law enforcement powers beyond those envisioned in the Constitution. Far from the overweening judiciary that McCain and other conservatives complain about, the real constitutional crisis in this country is President Bush's belief in the unitary executive.
McCain takes offense at the lengthy opinion in an obscure case from 2005, Deck v. Missouri, ridiculing the "penumbra," a legal concept used to protect rights not expressly named in the Constitution and a favorite target of those who style themselves strict constructionists. The minute extension of additional protections to capital defendants in the Missouri case is apparently more troubling to McCain than the signing statements that Bush has routinely used to ignore the law. McCain disapproves of the practice, but not as much as he disapproves of the Court's deciding what is acceptable treatment of a prisoner under the Constitution.
After running through a litany of issues on which he disagreed with the rulings of the courts, McCain accused Democrats in Congress of voting against judicial appointees based on personal disagreements rather than qualifications. But why should judicial philosophy not be a qualification for judicial office? The complaints against John Roberts and Samuel Alito, Bush's two (successful) Supreme Court nominations, were grounded at least in part on their view of the proper role of the courts. The Democrats who voted against their confirmation appealed to their actions as federal judges. Roberts, for instance, repeatedly voted to narrow the protections given to various minorities by the courts. This is an abdication of the courts' duty, upholding and encouraging the expansions of executive power by the Bush administration.
Inexplicably, McCain pointed out, with righteous indignity, that he voted to approve Justices Stephen Breyer and Ruth Bader Ginsburg when they were appointed by President Bill Clinton. He did not let his differences with them determine his vote, he said. Why he would approve of two justices he now criticizes as subverting the Constitution and showing contempt for democracy is unclear. Both served as federal judges prior to their appointments; their understanding of the role of the judiciary should have been obvious. And yet it seems that before he needed to shore up support with the Republican Party's base, he was not concerned about judicial activism.
McCain's entire speech reeks of hypocrisy. He plainly advocates for judges that adhere to the party line of the GOP. Roberts and Alito support broader federal power on issues important to conservatives and a narrower reading on liberal concerns (like equal protection). The next president will appoint activists amenable to his political views. Republican talking points notwithstanding, almost all federal judges are now pragmatists. Conservatives are not any more consistent in their obedience to the Constitution's original intent than liberals.
Thursday, May 8, 2008
Stupid tax policy? Count me in!
The New York Times published a piece by Bryan Caplan supporting the Clinton/McCain gas tax holiday. He concedes that the savings will be realized by oil companies rather than drivers; in fact that is his main reason for advocating it. The holiday will placate the ignorant voting public, he writes. For only $9 billion, the government can get Joe Sixpack off their backs and not do any real harm.
The government's response to the '70s gas crisis was counterproductive, says Caplan, so we should be happy with a policy that doesn't really do any good (or harm) but appeases the misguided public. This kind of cynical public policy really shows how stupid Washington thinks the public is. While I'm increasingly convinced that the average American really is that poorly informed, my inclination is to try to remedy that ignorance (silly liberal that I am). Caplan seems positively excited about wasting billions of dollars accommodating the public's ignorance.
Caplan then moves on to the most disturbing part of his argument: we owe the oil companies big time for what we did to them in the last gas crisis. I shit you not. Caplan says that the obvious solution is to let Big Oil invest those profits in expanding capacity. The free market got us into this mess, and it will get us out, he says. Unfortunately, there is no reason to expect that oil companies are going to expand their capacity to produce gasoline. Big Oil posted record profits throughout 2007 and continues to enjoy generous federal subsidies, but still has not seen fit to build more refineries. In fact, numerous government studies have found that gas companies have worked to restrict supply and maximize profits since the 1970s. Large companies have used their market power to drive smaller companies out of business, further restricting supply.
There is no impetus under the free market to expand refining capacity. Yet again we see how ridiculous it is to talk about the free market as if it's Winston Wolf coming in to dispose of the blood-stained Cadillac of a gas crisis. The long-term solution is to invest in alternative energy sources; we could expand our refinery capacity in the middle term, but that will not account for the rising price of crude oil. The sooner we kick the oil habit, the better. Handing Big Oil another tax cut isn't benefiting anyone but Big Oil.
The government's response to the '70s gas crisis was counterproductive, says Caplan, so we should be happy with a policy that doesn't really do any good (or harm) but appeases the misguided public. This kind of cynical public policy really shows how stupid Washington thinks the public is. While I'm increasingly convinced that the average American really is that poorly informed, my inclination is to try to remedy that ignorance (silly liberal that I am). Caplan seems positively excited about wasting billions of dollars accommodating the public's ignorance.
Caplan then moves on to the most disturbing part of his argument: we owe the oil companies big time for what we did to them in the last gas crisis. I shit you not. Caplan says that the obvious solution is to let Big Oil invest those profits in expanding capacity. The free market got us into this mess, and it will get us out, he says. Unfortunately, there is no reason to expect that oil companies are going to expand their capacity to produce gasoline. Big Oil posted record profits throughout 2007 and continues to enjoy generous federal subsidies, but still has not seen fit to build more refineries. In fact, numerous government studies have found that gas companies have worked to restrict supply and maximize profits since the 1970s. Large companies have used their market power to drive smaller companies out of business, further restricting supply.
There is no impetus under the free market to expand refining capacity. Yet again we see how ridiculous it is to talk about the free market as if it's Winston Wolf coming in to dispose of the blood-stained Cadillac of a gas crisis. The long-term solution is to invest in alternative energy sources; we could expand our refinery capacity in the middle term, but that will not account for the rising price of crude oil. The sooner we kick the oil habit, the better. Handing Big Oil another tax cut isn't benefiting anyone but Big Oil.
Wednesday, May 7, 2008
Templeton conversation: Does science make belief in God obsolete?
If you are familiar with the Templeton Foundation, you know that they are in the business of addressing the "big questions" through scientific investigation. This usually boils down to the Foundation giving a million dollars every year to a scientist who "finds God." This morning I found a collection of essays on the Foundation's Web site about whether scientific advances have made belief in God unnecessary. While there's not really any chance of any of these essays changing my mind, I find the topic endlessly interesting, so I'm going to read all of the essays and comment on them here.
The first is by Steven Pinker, a Harvard psychologist. He argues that, defining science broadly as a process of empirical investigation, it has answered many of the questions once accounted for by belief in God. Pinker writes that, while science cannot directly explain what is right or wrong, the notion that theism has anything useful to say on the matter is fallacious. The origin of morality is a really intriguing question, and I enjoy Pinker's take on it:
I look forward to reading the rest of these essays, and some of the comments on the left side of the page are worth a look as well.
The first is by Steven Pinker, a Harvard psychologist. He argues that, defining science broadly as a process of empirical investigation, it has answered many of the questions once accounted for by belief in God. Pinker writes that, while science cannot directly explain what is right or wrong, the notion that theism has anything useful to say on the matter is fallacious. The origin of morality is a really intriguing question, and I enjoy Pinker's take on it:
It's not just that the traditional Judeo-Christian God endorsed genocide, slavery, rape, and the death penalty for trivial insults. It's that morality cannot be grounded in divine decree, not even in principle. Why did God deem some acts moral and others immoral? If he had no reason but divine whim, why should we take his commandments seriously? If he did have reasons, then why not appeal to those reasons directly?The fact is that even people who believe in God exercise some individual judgment over what they think is moral. Almost no one purports to believe every moral dictum in the bible, not least because it contradicts itself in several places. When one resolves one of those contradictions (i.e. rationalizes which one God really meant), one appeals to some standard other than the word of God. If theists are allowed to do that, why not atheists? If it's acceptable on some questions, why not all?
I look forward to reading the rest of these essays, and some of the comments on the left side of the page are worth a look as well.
Clinton claims effervescent victory
As things stand right now, Hillary Clinton has claimed victory in the Indiana primary, though the New York Times considers the race too close to call. Her lead is less than 2% with 91% of the precincts reporting their results.
I expressed hope in my last post that Clinton would give up and go home after tonight, but her untimely declaration of victory seems to preclude that possibility. I could dig through some amateur number-crunching right now if I wanted to, but I'd rather wait until the professionals make their rounds in the morning. Suffice it to say that Clinton has very little chance of pulling off this nomination. As long as Obama's name is on the ballot in the remaining primaries, he's virtually guaranteed 15% of the pledged delegates. That puts him within striking distance of the 2,025 he needs to lock up the nod; it looks to me that Clinton can only win if the infamous superdelegates decide she deserves to be the Democrats' horse in the 2008 race. And even that seems less likely by the day.
BBC Radio is putting an interesting spin on tonight's primaries. Barack Obama has "claimed victory" in North Carolina, they say, while Hillary Clinton "says she won" Indiana. That really doesn't convey the difference between Obama's 14-point lead in the final results in NC and Clinton's 1.8-percent lead in IN, which is not yet final. I guess she has the power of suggestion working for her.
I expressed hope in my last post that Clinton would give up and go home after tonight, but her untimely declaration of victory seems to preclude that possibility. I could dig through some amateur number-crunching right now if I wanted to, but I'd rather wait until the professionals make their rounds in the morning. Suffice it to say that Clinton has very little chance of pulling off this nomination. As long as Obama's name is on the ballot in the remaining primaries, he's virtually guaranteed 15% of the pledged delegates. That puts him within striking distance of the 2,025 he needs to lock up the nod; it looks to me that Clinton can only win if the infamous superdelegates decide she deserves to be the Democrats' horse in the 2008 race. And even that seems less likely by the day.
BBC Radio is putting an interesting spin on tonight's primaries. Barack Obama has "claimed victory" in North Carolina, they say, while Hillary Clinton "says she won" Indiana. That really doesn't convey the difference between Obama's 14-point lead in the final results in NC and Clinton's 1.8-percent lead in IN, which is not yet final. I guess she has the power of suggestion working for her.
Tuesday, May 6, 2008
Menendez disses economists
It seems that everyone from the Clinton campaign and all of their surrogates now disavow the field of economics. Defending the campaign's embarrassing gas tax proposal, Sen. Bob Menendez of New Jersey expressed his newfound disdain for anyone who understands how taxes work. Asked by an anchor on CNBC this morning to name one economist who supports the proposal, Menendez replied, "Thank God that we don't have economists, necessarily, making public policy." Never mind that a lot of economists do make public policy.
I want to point out one more time that the opposition to the tax holiday is not motivated by contempt for the poor. It is motivated by the fact that the scheme won't work. It isn't going to do anything to help poor people; the potential savings under the plan are minuscule, and the harm it would do is considerable. Clinton and her retinue are smart enough to know how this works. The whole proposal is predicated on the assumption that the public is too dumb to understand what's going on.
I have no problem voting for someone who thinks highly of their own intelligence; in fact an intellectual president is precisely what this country needs. But Clinton and her camp have demonstrated the height of anti-intellectualism. With any luck, Clinton will be forced out of the race soon and the left in this country can start dealing with facts again.
I want to point out one more time that the opposition to the tax holiday is not motivated by contempt for the poor. It is motivated by the fact that the scheme won't work. It isn't going to do anything to help poor people; the potential savings under the plan are minuscule, and the harm it would do is considerable. Clinton and her retinue are smart enough to know how this works. The whole proposal is predicated on the assumption that the public is too dumb to understand what's going on.
I have no problem voting for someone who thinks highly of their own intelligence; in fact an intellectual president is precisely what this country needs. But Clinton and her camp have demonstrated the height of anti-intellectualism. With any luck, Clinton will be forced out of the race soon and the left in this country can start dealing with facts again.
Monday, May 5, 2008
Clinton disses economists
In an interview yesterday with George Stephanopoulos, Sen. Hillary Clinton defended her proposal to suspend the federal gas tax this summer by dismissing the opinions of economists, who universally agree that the idea is bogus. You can see the video here- she says at 3:55, "I'm not going to throw my lot in with economists,"as though they were some cult that would ruin her electability if she were associated with them. She insists that her policy will work if we just do it right. Barack Obama knows better; he voted for a gas tax holiday when he was in the Illinois State Senate. It was a dumb idea then as now; it didn't work and, like an adult, Obama admits his mistake.
Obama derides the tax holiday as a measure which will save the average consumer $30, or the price of half a tank of gas. Even that is generous. The price of gasoline is at a national average of $3.60 a gallon because that is what the market will bear right now. If we lifted the 18.4-cent federal gas tax, companies could sell the same volume at the same price and pocket the extra $9 billion which the tax is projected to collect this summer. If Sen. Dick Durbin (D-IL) knows what he's talking about, oil refineries in America are operating at 85% capacity right now. To me, that says that oil companies have projected what amount of gasoline is going to maximize their profits, and that's the amount they're going to put on the market. Lifting the federal tax is no incentive for them to lower prices and forgo a larger potential profit.
So far as I have heard, the unanimous opinion of economists is that there is no chance the tax holiday will work. Faced with the opposition of people who know what they are talking about, Clinton went into full-blown W-style denial. In her interview with Stephanopoulos, Clinton justified her flat-earthism by complaining about the Bush administration's pro-corporate elitism. She is disturbed by their disdain for the average person, but she embraces their disdain for facts. She contends that our government has relied on "elite opinion" which cares nothing about the little guy. I have to wonder whether or not the elites she is talking about include the economists who have long agreed that "trickle-down economics" does nothing to help the poor or the scientists who have warned with increasing urgency about the danger global warming poses for the world's poor. She can talk all she wants about helping the less fortunate, but if she plans on continuing the White House aversion to facts, she's not going to do anyone any good.
What really surprised my about this whole episode was how quickly Clinton threw Paul Krugman under the bus. Krugman, a New York Times columnist, Clinton supporter, and economist, argued last week that the tax holiday is a ludicrous proposal, though he focused more on Sen. John McCain's support for it and soft-pedaled his criticism of Clinton. When Stephanopoulos pointed out Krugman's dissent, it elicited a wickedly supercilious dismissal.
Clinton's no-facts-necessary style is most disappointing in view of the larger themes of her campaign, which bear a stultifying resemblance to the imagery and tactics employed by Republicans in recent years. It's dangerous for Clinton to cast Obama as an elitist who is out of touch with working-class voters and as weak on national security. Along with the lack-of-experience argument, these are the lines McCain would advance against her in the general election if she won the nomination. As things stand, she's making his case for him. Obama may not be great, but at least he will be somewhat different from the disaster we have now. And at least he has some grounding in reality.
Obama derides the tax holiday as a measure which will save the average consumer $30, or the price of half a tank of gas. Even that is generous. The price of gasoline is at a national average of $3.60 a gallon because that is what the market will bear right now. If we lifted the 18.4-cent federal gas tax, companies could sell the same volume at the same price and pocket the extra $9 billion which the tax is projected to collect this summer. If Sen. Dick Durbin (D-IL) knows what he's talking about, oil refineries in America are operating at 85% capacity right now. To me, that says that oil companies have projected what amount of gasoline is going to maximize their profits, and that's the amount they're going to put on the market. Lifting the federal tax is no incentive for them to lower prices and forgo a larger potential profit.
So far as I have heard, the unanimous opinion of economists is that there is no chance the tax holiday will work. Faced with the opposition of people who know what they are talking about, Clinton went into full-blown W-style denial. In her interview with Stephanopoulos, Clinton justified her flat-earthism by complaining about the Bush administration's pro-corporate elitism. She is disturbed by their disdain for the average person, but she embraces their disdain for facts. She contends that our government has relied on "elite opinion" which cares nothing about the little guy. I have to wonder whether or not the elites she is talking about include the economists who have long agreed that "trickle-down economics" does nothing to help the poor or the scientists who have warned with increasing urgency about the danger global warming poses for the world's poor. She can talk all she wants about helping the less fortunate, but if she plans on continuing the White House aversion to facts, she's not going to do anyone any good.
What really surprised my about this whole episode was how quickly Clinton threw Paul Krugman under the bus. Krugman, a New York Times columnist, Clinton supporter, and economist, argued last week that the tax holiday is a ludicrous proposal, though he focused more on Sen. John McCain's support for it and soft-pedaled his criticism of Clinton. When Stephanopoulos pointed out Krugman's dissent, it elicited a wickedly supercilious dismissal.
Clinton's no-facts-necessary style is most disappointing in view of the larger themes of her campaign, which bear a stultifying resemblance to the imagery and tactics employed by Republicans in recent years. It's dangerous for Clinton to cast Obama as an elitist who is out of touch with working-class voters and as weak on national security. Along with the lack-of-experience argument, these are the lines McCain would advance against her in the general election if she won the nomination. As things stand, she's making his case for him. Obama may not be great, but at least he will be somewhat different from the disaster we have now. And at least he has some grounding in reality.
Sunday, May 4, 2008
Just how racist is this state?
On April 30, embattled State Sen. Vincent J. Fumo (D-Philadelphia) won some more attention for himself by impugning his fellow state legislators. In a hearing held by the Appropriations Committee, Fumo was questioning Gilbert Coleman, Jr., a
Those who understood the nature of his remarks were offended at the suggestion that
A trip through rural
Those are the people who understood what the senator was trying to say. There is another group, unsettlingly large, which completely fails to apprehend what he said. Many have insisted on saying he came out in support of slavery. Fumo used slavery as an example of injustice visited upon a disfavored group by the majority. Taken in context, his comment could only be interpreted as a condemnation of slavery.
Fumo admits that he was exaggerating. When I first heard his remark, I thought it was hyperbolic, so I’m not surprised at that. It didn’t strike me at first just how insulting the remark was to his colleagues in the Senate chamber. I wouldn’t begrudge the other senators if they asked for an apology. I have no doubt that some of the men and women voted into office by Pennsylvanians are closet racists, but I have a hard time believing that racists constitute a voting majority. Fumo has been in the Senate for a long time (he would have to be to rack up 139 federal criminal charges) and must be a fairly accurate judge of his colleagues, but I can’t see 26 of the 50 senators making that vote.
From an economic standpoint, slavery doesn’t make sense in today’s society. After World War I and especially World War II, the American economy has depended on the ravenous consumption of an increasingly affluent population. Rolling back the property rights of a chunk of our society wouldn’t shore up the system. I might be giving too much credit to the type who would actually consider bringing back chattel slavery, but there is no rational reason to go that route. After all, capitalists are the ones who make rational decisions for their own benefit; racists know only illogic and destructive impulses. The whole issue is moot, though. The ignorant and bigoted in our society currently have their attention directed elsewhere.
Well, I finally started a blog
People have been telling me for a long time that I should have a blog, and now that I am out of classes and don't have a job, I have time to write one, so here it is. I don't expect anyone to read this, but I frequently find myself wanting to write something, and now I have someplace to publish stuff. I know I'm excited. Are you?
I guess I'll take this opportunity to explain where I got the title for this blog, my user name, and the url. "Pleonasm" is an obscure word referring to a redundant phrase or an unnecessary word; examples include "true fact," "PIN number," and "depressing news." I like the name because it is a pretentious display of vocabulary, and I think it applies, because in truth I'm probably not going to say anything here that no one else has said.
The word "appanage" in the url is just a cool word I came across. It refers to a privilege or birthright. I used it because "pleonasm" was taken. Nothing has been posted there in four and a half years, but I still can't have the domain name. Oh, well.
My signature, H. Lewis Allways, was one of four pseudonyms considered by author Eric A. Blair and his publisher before they decided upon George Orwell. I love Orwell and suggest everyone read as much of him as possible. Keith Olbermann doesn't like the name, but I do.
Well, I guess that about wraps up my first post. If anybody reads this, check back often. I'll update this frequently, at least throughout the summer. Or don't come back, and I honestly won't be that offended.
I guess I'll take this opportunity to explain where I got the title for this blog, my user name, and the url. "Pleonasm" is an obscure word referring to a redundant phrase or an unnecessary word; examples include "true fact," "PIN number," and "depressing news." I like the name because it is a pretentious display of vocabulary, and I think it applies, because in truth I'm probably not going to say anything here that no one else has said.
The word "appanage" in the url is just a cool word I came across. It refers to a privilege or birthright. I used it because "pleonasm" was taken. Nothing has been posted there in four and a half years, but I still can't have the domain name. Oh, well.
My signature, H. Lewis Allways, was one of four pseudonyms considered by author Eric A. Blair and his publisher before they decided upon George Orwell. I love Orwell and suggest everyone read as much of him as possible. Keith Olbermann doesn't like the name, but I do.
Well, I guess that about wraps up my first post. If anybody reads this, check back often. I'll update this frequently, at least throughout the summer. Or don't come back, and I honestly won't be that offended.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
