|
Wednesday, March 31, 2004
UPDATE
Word on the street has it that the Elections Council has relinquished its ban on obscene, vulgar, poopy, etc. language at its upcoming Candidates' Forum. Here's to old-fahioned legal one-upmanship by Mr. Matt Holohan, a Boalt law student, former ASUC Student Advocate, and current Academic Affairs Vice President candidate. Check out his election blog here.
On a less elated note, the EC has yet to allow for free speech in its Voters' Guide, which includes profiles of each candidate as supplied by the candidate him- or herself. More specifically, a certain candidate has chosen to include a certain "offensive" word in his profile, and Rebecca Simon currently intends not to run the profile. If the EC chooses to behave fairly (and legally), this will no longer be an issue 24 hours from now.
Updates as I hear 'em.
posted by Rebecca C. Brown at 6:04 PM
(0) comments
ASUC Elections Council: Unabashed Enemies of Free Speech
On April 8th there will be an ASUC election candidates' forum that all students can attent in which each executive and senatorial candidate will have two minutes and one minute respectively to discuss his or her platform and to try to motivate the seven people in the audience and the Daily Cal reporter to vote for him or her. Not a bad idea. Or at least it wouldn't be if the the ASUC Elections Council weren't so intent upon stifling free speech.
Each candidate received an email this morning from Angel Symoon Brewer, Assistant Chair of said council. The highlight comes in reference to candidates' choice of words:
The following are absolutely forbidden: hate speech, vulgar/offensive language, and negative campaigning (aka trashing another candidate or party). I know the words "vulgar", "offensive" and even "hate speech" can be ambiguous. Let's put it this way: if you have concerns about what you want to say, you probably shouldn't say it. All inappropriate speeches will be halted immediately. Failure to follow these rules will result in your dismissal from the forum by security, and/or possible censures.
So, in effect, the figureheads of the ASUC are demanding that the federal, state, and ASUC constitutional rights to free speech be violated in the pursuit of some ill-conceived notion of harmony. Needless to say, Rebecca C. Brown, the champion of the right to dissent, is not pleased.
I of course do not advocate rudeness or downright assault, but if I choose to use the words "penis" or "cunt" or "fuck-shit-turd" that is my right, and the ASUC has no authority to abridge that right.
Obviously this threat of removal and/or censure from Angel and her fellow Chairpeople is not aimed at CalSERVE or Student Action or DAAP. It's aimed at me and the rest of the Squelch! Party, and any other would-be trouble-makers who choose to reveal the ASUC for what it currently is.
If you feel even remotely as strongly as I do on this issue, I implore you to write an email to the Elections Council members and ask them to not limit students' constitutional and logical rights. Please politely and eloquently contact:
Angel Brewer: Assistantchair@asuc.org
Leslieann Cachola: elections@asuc.org
Rebecca Simon: Publicitycoordinator@asuc.org
Ryan Powell: Attornygeneral@asuc.org
posted by Rebecca C. Brown at 8:59 AM
(0) comments
Tuesday, March 30, 2004
Air America is on the Air
Tomorrow (Wednesday) heralds the launch of the new Liberal radio network Air America.
Just a few thoughts: I’m glad that liberal voices will finally have a regular venue. I bear no ill will to conservatives and their deft use of the media to further their agenda. Now, it’s time to join the battle for new ideas.
Also, I do worry that the new shows will have production problems. All big projects start out rough at first. But having seen such non-entities as Hannity and O’Reilly manage to pull a radio show, it shouldn’t be too hard for Garofalo or Franken.
posted by Tommaso Sciortino at 9:56 PM
(0) comments
I'm back, and totally disinterested. For now.
Hello, dedicated readers. Last night I returned from Munich and landed safely on the runway of SFO at 9:59pm PST. The trip was tremendously interesting and fun, and many of my experiences may in due time prompt some seriously exciting blog posts.
It's like Jules Winnfield says: it's the little things that make all the difference between Europe and America. In Munich, for example, public transportation is timely, clean, inexpensive, efficiently managed, popular, and thorough. Beer costs on average about half what bottled water does. (No, that's not an exaggeration.) School children are taught that HIV/AIDS can only be prevented through abstinence OR sexually exclusive relationships with non-carriers. Sales tax is 16%, but prices listed on tags include that tax. University educations are entirely subsidized. Ecology and conservation are legally and socially engrained into daily life. Cars are small. Gasoline is four times as expensive. (Perhaps the preceding three observations are loosely related.) There are condom machines in almost every restaurant bathroom. All state museums are free on Sundays. All nouns are capitalized. And did I mention how awesome their public transportation is?
Of course, the little things aren't always better than they are here in California or America in general. For example, if you want to grab a mass (it's pronounced "moss," and it's a litre of beer) in a bar or restaurant or Biergarten, it will only set you back 5-7 Euro, but you'll walk away smelling like an ashtray. Public smoking and smoking in establishments that serve food is in no way regulated. Also, Germany has yet to institute an analog to the American Disabilities Act; though some train stations and restaurants and museums are equipped with wheelchair ramps or elevators, the vast majority are not. Nor did I hear any chirping pedestrian signals that could have alerted Munich's blind population when it was safe to cross the street. Third, most of the manual labor is outfitted in uniform overalls, while the color of the garment indicates in what sector of labor the worker is. Electricians seemed to wear green, while mechanics I think wore blue. From what I could tell, all the overalls were produced from the same design, probably in the same government factories. While this uniformity is efficient and cost-reducing, my American eyes see using clothing as an official way to indicate occupation more than a little bit limiting. Lastly, throughout Germany, it is illegal to print any pro-Nazi documents are any materials that refute the existence of the Holocaust. While I obviously am not a champion of Nazi ideology, I have a hard time condoning any legal limitations on speech. But that's just the libertarian patriotic American in me speaking.
On a neutral note, you can't walk three feet in Bavaria without stumbling across a centuries-old (or post-war reconstruction thereof) gaudy Catholic church, repleat with gilded saints, Passion recreations, life-sized crucifix in every corner, and 100-metre tall golden alters. That shit is creepy.
Until I muster the energy to complain about domestic politics (or the theory behind it), I must first unpack, do ten days' of laundry, and catch up on some reading. I also have a few family members, some with ailing health, with whom I should correspond via email. In the meantime, I thank Tomasso for being so diligent a blogger in my stead.
posted by Rebecca C. Brown at 1:50 PM
(0) comments
Saturday, March 27, 2004
What is BAD? A modern reflection.
It’s spring break and comments are way down. I thought I’d take the time to address some issues that maybe aren’t as interesting to most readers.
For those of you not wont to participate in this site’s comments section, allow me to explain that BAD (Beetle Aurora Drake) is the pseudonym of a person who posts here frequently. He peculiar in the respect that he does not ever, ever, make any statements unless they are to oppose something someone else just said. It’s really quite weird! You can check out his website if you want. Reading it you will see it is clear that he is constitutionally unable to take constructive positions. For a while this was amusing but then it became tedious, then amusing again, then more tedious, the even more tedious than the first two times and then finally interesting. Having finally reached the point where the logical deformity of this odd commenter has became worthy of thought, I now undertake to see if I can piece together anything constructive at all from our misshapen friend.
My first thought was that it is impossible for someone to be completely uncreative. Certainly, there must be a method to his anti-constructivism. Perhaps he savvies himself a disciple of Sophocles, believing that winning arguments prove nothing more than the skill of the arguer. Here then he would seek to prove his point by arguing forcefully against everybody, hoping to show the futility of such exercises. This would make sense except that he doesn’t nitpick and take umbrage with everybody, just liberals. This indicates that BAD is something less profound and shallower then he first appears.
But if he really was conservative and wished merely to confuse and divert “the enemy” you’d imagine that his impact would be overall negative. I thought about this for a while and seriously considered whether this website would be better off without him. In the end, the answer is clear: without BAD to provide us with a false counterpoint, I and other liberals wouldn’t have much to talk about and we wouldn’t communicate as well. So profound is this impact that it’s safe to say that BAD jumpstarts the comments section most of the time.
This is why I tip my hat to you, BAD. You have done more for the Liberal Berkeley Blogs than anyone else. You have put more time into keeping the comments going. You have done more to match certain repellent conservative policies with certain repellent conservative people. You are the greatest Liberal blogger in the whole Berkeley blog-sphere and for that we salute you.
posted by Tommaso Sciortino at 12:41 PM
(0) comments
Wednesday, March 24, 2004
It’s bad enough that I have to change my mind when the facts change…
…but to have to do so when the facts don’t change is just embarrassing. In my earlier post I feebly tried to sum up the neo-con ideology and failed miserably. The more I read about them and by them the more I come to realize that neo-cons really do want to attack the root causes of terrorism; they’re just not very good at it. Basically, the neo-cons view the problem of Al-Qaeda and other groups as a symptom of the backward political systems of the Middle East. Reasonably, they posit that democratizing the area will sap the power of terrorist groups. Contrary to all reason however, they believe that this process could be done mostly through military intervention without international support. You could argue that their plan of forceful democratization would have worked better had the Bush administration not proven so inept in planning. I doubt neo-con angst would be assuaged by this line of reasoning though. In conclusion, this has nothing to do with David Orlando.
posted by Tommaso Sciortino at 8:50 PM
(0) comments
Sunday, March 21, 2004
“Liberal Disunity”
The post about libertarians got me thinking about party unity. It is a common refrain among liberals that we are never as united as conservatives. For some intrinsic reason, the thinking goes, liberal constituent groups fight each other harder and force Democratic candidates to bend over backwards more to prove their faith. While I agree that liberal voting groups have tended to ask more from their candidates than conservatives, I disagree that this somehow stems from the liberal philosophy. Rather, it has to do with the curse of holding political power.
From 1932 to 1980 the Democrats controlled the Senate for 44 of the 48 years. They’ve held the House of Representatives for at least 60 of the last 70 years. They’ve held the presidency about half the time in the past 50 years. To sum up, the Democrats have been very successful. This has been a blessing for the democratic constituents, and of course, America as a whole, but it left Democrats in the awkward position only making promises they can keep. Republicans on the other hand could point to the democratic controlled congress and promise the moon.
Allow me to demonstrate: Republican candidates were able to promise the evangelicals that they would “support individual teachers’ right to teach creation science” and urge congress to “withhold appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court in such cases involving abortion, religious freedom”; then run across town and promise the federalists that they plan on “gradually phasing out the Social Security tax”; then meet with the libertarians and promise to abolish “the Environmental Protection Agency, the Departments of Energy, Housing and Urban Development, Health and Human Services, Education, Commerce and Labor” and repeal the ‘Sixteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution” (meaning no federal income tax); then meet with the rightwing tin-foil hat anarcho-libertarians and promise to “[return] to the gold standard” and “call on Congress to abolish [the Federal Reserve Board]”.
Certainly, regular Republican’s don’t believe all these things. Surely, I unfairly raided the internet for dichotomous promises made by extremist Republicans, right? Well, in fact all the quotes in the above paragraph come from the same source: the 2000 Texas Republican Party Platform. Every Texan Republican candidate signed it, including Tom Delay: Master of Congress, (I’m not too sure about Bush, but I imagine the 1996 one isn’t much different).
I imagine that a majority of Texan Republicans would disagree with most of the quotes but it probably doesn’t irk them much. They know that when the Republican Party publishes things like “visitation with minor children by [homosexuals] should be limited to supervised periods” they are only saying this to get a few wing-nuts to vote for them. I’m sure every Republican thinks that the “real” views held by the Republican Party leadership are pretty close to their own. For most reasonable people, they could very well be right. But it begs the question: while the Republicans were out of power how could they have been proven wrong? I don’t think the Republican congress going to suddenly move us back to the gold standard, but the mad scramble to replace the votes lost to disenchanted right-wingers may explain the unprecedented amounts of political pork we’ve seen lately.
posted by Tommaso Sciortino at 9:04 AM
(0) comments
Friday, March 19, 2004
Further thoughts on Al-Qaeda
Orlando’s substance free witty retort didn’t really carry the conversation forth as much as I would have liked. Although my effective/stated goal take is pretty standard fair among Democrats the opposing view voiced most loudly by neo-cons is that it is a mistake to think of terrorists as logical in any sense. Reading excerpts from Richard Pearle’s “End to Evil” it is clear that their primary model to avoid is Chamberlain and Hitler. Chamberlain, you may recall, was the English prime minister who thought he could placate Hitler with compromise. Chamberlain thought Hitler’s huff and speeches about racial purification and hyper-nationalism were show intended to get votes or power. He couldn’t bring himself to understand anyone honestly being as loopy as the Third Reich. History showed the only way to defeat such a cockamamie foe was to ignore compromise and employ force of arms. So is the neo con take.
To frame it as I did in my previous post, the neo-cons are saying that the mortal seriousness of Al-Qaeda and such groups are such that no thought at all should be given to their effective goals. We should take their stated goal at their word and bring it on. In one sense this really isn’t too important a distinction. Al-Qaeda is our enemy. No one is seriously suggesting we bargain with Osama. But in other sense it’s central: How can we seriously combat Al-Qaeda when we see fixing the root causes of terrorism as appeasement? And how can we possibly destroy terrorism when we focus our national resources on a non sequitur war which only seems to be helping terror recruitment?*
It’s important to remember that “fighting fire with fire” refers to a useless attack which only makes things worse.
I’ll also note that the effective goal doesn’t even need to be consciously held by a group or party. The effective goal of a free market is to promote companies who sell the best products at the lowest prices, even though this is exactly contrary to consciously held interests of everyone involved. Osama may very well think of the Spanish bombing as a victory. He probably also believes that the dinosaurs were created by Jews to eat Muslims.
If we are to really fight Al-Qaeda, we’ve got to finish the job competently in Iraq. If that means foregoing tax cuts to pay for flak jackets, so be it. We need to have more respect for democratic countries even when they don’t agree with us, and stop throwing in our lot with antidemocratic dictatorships like Kyrgyzstan. We need to get tough with Saudi-Arabia to stop funding fundamentalists, diplomatically bear down on Pakistan, and come up with a plan to enlist Europe to help. Though there will always be stragglers, our country has to lead the world, not take off alone.
*Of course, the only thing we can do about it now is try to make the best of Iraq and fire the idiots that got us into this in the first place. In Spain they did exactly that, but only after it was made clear that the ruling party’s lack of integrity in the war on terrorism was worse than the opposition’s anti-Iraq stance.
posted by Tommaso Sciortino at 9:47 AM
(0) comments
Thursday, March 18, 2004
The trouble with Libertarians*
In my experience, if you ask most college-educated Republicans what their political philosophy is they most likely say they are libertarian. If they are not terribly religious, the chances of them saying this shoots up to about 99%. Libertarians will usually explain that they believe government to be less efficient than competitive free markets and that government should stay out of people’s lives. Further, if you have to have government at all local government beats state government beats federal government. This is all very reasonable and since I agree with both these statements, I guess I should call myself a Libertarian. So why aren’t I a Republican?
It seems to me that the real philosophy underling the Republican strain of libertarianism is the blind belief that markets are always better than government. (To be fair, most run-of-the-mill “Republicans with libertarian tendencies” will make exceptions for things like fire fighters and law enforcement although their libertarian pundits will not.) This is why arguing with Republicans about, for example, universal healthcare is often so frustrating. The driving fact behind liberal support for universal healthcare is that the healthcare markets are so inefficient that even government can do it better. Libertarian Republicans seem to be unable to even ask the question, so presenting them evidence does no good.
(One brutally honest conservative friend of mine once admitted that universal healthcare would be more efficient than the current system, but that the current market could be fixed if we just fixed medical malpractice. I don’t think it’s correct but at least he was willing to look at the evidence.)
Our nation’s two-party political system often makes for strange bedfellows and the line between compromising and selling out is often cut very fine. Libertarians have lately chosen to throw their lot in with the same party as the religious conservatives which, when you reflect on how overregulated 1970’s paleo-Liberalism left America, makes a bit of sense. The religious right was willing to be agnostic on the topic of deregulating things like Social Security and Medicare and the libertarians turned a blind eye to the hard religious right’s fascination with legal moralizing. It is important that we recognize this as a compromise: If you really are a libertarian then you can’t support laws that mandate moral behavior unless such behavior has a specific and detrimental effect on others.
Now, if you are a minority party this kind of big tent coalition can work. Once you get control of congress (and the senate, and the presidency and a better part of the Supreme Court) people start expecting proactive results and this creates conflict. This is why the New-Deal democrats were so remarkable: they maintained cohension for decades after they came to power. A recent facet of this new conflict was on display when the religious right pushed Bush so hard that he had to come out of the closet as being in favor of an anti-Gay-Marriage amendment. Libertarian Republican leaders and pundits who had assumed that they could continue to string the fundamentalists along with promises and dreams were upset. The New York Times didn’t even have a conservative editorialist who could support it.
Although I’m religious and sympathetic with the libertarian respect for working free markets I hope that this becomes a bigger problem for them in the future. There is no virtue when the state mandates personal morals, and there can be no respect for the efficiency of free markets if we fail to recognize and correct inefficient ones.
* This is a really obscure reference to the Hitchcock film “The Trouble with Harry”. In that film the trouble with Harry is that he is dead.
posted by Tommaso Sciortino at 10:46 AM
(0) comments
Wednesday, March 17, 2004
See you in Munich, suckers!
Actually, no, I probably won't see any of you in Munich. Nor are you necessarily a sucker. Just most likely.
Anyhow, from Thursday morning to Monday, March 29, mein Freund (das nudge, das nudge) and I will be taking a holiday in Bavaria mit mein Freunds Freund.
Thusly, Rebecca C. Brown's posting will be nonexistent until then. I promise a substantial numer of pictures when I return. They may or may not involve cheap Bier.
Shall any of my loyal readers request souveniers aus Munchen? I'm already planning to pick up plenty of Hofbrau matchbooks and napkins, and Misha wants some Toblerone. ("But you can get Toblerone in America." "Yeah, but not Munich Toblerone." Fair enough, Misha.)
posted by Rebecca C. Brown at 1:52 PM
(0) comments
Monday, March 15, 2004
Spanish election a mixed victory in the war on terror
Just wanted to give my take on recent elections in Spain where the Pro-Iraq war conservatives lost after being accused of warping intelligence about a horrific bombing for political ends. Specifically, former Prime Minister José María Aznar’s party stood accused of trying to suppress evidence which indicated that Al-Qaeda was responsible for the bombing, instead hoping to pin it on Basque separatists more identified with his opposition.
What is interesting is that though is what it says about the Spanish people’s opinions. Though the Spanish opposed going into Iraq in the first place (they accurately perceived that there was little to gain and much to lose) once we had gone and screwed the place up the Spanish understood that we had to clean up our own mess. We know this because the conservative Popular party (great name) was in the lead until they tried to mislead the public. After the cover up and poorly handled political spin job, the Spanish decided that just about anyone is more fit to lead than those who are going to use terrorism for political gain.
Some conservatives have tried to spin this as a victory for Al-Qaeda. They say that Al-Qeada wanted to the bombs to scare the Spanish into pulling out of Iraq. If you are still stuck thinking of Al-Qaeda as some conventional far off country run by logical people with logical goals, this makes sense. If you see Al-Qeada as a terrorist organization with the loopy goal of starting a war between the Islamic world and the West (like some other terrorist organizations want to start race wars), you understand that what they are really rooting for is the election of the most thoughtless, reactionary, unserious, political opportunists. They’re looking for the kind of people that will ramp up separatist rhetoric and attack countries that have nothing to do with terrorists. If they do so while cutting funding for first responders and port security; Hell, you just hit the jack-pot!
While political opportunism is certainly more loathsome, I hope that Spain’s new government doesn’t pull out of Iraq. If we allow it to descend into anarchy, or whatever Bush can scrap together before the July 1st deadline his campaign mangers set, we can look forward to a greater threat from terrorists than before. We’ve got to do the job right, even if it isn’t politically pleasing or easy.
Update: It looks like the socialist party is already indicating that they could be coerced into keeping their troops there. That was fast.
Update: There's a lot more on this subject circulating on the web. Check it out.
Update: Orlando has a pretty witty rebuttle to the arguments I posed in the comments: In his opinion, I am wrong becuase I don't realize that I am wrong.
posted by Tommaso Sciortino at 1:24 PM
(0) comments
Saturday, March 13, 2004
The oh so conveniently placed slippery slope argument
This post over at The Volokh Conspiracy pretty much demonstrates to me the ease with which otherwise intelligent people can slip up while trying to employ the slippery slope argument. Eugene Volokh indirectly argues that an assault weapons ban may lead to the banning of kitchen knives, sharp sticks, etc. (I overstate for comedy.) But upon closer examination the slippery slope argument as used here, and in general, is surprisingly weak.
The whole crux of the slippery slope argument is that if you believe that a particular weapon should be banned, that the very same logic would lead you to continue expanding the scope of weapons to ban with no logical limit. This is just a kind of reductio ad absurdum. The problem is that to make it, you must understand the logic of those with whom you disagree. Here, Volokh fails miserably as many others do.
The logic of those with whom you disagree is necessarily a foreign country. Slippery slope arguments require that you cast your vision into that land and see that, were you to abandon the current front and accept their logic, no natural arguments would stand between you and silliness. Bad metaphor? Probably. The point is that it’s not enough to take one line of thought for a weapons ban and show that it leads to unworkable calamity. You have to prove it for all lines of thought. Supposedly, there are many logical arguments for an assault weapons ban and unless you are familiar with every single one, a slippery slope argument amounts to nothing. People rarely bother explaining the nuance in their position; pro assault weapon ban people are rarely called upon to defend people’s rights to have swords. For this reason, would-be slippery slope arguers sometimes assume that the opposition doesn’t have any subtlety.
This particular example of slippery slope is especially hilarious because unless Eugene believes that all US citizens should be allowed to have nuclear weapons he has already drawn a rather complicated logical line in the sand. It seems pretty complicated to me since the line lies between assault weapons and WMDs. Maybe that’s why he’s trying to maintain plausible deniability. Since he probably hasn’t actually explained his line of logic I could just as easily apply the slippery slope argument, explaining that if we aren’t allowed to ban assault weapons that we are logically forced to allow private nukes.
I will take this time to explain the nuance in the pro weapons ban position. Since we can’t allow people carte blanche to own any kind of weapon (i.e. nuclear, biological), and we equally well cannot bar all weapons (i.e. sharpened sticks and heavy rocks) we must come up with a admittedly subtle but nevertheless distinguishable criteria for which weapons should be banned and which shouldn’t. There. Did you like that?
posted by Tommaso Sciortino at 12:13 PM
(0) comments
Friday, March 12, 2004
Rebecca [C.] Brown makes the Daily Cal!
Since the Daily Cal website never works, I went to the effort of typing up the Squelch! party's brief mention in said paper this morning. That's how much I care about my readers. I type for them. In case you have the paper in front of you right now, the article is on the top of page 2.
The Squelch! Party unveiled its slate Wednesday night with a line of party veterans and a pledge to remove ASUC from the "collective uterus" of the student body.
"My uterus is already safe and you know, they don't really need to be there," said Rebecca Brown, a candidate for ASUC Executive Vice President.
Squelch!'s lineup includes Dan Freedman for ASUC president, David Duman for external vice president, Rebecca Brown for executive vice president, Matt Holohan for academic affairs vice president and Kevin Deenihan for student advocate.
The party has planned a campaign strategy that includes massaging voters, and tanning and parading on Sproul Plaza in costumes.
Brown said the ASUC can spend its time better by funding publications and student groups. The candidates will use coat hangers to dislodge the student government from the uterus, Brown added.
Another top issue for Squelch! candidates is removing the professor-student dating ban that was instated last year.
"I do have this one professor who is pretty hot," Duman said.
-Kim-Mai Cutler
posted by Rebecca C. Brown at 10:30 AM
(0) comments
Wednesday, March 10, 2004
This Just In!!!!!!
The inside scoop on the Squelch! Party candidates for the ASUC election:
Prsident: Dan Freedman
Academic Affairs VP: Matt Holohan(?)
Executive VP: Rebecca C. Brown
External VP: David Duman
Student Advocate: Kevin Deenihan
Semi-vaible Senators: Ben Narodick, Andy Ratto
posted by Rebecca C. Brown at 12:17 AM
(0) comments
Tuesday, March 09, 2004
Listening to Jesus
I’ll admit it: I went to a catholic elementary school. You know what else? I loved it!
I know it may be hard to believe. Popular culture is stuffed to overflowing with images of bare-knuckled nuns, browbeating pre-teens with rulers. But since Vatican II changed the rules concerning who was allowed to teach in schools (now laypeople can do it) none of my teachers were nuns. Not that I would have minded; everybody loved Sister Jackie.
Some people would also be surprised to learn that we had sex-ed and were told that masturbation was “possibly bad for you, but the evidence says it’s probably ok.” Most importantly, we had a religion class where I received a passable education on the teachings of Jesus. I usually like to keep my religious thoughts private, but in a spiritual landscape increasingly populated with bigots and thinly disguised social Darwinists it’s important to explain what Jesus actually said.
His main message was “Love God above all else” and “Love thy neighbor as they love thyself.” but a lot of what he said can be interpreted different ways. He did take a couple clear stands on issues of the day though. First, he was against divorce. No provisos or exceptions. This much was clear. Second, he was against capital punishment. On seeing a woman about to be stoned, Jesus got up and said “Let him amongst you without sin cast the first stone.” Notice the wording. He didn’t say, “Let the punishment fit the crime. This woman doesn’t deserve this.” He said, “Hey, no one susceptible to sin is qualified to take the life of anyone else. So cut it out!” This is why the Catholic Church is against divorce and capital punishment.
Another important teaching was the need to rethink the old kosher laws mentioned in the Torah (Old Testament). Specifically, Jesus performed miracles on the Sabbath and ate with his apostles off of unclean plates (a rule from Leviticus I happen to agree with). So now you know why Catholics don’t keep kosher, work on the Sabbath, and don’t mind wearing mixed fabrics.
Of course, this brings me to homosexuality. Sandwiched between admonishes to not cross-breed cattle and an advisory against mixing linen and wool you will find a rule forbidding male homosexual acts. Some bigots will give you a line about how Jesus said to rethink “procedural” rules, but not “moral” ones but this is basically a complicated invocation of the Chewbacca defense. Certainly, rules concerning who you can sleep with are just as procedural as ones about who your cow can sleep with. The placement of this rule pretty much closes the case for the rules procedural origins. At the time, the Hebrews were very sensitive to “improper mixing” which is where all the rules in that section come from (along with the no meat and cheese rule).
Bigots don’t want to listen to what Jesus said. They don’t want to argue on moral grounds whether gays should be allowed to do what they do. They don’t want to go through the complex Leviticus legal review process Jesus asked of his followers. They would rather point to a passage and close their minds: exactly what Jesus would have them reject.
Then there’s Sodom. Genesis recounts how some men in Sodom got angry after Lot refused to allow them to know two angels that happened to be staying with him. We can assume that the Sodomites also knew that Lot had spent the day going through town looking for some virtuous people to take with him before his God destroyed the city.
This reference to “know”-ing the angels has been interpreted by some to mean that they wanted to have homosexual sex. I suppose it could be: they don’t seem to be placated when Lot offers up his virgin daughters. Then again, you wouldn’t expect a bunch of cock-blocked gays to break down the door and kill a few unlucky servants. More realistically, we can assume that they were actually a bunch of straight men that were angry at Lot for threatening to blow up their wicked little town. It is clear that the real wickedness of the Sodomites was their failure to head the word of God, and perhaps their mortal intentions on unwary servants and well-hid angels.
So there’s my biblical talking-points. I know liberals hate to argue scripture, but it’s something we have to learn.
posted by Tommaso Sciortino at 7:26 PM
(0) comments
Friday, March 05, 2004
More on free trade
Here’s the latest on the free trade argument started here. The following is a rebuttal to David Orlando’s most recent post. I will rebut his arguments in the numbered order that he presents them:
- Outsourcing means job displacement: Yes! This is true. Also, mechanization means job displacement. Here, let me rephrase what you said so you can see what I am getting at:
When factories move abroad, they take the jobs with them.
Ok, why not
When factories become automated, they take the jobs with them.
You see, if you want to prove that outsourcing destroys jobs absolutely (that is, gets rid of jobs without causing more jobs to be created elsewhere) you can’t just point to the jobs eliminated by outsourcing. You have to explain why automation creates jobs and why outsourcing doesn’t. I can’t think of a reason, but if you can I’d love to hear it. Please try to understand.
The second part of your argument is a little better (but still wrong):
Meanwhile, the money that was formerly spent by outsourcing corporations in the US on wages and facilities is now being spent abroad.
Yes. And one of either two things happens: Either the foreigners spend the money on US goods or they don’t. If they do then even you understand that this is beneficial. If they don’t, the US is basically exporting paper dollars, and importing actual goods and services. This is a good thing because hell, a tiny strip of paper for a bunch of produce is a great trade. Put another way, (in a world without the Federal Reserve Board) this would lead to national deflation: all the money in your pocket is now worth more (products being sold in the US are now competing more vigorously for the fewer dollars left in the US). In the real world the decreased threat of inflation allows Alan Greenspan to adjust interest rates for higher employment. You do understand how the Federal Reserve Board works, right?
- Outsourcing creates dependence: Again, we agree. I will again point out the virtues of making other countries dependent on us. I know that some right wing kooks entertain nightmare scenarios of the Chinese installing backdoors in all that technology we bought from them. Ask yourself this: How much less likely is it that China and the US will go to war ever since China started to liberalize its economy? How big a role did free trade have in that? Another question: how many jobs are you willing to lose because of this fear? 100 thousand? 200 thousand? That’s the choice we face. If you are really afraid of Chinese computer programs, support open source software. I don’t see why you have to drag China’s paper, steel, machine parts and food exports into this.
- Outsourcing stymies innovation: This is a simple point you seem particularly unwilling to understand. Yes, the outsourcing of a particular industry makes innovation in that field less profitable. Why should I care? The point of innovation is the effect it has on the amount and quality of stuff we have. It is not a goal in and of itself. As detailed in 1, outsourcing mimics the good effects for all practical purposes. Keep in mind, the choice isn’t “outsourcing or innovation”. It’s “outsourcing or sinking money into paying scientists to sit around maybe figuring out a way to innovate”. I’d rather have those scientists working on ways to invent processes that can’t already be done cheaper in other countries. You know, genuinely new and unprecedented capabilities allowing us to produce at levels we would not have been possible before under any circumstances, outsourced or otherwise?
You really amaze me with your ability to produce sentences that are exactly wrong. Take this one: “At once, the economy is losing jobs and not developing technology.” No, the economy loses jobs because the Federal Reserve Board overestimates inflation, not because we suddenly have a more efficient way to turn money into goods (or because foreigners are buying more of our products, or because dollars are going up in value). And no, there is no reason to believe that the money that would have been invested in the outsourced field will not be invested elsewhere. Maybe they’ll invest less, maybe more! What we can be sure of is that there is even more money to invest and that cheaper outsourced goods may open up new areas to invest in.
You may be surprised to find out that I myself am working on a product that is only economically possible because a certain type of sensor is being cheaply produced in Australia. If you’d rather keep those sensor jobs in America my business partner and I will happily sell our product in Australia and countries with which it has free trade agreements.
posted by Tommaso Sciortino at 9:55 PM
(0) comments
The Orlando Merry-go-round
Trying to have a reasonable discussion on an emotional subject like free trade is very difficult. I imagine it’s just as difficult as discussing mechanization was two hundred years ago. We now accept that even if a new manufacturing process makes some jobs obsolete, it makes the product cheaper and is a boon to the economy. There was a time however, when many people believed that mechanization would (absolutely) destroy jobs and destroy the livelihoods of those who did not already own the means of production. Those people were lead by Marx and Lenin and for all their emotion and bluster, they and the Luddites are now just regrettable footnotes in history.
With the advent of outsourcing (a new way to make more things with less money) a whole new batch of Luddites and wanna-be-Marxists are being torn from the thigh of Zeus. As you can see from my discussion with Anti-free trade David Orlando, they never let logic get in the way of a good argument.
Try this one out for size: Orlando argues that expensive labor induces companies to invest in R&D, so switching to cheap foreign labor is bad. One wonders why he doesn’t just argue that expensive labor induces companies to invest in R&D, so switching to cheap mechanized production is bad. The arguments are exactly the same. Orlando pretends that if a company’s owner doesn’t invest in its own R&D the money will just disappear. In reality, the original profits (along with the savings from outsourcing) if they were to be invested at all, will be invested in whatever R&D looks most profitable regardless of the situation. Yes, mechanization and outsourcing make products cheaper and investment in that sector less profitable, but this just means the money will be better invested elsewhere. In both cases the economy benefits. There’s more money to invest, and cheaper products to buy.
The second argument he makes is very weak, but at least its logic is internally consistent. He argues that outsourcing decreases national production. The phantom factory mental experiment proves that this is no problem in and of itself so Orlando has to find a reason to worry. He refers to an article that argues that relying on other nations to make our products is dangerous because production in those countries may be disrupted someday.
Again, this outsourcing question can be rephrased as an automation question: What if the factory’s computer program has a bug and production gets halted? If you believe in Capitalism like I do, then you agree that companies are better equipped and have greater stake in correctly calculating a country’s instability then the federal government. Orlando doesn’t trust companies to safeguard their production chains and would rather socialize that decision. Even a big government liberal like me doesn’t like the sound of that.
Interestingly, his argument can easily work the other way: By incidentally helping other countries, we decrease the chance of dangerous interruptions to their politics. Capitalists have a wonderful way of easing a country into a reasonable and safe democracy that doesn’t want war because it’s bad for business. Furthermore, since America will always have a much more varied economy than other countries (just by reason of our diverse environment and large habitable area) we will have more leverage than other countries. An embargo on India would be cheaper and less bloody than ground troops.
The economic growing pains brought by outsourcing, like the difficulties wrought by mechanization, should not be belittled. Outsourcing and automation creates winners and losers and the government should not ignore those who lose their jobs. I believe that programs to support and retrain workers whose jobs have been outsourced or automated is only fair. Perhaps, as John Kerry proposes, such programs could be funded by a small tax the outsourcing companies themselves. What we shouldn’t do is close the door on any way to absolutely increase efficiency. It doesn’t take a genius to see what would have happened to England had the Luddites won out and the industrial revolution taken place somewhere else.
Update: I let the horribly wrong arguments distract me from the one that’s just really wrong. Yes, the difference between the phantom factory and a real one is that the phantom factory shuttles money over to foreigners, but this isn’t a problem if the foreigners spend money on our goods. Free trade is when two countries drop tariffs on each other at the same time after all. So while we outsource some things to India, (and India outsources some things to us) Indians purchase more American products. The reasons why this cancels out is detailed by another great economics thought experiment. I’ll probably have to walk Orlando through it later so stay tuned.
posted by Tommaso Sciortino at 2:18 PM
(0) comments
Wednesday, March 03, 2004
Sweet Danish Jesus!
I've abstained from posting since February 20, partly out of deference to Tommaso's right to not have his posts "stepped on," but mostly because I've been very busy with academics and the Squelch. It's curious that a man who reports to work over 50 hours a week would have so much free time, manifesting itself as lengthy internet political commentary. (It's also curious that a man making as much money at said job as he does would abandon it to invent a product that no one needs. Honestly, Tom....But I chide because I love.)
On that note, I would like to introduce you to The Brick Testament, a vivid collection of all the Bible's greatest hits, illustrated using that remarkable Scandinavian toy the LEGO. I'm especially impressed by the crucifixion.
But did I rudely trump Tommaso's hypothetical free trade scenario just to show you a novelty website? Yeah, mostly. But I also wanted to discuss the nature of justice and punishment. How's that for in over my head?
One of my favorite television shows currently being produced is Cell Dogs on Animal Planet. It's a documentary-type program that shows how "death-row" (mostly misbehaved or abused that would otherwise be euthanized) pups are put into the care prison inmates for 30 days to several months until they can be adopted or used as service dogs. Both sides win: the dog gets a second chance to live in a loving home, and the prisoner is in turn shown love in exchange for his care and responsibility. It's remarkable how these cell dog programs emotionally effect every participant (from the armed robber to the murderer to the drug dealer), how the shell of a big violent man could be cracked by a diminutive terrier, and how the inmates voluntarily undertake so much responsibility in exchange for companionship. Many of the inmates interviewed identify with the dogs, citing that both have made mistakes but are getting another opportunity to engage in a loving relationship.
This brings me to analyze what the point of justice is. Why are people punished? This can either be very theoretical or very concrete.
Concrete:
1. To undue the crime that was originally committed. This is straightforward, and only possible in disputes over money or property or something that can be returned. Prison sentences cannot undue crime.
2. To "give back" to the community what the criminal took. This punishment would be community service or a financial contribution to society; i.e. picking up trash or paying a parking ticket.
3. To prevent that person from repeating the same crime. Putting a murderer in prison prevents him from going out and killing someone else.
Theoretical:
4. To provide an incentive for NOT committing crime. Punishment as a deterrent. If I know I'll get 10 years for armed robbery, I'll think of a better way to get money, like getting a job.
5. To "pay" for your crime. Serving your time or life to intangibly right the wrongs you incurred on others. Killing a murderer because it is "fair" and fits the crime, or putting a tax cheat in prison for five years because she did something wrong and should "pay" for it somehow.
6. To reform. Giving the criminal the opportunity to realize his mistakes and desire to change his ways, whether on his own or with the help of prison staff.
(And of course combinations thereof. Are there more reasons? Please list them as you see fit.)
I can very easily agree with all these descriptions except #5. Assuming that a crime could be rectified by punitive punishment alone is a primitive idea based on the assumption that one person's suffering equates to another's happiness. Putting a rapist in prison in and of itself can never un-do the crime or remove the victim's pain; it can merely prevent the perpetrator from harming another person.
At the risk of sounding condescending, I believe crime and subequent punishment could be thought of in the same terms as discipline between parent and child. If your 8-year-old kid draws a picture of himself on the wall in crayon, you make the brat clean it up (and you give him a solid scolding as to why we don't deface property). Punishment equals crime. If your kid kicks a dog on purpose, you make her sit on his bed for about 15 minutes (though to her it will feel like a lifetime) so she can think about it, then you make her explain to you why kicking animals is wrong. Punishment, in some intangible way, equals crime. No where in child-rearing is there a need to hit or smack or otherwise physically intimidate your kid. All it teaches them is that using violence and power is an appropriate step towards getting your way.
Obviously drawing on the wall is not the same as molesting your nephew or whatever. I guess the point I'm circuitously attempting to make is that there is no identifyable reason to imprison a criminal except for reasons #1-4 and #6. I'll be able to debate this more eloquently when I'm not running late for work.
posted by Rebecca C. Brown at 10:53 AM
(0) comments
Tuesday, March 02, 2004
A question for David Orland and the RIL Boys on Free Trade
Imagine that a company invents a secret new manufacturing process for tires. It allows the company to make the same number of tires as before but with far fewer people manning the machine. Everyone praises the company for their marvelous invention and for the slightly lower prices they pay for tires. Sure, it’s sad that some people have lost their jobs but no one seriously suggests that we bury the manufacturing plans and go back to the old way.
Now, let’s further imagine that the company’s secret is revealed: the factory is really just a tunnel to a foreign country where a conventional factory has been built and staffed by low-wage foreigners. Suddenly, there’s a public uproar. Why? What is the difference between a new manufacturing process and outsourcing?
To restate: Although they are obviously different processes, in what way is the effect of outsourcing on American jobs different from effect of new technology?
posted by Tommaso Sciortino at 6:00 PM
(0) comments
The “littlest groom” reality show, genetic engineering, and homosexuality
Being stuck in Oregon with little to do and no cable gives you a lot of time to watch horrible Fox reality shows. Most recently I watched “The Littlest Groom,” a show that pairs one dwarf bachelor with several women; some short, some regular sized. The show presents an honest moral question because all things considered, I think it’s fair to say that it’s better to be a big person than a little person. Assuming that the big women weren’t all jerks and that the little women weren’t outstandingly desirable you’d imagine that the big ones would be preferable mates. Choosing a big woman on the other hand, seems like selling out. I was able to resolve this by observing that it’s desirable to have a mate that understands you and is of approximately the same level of desirability.
The show did get me thinking. If you have a genetic irregularity, one which clearly impacts your fitness, isn’t it ok to admit that it would be better not to have it? Specifically, if you are a dwarf, shouldn’t it be ok to admit that you’d rather your unborn child be a big person? And now for the money shot: If you are gay, shouldn’t it be ok to admit that you’d rather not be gay but you are, so get used to it? (note: for my socially conservative readers, I will be assuming that homosexuality is a genetic or formative trait, not a choice)
This should not be taken to justify putting down gays. Even though asthmatics don’t breath in the best way we still encourage them to do so, often. By the same token gays should be allowed to form relationships, marry, and raise children same as anyone else. But we must admit that gays are at a natural disadvantage as being homosexual means that physical procreation with someone you love is not possible. Even if science advances to the point where a child can be made from two eggs or two sperm such a process would be costly and distinctly not preferable to the cheap old fashioned way. So in my opinion, it’s the same choice as genetically modifying a child that would otherwise be born infertile.
Watch closely, I am not basing this opinion on the fact that gays are discriminated against. A Black or Roma would be rightly castigated for genetically modifying their child to look white. Furthermore, if someone did have a trait that made them more fit than the rest of the population, it probably wouldn’t make her many friends. This choice has to be based on actual physical ramifications, not on social whim.
This brings up some issues: Yes, gays have some distinct disadvantages, but seeing how homosexuality seems to pop up everywhere in nature, couldn’t it be that it is somehow advantageous to have them? It is conceivable that homosexuality serves some kind of service as population control or to provide spiritual leaders (where do you think we get all those priests?). Certainly, it would be nice to explain why a trait that would seem so uniquely detrimental to passing on one’s genes seems to occur so often.
It could turn out that asthmatics can breathe underwater or that they are immune to a horrible disease or something. And similarly, we could find out that without gays and lesbians modern society doesn’t function. It’s possible. That’s why though I think it is best that your kid is actually straight, I think the choice should be reserved for the parents only. If I knew my unborn child was going to be born gay, and had I the technology to change that (without otherwise impacting its health or emotional wellbeing) I would do so.
posted by Tommaso Sciortino at 8:00 AM
(0) comments
Monday, March 01, 2004
When is civil disobedience not disobedience?
If asked, the civil rights protesters of the 60’s would probably have conceded that they were breaking US law by (say) sitting at a whites-only lunch counter. The California gay marriage advocates, lead by SF Mayor Gavin Newsom on the other hand, have a reasonably solid case that the law they are flouting is unconstitutional (with respect to the California state constitution). Are they any different, or is a false distinction being made?
If you believe that the California proposition defining marriage as between a man and a woman is constitutional the answer is clear: Newsom is breaking the law and is therefore wrong. On the other hand, if you believe that the proposition is unconstitutional (as does Gavin) is it still wrong to flout it? I think most liberals would probably say yes. I disagree.
The question comes in two parts: Is it legal to flout the law and is it right? As for whether it is the right thing to do, it depends on how urgent you think gay marriage is. I don’t think anybody believes that the freedom riders who helped the civil rights movement were in the wrong, but you must certainly draw the line somewhere. In this case, that question must be answered by each person individually. As for myself, I think it was a brilliant political strategy for bringing the issue to the fore.
Legally, if the prop is found to be unconstitutional then Gavin Newsom gets out scot-free; no sanction is placed on him by the courts or any legal body. This leads us to the de-facto answer: If you accept that the proposition is unconstitutional, then Gavin is accused and stands trial, but is never actually found guilty of anything. To me, that means he didn’t do anything illegal in the first place.
This may not sit well with many people. If you have authoritarian impulses like me, you’ll instantly imagine horrible scenes of armed mayors roaming the streets, legalizing and illegalizing things at will. “Surely” we think, “it must be better or more legal to enforce the proposition and have the court to tell us it is unconstitutional”. Yet believing this leads us to contradiction: If Newsom is sued in his capacity as mayor by a gay man, found guilty and ordered to issue gay marriage licenses, Newsom is "better or more legal"; if Newsom is sued by the state, and found not guilty and allowed to keep on doing what he’s doing, Newsom is acting less legally. This seems so silly as to be wrong on its face.
In a metaphysical sense, it might be nice to believe that Newsom committed a crime, but by the magic of the California Supreme Court an enchanted spell can be cast back through time making Newsom’s actions legal, ex post facto. This is not very satisfying because one would imagine that if the court finds that a law is unconstitutional, that it was really unconstitutional the whole time. It’s not like their logic worked on Tuesday when they made the ruling but not the Monday before. I like to think that judges don’t make laws unconstitutional, they find laws unconstitutional. I like to think that judges don’t “make” the law anything: They just explain it.
Laws have to be interpreted by mayors and executives all the time. Every new law has to be interpreted by mayor’ without any input from the judiciary. When a constitutional amendment is passed, many laws that are clearly unconstitutional stop getting enforced because prosecutions are sure to fail. Interpreting happens all the time. I guess the only way to find out if an interpretation is legal or not, is to take it to court.
Update: It seems that the proposition is in fact a constitutional amendment, therefore the argument here does not apply. It argument is still sound assuming the prop is a law.
Note: There seems to be trouble with the comments section. click "edit entries" for a shot at reading them
posted by Tommaso Sciortino at 7:43 AM
(0) comments
|
