Funeral Protesters

The following article discusses the funeral protester First Amendment case that the Supreme Court is considering:

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-court-funerals-20101007,0,7401118.story

I have a bad feeling that we are about to see an application of the legal maxim "Tough Cases Make Bad Law."

Sorry for the delay, back to "Elitists"

I kind of lost my train of thought there, but my point is that, like "socialist", "Keynesian", or "liberal", "elitist" is applied to people in a derisive way.  However, if you stop and think about what the term really means (in a non-extreme sense), it probably describes most people in most situations.  Imagine that one of your family members is sick- would you take a poll of 100 people off the street and follow the advice of the majority?  Or would you try to track down the most qualified doctor in the area (or maybe outside of it) and do what she suggests?

Maybe it makes me a horrible person, but I think that complex issues (for example, state-wide or national policy) are beyond the grasp of a lot of people.  I don't know about you, but I'm offended by the ads I see on TV now.  It frustrates me to know that some dipshit can be sitting around watching "The Vampire Diaries", hear some unsupported stat that "Electing Harry Reid for another term will mean that your children will have over $40k more in debt" (or that person could be walking around the Pinoy Festival, like I was last weekend, and hear the same thing from a volunteer), and decide that he will vote for whoever isn't Harry Reid.  *Please note that I don't think that Sharron Angle saying that "it's not my responsibility to create jobs" is conclusive proof that a person shouldn't vote for her either, the attack on Harry Reid just sprung to my mind first.

Anyway, that's a meandering point, but I was trying to get to this:  if someone is going to be influenced by an ad like that, his vote should be worth less than someone who has an understanding of how various policies are likely to play out.  I understand that having that point of view makes me an elitist- Frankly, I think that if you don't think that way, you're retarded.  (and yes, I understand that thinking this way means that the dumb would be underrepresented in the polls, and there's a danger that their interests won't be adequately represented.  My response to that is "it's better than the dumb being overrepresented".)

Finally, back to your initial point, as to why the liberal elites (or elitists) insist on making fun of TEA Partiers.  My guess is, like w/ Fox News, it's out of frustration more than anything, and it will be ineffective.  In their eyes, TEA Partiers are a bunch of people who are treating a very broad issue (the general welfare of the country) in an absurdly narrow sense (we want to pay less in taxes).  In most cases (one of our esteemed colleagues is an example of the absurd version of this), these people take one mostly (but not universally) correct assumption (that the invisible hand will yield an optimal result) and have made that the end of the analysis:

1.  If everyone acts in a self-interested way, then everything will turn out for the best.
2.  I want to pay less in taxes-  I don't mind contributing to the military or the police, but I'll be damned if I'm going to pay a cent for "x", because I personally won't ever benefit from "x".

As I have run into, trying to have a discussion with this person can get outrageously frustrating.  Trying to have a discussion about whether educating a potential criminal might lead to less crime (and lead to less money being spent on police officers and jails), or something more subtle than that (like trying to quantify any other utility from such a policy decision, such as increased enjoyment that person might get from his life if he makes something of himself) goes nowhere- instead you keep coming back to the major principal that "if you keep taking from the rich, they'll leave the country" or "keep your hands off my money".

Elitists

Tony,
I think you're right about one thing- I suppose I am an elitist.  Having said that, based on my understanding of the term, I think one would have to be retarded not to be.  According to Wikipedia, elitists believe that there is a group of people who "are those whose views on a matter are to be taken the most seriously or carry the most weight", based on some particular characteristic, such as intelligence, training, etc.


Do you really believe that on all matters all people's opinions should be equal?  Do you believe that someone w/ an IQ of 160 who has 5 degrees from Ivy League schools and who started his own fortune 500 company shouldn't be listened to more carefully than Joe the Plumber?  An elitist would listen to the first guy.


Maybe feeling like this means that some other horrible label should apply to me (shoot, I guess I'm already a "elitist socialist keynesian", but I believe that certain people are intrinsically better leaders than others.  Baby is crying, more later.

No Fat Chicks

Tony,

Your last question is ridiculous.  If someone wants to be an NFL lineman, he needs to be way stronger than the average American.  If he wants to be a kicker, he needs to be able to kick the ball better than the average American.  If he wants to be a running back.... (I think you get the picture).

If someone wants to be president, she should be way smarter than the average American.  Sarah Palin is arguably dumber than the average American; that is why she is mocked.

Thoughts on Tax Cuts

Tony, the question you ask assumes that there's only on thing that can happen when you mess around with taxes.  The point I constantly try to make is that there are different effects.  Before, we spoke about whether someone would decide to work more or less when he was taxed more (someone who's not necessarily a business owner).  My point then was that there's an income effect (he wants to make his car payment, so he'll actually work more if he's taxed more), and there's a substitution effect (which pushes him to work less, if he's taking home less each hour, then leisure gets "cheaper").

In this particular case, focusing only on businesses, we're both now on the other side of the argument.  Before, you were arguing that the hourly worker would work less when he was taking home less money per hour.  Now, you're arguing that a business owner will work more (by firing the help) when he's confronted with taking home less per hour.  As before, I don't think that the business owner's actions are that easy to predict.

There are a couple of fairly strong forces at play.  First off, I don't think you can ignore the fact that a salary is something that's not taxed on the business' end.  If the tax on the business, or the business owner, is higher relative to the tax on what the worker takes home, keeping workers on starts to make more sense.  Think about it- if you have some menial task, like cleaning, and assume that the business owner is as good as the professional cleaner (unlikely), he can either pay $50 to the cleaner (who will keep, say, $40 after taxes) to do the job, or he can do it himself, pay tax on that $50 and keep $25 for himself.  Also, if you're talking about businesses that produce things (like Pepsi making cans of soda), you can usually put together some equation where an employee can produce x cans per hour.  Pepsi should hire employees as long as they're producing cans of soda that are worth more than their hourly wage.  Since the business doesn't pay tax on the money that is paid to the workers, a change in the tax rate won't change the optimal number of workers.  I think that's a hugely important point that gets glossed over all the time.

Let me go off on a bit more of a tangent here:  businesses are always (theoretically at least) making profit-maximizing decisions.  A restaurant doesn't charge $15 (instead of, say, $20) for a steak because it's being nice, it charges $15 b/c it thinks that particular price will yield the most profit (after considering the cost of buying the meat, paying employees, etc., and estimating the number of customers that it will have if the steak is set at $10, $15, or $20).  It frustrates me when people say that businesses can no longer "afford" to sell tacos for $.50, or whatever else.  If they were doing it before, it was either calculated to help the business or the decision makers are retards (and actually breaking the law if there are shareholders).

Finally, I will concede that higher taxes can slow investment.  I don't think that it (higher taxes) makes it more likely that a business will fail, but investors are essential bettors- if there's more taxes that's like a bigger house cut on the bet, so the sharper ones will be less likely to invest.

RE: Bush Tax Cuts

Let us assume that you are correct about the choice that the business owner will make. Doesn't this make you doubt the efficacy of trickle down economics for improving the condition of non-business owning, working-class Americans? Assuming that the business owner is already operating with employees that he can live without, would providing him with additional tax breaks cause him to hire new employees? Perhaps the business owner will just use the extra money to pay off his yacht.

An Email from a Friend

My buddy Justin responded to my Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell post in an email (he did not include the typos in his email. The formatting changed when I copied the email into FoxTrott):

“While I appreciate the point you are trying to make, there is a fundamentalflaw with your logic in Scenario 2. Unless I am missing something, you seemto posit that a male Soldier who declares his sexual preference for boysseven years of age is not homosexually oriented. I submit to you insteadthat the Soldier in question is actually both a pedophile and a homosexuallyoriented individual, and, therefore, is also subject to discharge under theCongressional "Policy Concerning Homosexuality in the Armed Forces," ascodified in 10 USC 654, like the Soldier in Scenario 1.I believe that your point would be better served by substituting "boys" with"girls" in Scenario 2 (assuming we are still talking about a male Soldier),but this entire hypothetical still fails in practical application. Thecommander in Scenario 2 would likely refer the Soldier for a mental healthevaluation immediately given the fact that the Soldier has confessed aproclivity towards underage children. The Soldier's assurance that he wouldnever act on that proclivity is irrelevant because of the career-endingcatastrophe (and potential criminal culpability/civil liability) that wouldbefall our hapless commander should the Soldier be unable to control himselfat some point in the future. Assuming the Soldier was truthful in his claimand his paraphilia was confirmed upon a medical examination (regardless ofhis intent to act upon it), he would be designated as administratively unfitfor service and separated under the applicable service regulation. See,e.g., Army Regulation 40-501 (Standards of Medical Fitness), para. 3-35(a);Army Regulation 635-200 (Active Duty Enlisted Separations), para. 5-17. Inthe end, the pedophiliac Soldier is administratively discharged just likethe homosexually oriented Soldier.My comments here are limited only to the two scenarios laid out above andare not intended to address the substance/policy of 10 USC 654 or any of itsimplementing regulations.”

The point of my Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell post was to show the absurdity of that policy by establishing that bad soldiers get to stay in the army as homosexuals are automatically discharged merely for being homosexuals. Thus, I responded to Justin with several theoretical soldiers that I thought the military would not discharge despite a poor character trait. For example, I asked whether the military would discharge a soldier that merely expressed an abstract desire to have sex with his mother. Additionally, I asked whether the military would discharge a racist white soldier in a unit made up of African Americans. Finally, I asked whether the military would discharge a soldier who told the men in his unit that he wanted to sleep with their wives. Justin had a response for every example. In each case, the military could discharge the soldier.

I knew that the military was tough. However, I did not know that the military had so many ways to discharge soldiers. There is likely no soldier of whom I could conceive that the military could not discharge under the right factual scenario.

The problem is the level of discretion that the military has to punish non-homosexual soldiers. I gave Justin the example of a male soldier in a unit in which a majority of the men are married. Suppose that this soldier tells the men in his unit that he has a fetish for married women. The soldier has seen the wives of the married men. The soldier tells those men that he wants to have sex with their wives. The married men believe the soldier and want to kick his ass. However, all the men know with 100% certainty that the soldier will never actually have sex with their wives, flirt with their wives, etc. The married men merely know that the soldier has a strong sexual desire for their wives.

Justin posited two ways in which the military could discharge this soldier:
1) Under Art. 134 (10 USC 934) (stating that “Though not specifically mentioned in this chapter [10 USCS §§ 801 et seq.], all disorders and neglects to the prejudice of good order and discipline in the armed forces, all conduct of a nature to bring discredit upon the armed forces, and crimes and offenses not capital, of which persons subject to this chapter [10 USCS §§ 801 et seq.] may be guilty, shall be taken cognizance of by a general, special, or summary court-martial, according to the nature and degree of the offense, and shall be punished at the discretion of that court.” (emphasis added)).
2) Under Army Regulation 635-200, para. 5-17(a)(9) (Active Duty Enlisted Separations), para 5-17 (stating that “Commanders specified in paragraph 1–19 may approve separation under this paragraph on the basis of other physical or mental conditions not amounting to disability (AR 635–40) and excluding conditions appropriate for separation processing under paragraph 5–11 or 5–13 that potentially interfere with assignment to or performance of duty. Such conditions may include, but are not limited to—…Other disorders manifesting disturbances of perception, thinking, emotional control or behavior sufficiently severe that the Soldier’s ability to effectively perform military duties is significantly impaired. Soldiers with 24 months or more of active duty service may be separated under this paragraph based on a diagnosis of personality disorder.” (emphasis added)).

Both of the above authorities permit, but do not require, the discharge of a soldier. However, Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell requires the discharge of a soldier who has indicated that he is gay. See 10 USC 654(b)(2) (declaring that “A member of the armed forces shall be separated from the armed forces under regulations prescribed by the Secretary of Defense if one or more of the following findings is made and approved in accordance with procedures set forth in such regulations:… That the member has stated that he or she is a homosexual or bisexual, or words to that effect.” (emphasis added). In fact, as written, Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell has only two exceptions:
1) No discharge if “the member has demonstrated that he or she is not a person who engages in, attempts to engage in, has a propensity to engage in, or intends to engage in homosexual acts.” Id.
2) No discharge if “the member engaged in [homosexual] conduct or made statements [indicating homosexuality] for the purpose of avoiding or terminating military service…and…separation of the member would not be in the best interest of the armed forces.”

Thus, under Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell, the military must discharge a soldier that lets another soldier know that he is gay so long as the former soldier does nothing to prove that he is straight or that he only said that he was gay to get out of the military. On the other hand, the military can, but need not, discharge a soldier who tells the other men in his unit that he wants to have porno sex with their wives. I think that we can all agree that it would not be unreasonable to argue that the latter statement would have a greater negative effect on unit “morale, good order and discipline, and unit cohesion” than the former. Why then the varying levels of discretion? If what we really care about is “morale, good order and discipline, and unit cohesion,” See 10 USC 654(6), shouldn’t we at least give the military the discretion to decide whether an individual soldier’s homosexuality actually hurts his unit’s morale, etc.?

JAC: The military already has rules against flirting and having sex with other soldiers (male or female). These rules should alleviate most of your concerns. I merely wish to point out the absurdity of discharging soldiers based solely on the sexual preference that they manifest.

Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell

I wish that everyone in the world got along. Instead of burning Qurans and American Flags, perhaps we could build utopian societies. Instead of increasing defense budgets, maybe we could increase our aid to developing nations.

However, I recognize the difficulty of achieving world peace. To survive in the world as it is (rather than in a world imagined by John Lennon) the USA needs a strong military.
Despite my appreciation of this fact, there are few scenarios that would inspire me to join the military. I’m not the only one. Thus, I have great respect for anyone who voluntarily chooses to join the military.

Given the need for soldiers, I find it difficult to understand why some people in this country still support Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell. I will not get into the constitutionality of that policy. It is sufficient to say that a California federal court ruled this week that Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell violates the Constitution. Instead, I want to focus on the absurdity of the policy.

Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell requires the military to discharge soldiers who indicate that they are homosexuals. See 10 USC 654(b)(2). For purposes of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell, a soldier is a homosexual if he has a “propensity to engage in” homosexual acts. See id. at (f)(1). Thus, a soldier would be discharged in the following scenario:

Scenario 1:
Soldier X is a homosexual male. You are Soldier X’s commanding officer. Soldier X informs you that if he was going to have sex, he would want to have sex with other males. However, Soldier X further tells you that he has never had and will never have homosexual sex. Additionally, Soldier X tells you that he only wishes to let the other soldiers in his unit know that he prefers sex with males to sex with females. Other than this, Soldier X will do nothing that calls attention to his sexual orientation. Assume that you believe everything Soldier X tells you.

Soldier X must be discharged under Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell because he has indicated that he has a propensity to engage in homosexual acts.

However, consider the following scenario:

Scenario 2:
Soldier Y is a male with an inclination to have sex with seven year old boys (TO CLARRIFY: the boys he wants to sleep with are all seven years old; Soldier Y does not fantasize about sleeping with seven one year old boys). You are Soldier Y’s commanding officer. Soldier Y informs you that if he was going to have sex, he would want to have sex with seven year old boys. However, Soldier Y further tells you that he has never had and will never have sex with a sever year old boy. Additionally, Soldier Y tells you that he only wishes to let the other soldiers in his unit know that he has a propensity to having sex with seven year old boys. Other than this, Soldier Y will do nothing that calls attention to his sexual orientation. Assume that you believe everything Soldier Y tells you.

Nothing in Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell requires you to discharge Soldier Y. However, what is the difference between gay Soldier X and pedophile Soldier Y such that the military must discharge X but not Y?

Your Answer is Too Simple

Tony,

I did answer that allowing the tax cuts to continue could potentially hurt the economy, for the exact same reason that spending a bunch of money might.  Now, whether the negative of increasing debt is outweighed by any sort of action taken by people (or corporations) keeping more money is a difficult question.  There's uncertainty, and I think that intelligent people could fall on either side.  Limiting it to "short term" doesn't make it (the tax cuts) any more clearly positive, because the strongest positive of a tax cut is more investment in business, which arguably won't necessarily happen immediately.  As we discussed before, I believe that a rational corporation will hire approximately the same number of employees regardless of the tax rate.*

Then, your next question "then why not continue them?" basically removes any sort of "short term" modifier that you wanted in the first place.  The argument against keeping them is that it amounts to increased debt, and that the money might be better "spent" elsewhere.

Which gets us to the next question- how does taxing/printing money help the economy?
It helps the economy in that it goes straight to the demand curve.  Basically, the more stuff that is produced and sold, the better off our economy is.  The choice is between having more cash in consumer's hands to buy Coca-Cola, or allowing Coke to keep more from every can sold.  My argument is (and always has been) that most of the people arguing we will all be better off if Coke keeps more from every can of Coke sold are either highly educated and happen to own shares of Coke, or not particularly qualified to speak on the issue.

Then, the question about whether the stimulus should have had a bunch of tax cuts- it's the same question, but framed a different way.  Again, I don't know the answer, but it's definitely not obviously "yes".

Finally, regarding "deregulation", that seems like a totally separate issue.  You might argue that with more regulation in the first place, the stimulus would have been unnecessary.  Not sure what it's worth, but I think you'd be echoing Alan Greenspan if you took that position.

In summary- I don't really know anything.  I do know that some of the conclusions I've heard are wrong, or at least not clearly right.  And, I really object to labels- (not saying you're guilty of this), but we wrote briefly about the mosque.  A bunch have people have made up their minds knowing nothing more than the religion of the people behind it, without understanding the religion.  In this particular issue, like two years ago w/ "socialists", Murdoch has spent the past year introducing "Keynesian" as a term to describe a bunch of people as outcasts lacking in common economic sense.



*You might argue that having more employees is a riskier position, and with taxes diminishing the maximum "reward" for a successful corporation, that the companies will hire fewer workers.  But, if you take the approach that dollar amounts are known (it costs x/hr. for an employee to make y widgets, and the price is z), then the optimal number of employees will be the same at any tax rate.

Did you read the article?

Tony,

I have a few things to say in response to your recent posts.  First is that "Keynesian" has become the new "socialist", in that it's thrown around in a semi-descriptive half-truth sort of way; I would lay 5-1 that the majority of people using it couldn't even define it.

A basic principle of Keynesian economics is that the invisible hand doesn't always work exactly right (that a bunch of self-interested actors, left to their own devices, won't necessarily lead us to an optimal position).  Sometimes, it's necessary for the government to step in and guide the economy, whether it's spending in one place, taxing in another, or cutting taxes someplace else.  My reading of her conclusion wasn't that we need to adopt a Reagan-esque (the myth, not the man- he actually spent a buttload of money) tax-cutting and spending-slashing policy- it was basically a "deficit be damned we need to do everything we can to breathe life into the economy now; cut taxes and spend".

I don't disagree that that might be a good short-term strategy, but it's obviously not sustainable in the long run.

The second thing I want to say is, even if Keynesians believed that it is important to steal from the rich and give to the poor, and assuming that Ms. Romer changed her beliefs, why is that like a smoking gun?  Just like the Muslims with no knowledge of what might go into the "Ground Zero Mosque (Eff you Jesus, America, and football)"  (which I think is the new official name for the thing) shouldn't be able to speak on behalf of the Muslims who want to build the thing, I don't think that her words should carry any more weight when she falls on the other side of an issue than they have for the past couple years.

Finally, to get back to the question that you asked a week ago, whether it could possibly be good for the economy to let some tax cuts expire, the short answer is yes.  The argument is:
(1) tax cuts will lead to less tax revenue (a position that's generally difficult, but not impossible, to argue with)
(2) all else being equal, less revenue will mean less of a surplus or a larger deficit (impossible to argue with- depending on a person's intellectual honesty, he might succumb to the temptation to throw "you liberals could just spend less" in there, but that would be ignoring the "all else being equal" part.  If you allow finger-pointing, then it gets very difficult to make subtle points)
(3) a larger deficit (or less of a surplus) makes it harder for the country to borrow money, it also means that there is less faith in the dollar, which will make it weaker relative to other currencies.  (tough to argue w/ this)
(4) if the dollar seems to be weakening, people w/ capital and the ability to invest elsewhere will, which will slow down the economy.

Basically, if you believe that a deficit is bad for the economy, then you have to be at least partly behind the idea that a tax cut could be bad for the economy.  If you don't believe that a deficit is bad for the economy, then you're probably not one of the people complaining about out of control spending.

At Work; more later

I don't have time to give you a fully thought out response, but saying "only spending expands the deficit" is retarded, at best.  Imagine that you got fired from your job and the money stopped coming in; your wife continued to write checks to the grocery store and for your electricity.  Are you broke b/c she wrote those checks, or because you got fired?

Opposite Day- Supply Side Economics

The strongest argument for supply-side economics is it minimizes governmental interference, which is inefficient.  It keeps incentives in tact, which will theoretically do the maximum to encourage productive behavior.  If the potential reward for becoming CEO of a major corporation or for starting your own successful business is $100 million instead of a paltry $60 million, then more people will try to be successful in the business world.  Also, if businesses keep a larger percentage of their profits, there will be more of an incentive to invest (the risk of failure will be about the same, but the reward for "winning" will  be much higher).  With more investment in business and more businesses, you have more jobs, and with more jobs, you have more money for the unwashed masses.

The Ground Zero Mosque

I want to get up on my soapbox and speak briefly about the whole "ground zero mosque" controversy.  In my opinion, this is everything that's wrong with our dysfunctional mess of hyper-politicized news, including the fact that the news stations prey on people who are unwilling to even consider subtlety.

Let me start by saying I totally understand the initial reaction that the mosque being placed there is in poor taste.  The headline itself, "Ground Zero Mosque" is a funny mix of words that pulls out the xenophobia in me; I'd imagine it does the same thing to others, as well.  However, although the headline is true, it's my understanding that it's not exactly accurate.

First of all, according to a member of the forums at Slickdeals (I know, not exactly like citing case law), the area in question used to be a Burlington Coat Factory.  It's two blocks from "ground zero", but the site of the WTC is, apparently, huge.  According to this user, a two block radius from the WTC is a few square miles in NY- which has an incredibly dense population.  The proposed mosque will not be some substantial shrine to the terrorists- it will be one of a bunch of buildings, dwarfed by others up to 10 times as tall.

Further, the mosque itself sounds more like a YMCA than anything else- it apparently will have a swimming pool, a gymnasium, some shops, and other stuff.  Also, to contrast with the church nearby that the government is "not rebuilding", the investors here are paying for the whole thing and aren't breaking any zoning laws.  (the other church was apparently offered $60 million to rebuild and turned that offer down)

In my opinion, assuming all of this is true, the reality of the situation (nondescript building, one among many others in the area) is far different from a temple being constructed on the rubble of the WTC (the image I get when I read "Ground Zero Mosque").  With that in mind, I want to take a look at some of the other stuff being said.

First, there's the "admission" by some Muslims that this is a shrine to the terrorists.  Those Muslims aren't part of the committee behind this, so their thoughts are only speculation.  I don't like that the fact that someone is Muslim means that person can speak to the intent of every other Muslim out there.  I'll address this more later (when I talk about the initial terrorists themselves), but I know that I don't want a lazy white male Christian speaking on behalf of all other lazy white male Christians.  I don't think that a bunch of white business owners would be too happy about me admitting, on their behalf, that our country is racist and intentionally holds minorities down.  The fact that my skin is the same color doesn't give me some magical ability to read their minds.

Next, I want to talk about the freedoms we enjoy as a country.  I still don't know all of the amendments, but I'm pretty sure that the government isn't allowed to discriminate based on religion.  That means that you can't forbid Jews from building a temple someplace where you would allow Christians (or something very close to that).  Here, the problem isn't that there's going to be a place of worship in the area- the problem is that there's going to be a Muslim place of worship.

So, the question becomes- do we punish an entire group of people based solely on the acts of a few radicals who happen to practice the same religion?  The answer is obvious.  I know that this is a low blow, but we don't prevent Catholic churches from existing within a few blocks of schools, even though a few rogue priests were perverts.  I don't see a meaningful distinction here.

As a matter of fact, this situation isn't totally unprecedented.  Pearl Harbor was horrible- we had a lot of righteous angry energy, and we decided (in the name of anger and paranoia) to take it out on an entire group of people, most of whom had absolutely nothing to do with Pearl Harbor itself.  That reaction is something that I, as an American who wasn't even alive at the time, am ashamed of today.

I think that, if we figure out some way to prevent the mosque from being built, we will someday realize that we maximized our losses following September 11th.  In addition to the actual lives lost that day, we have already given up our time (see airport security), our common sense (again, see airport security), and a large chunk of our optimism.  If those who oppose this mosque emerge victorious, we will have also given away our principles and have exposed our national hypocrisy.  We will have treated a group of people worse than another, at the whim of the majority.  In less than a century, we've moved from throwing people in internment camps to integrating schools, to electing a black president.  I don't want to take a big step backwards.

On that note, I also want to complain briefly about the common thinking that president Obama "backpedaled" with his statements.  He first said that it would be legal for the mosque to be built (or something like that).  He then said that it's legal for the mosque to be built, but that he's not going to comment on whether or not it is poor taste.  Those two positions are hardly contradictory.  The man was a constitutional law professor- surely we can forgive him for basing his initial answer on a legal analysis of the merits of the situation, rather than how it will play among a bunch of brainwashed zombies who won't read past the headline.  Saying that something is legal is far from endorsing it.

Reply to JAC's Reply Re: Reid

Thank you for the clarification! I think I have a better idea of what your first argument was about. You were answering Harry Reid’s question, “Why would any person of Hispanic heritage want to be a Republican?” To answer that question, all you have to do is show why any one person of Hispanic heritage might want to be a Republican.

To accomplish this, you employ an argument that utilizes the following syllogism:
1) American citizens of Mexican (I know that you also discussed Hispanics and Latinos generally. However, I find it easier to focus on one country) heritage love their country.

2) The country of Mexican Americans’ is America.

3) The Republican Party is the party of American Nationalism.

4) American Nationalism is loyalty and devotion to America; especially : a sense of national consciousness exalting America above all other nations and placing primary emphasis on promotion of its culture and interests as opposed to those of other nations or supranational groups.

5) American citizens who love America will want to join the political party that is the party of American Nationalism (You never discuss this premise. However, there is no way that your conclusion can follow from your premises without it).

Therefore,
Conclusion: An American citizen of Mexican heritage will want to be a Republican.

Please let me know if this incorrectly states your argument.

The above argument is not sound. Thus, it fails to establish that any American citizen of Mexican heritage will want to be a Republican. Admittedly, a Mexican American citizen may wish to join the Republican Party (Harry Reid would not dispute this). However, that citizen will not join the Republican Party because of the logic of the argument set out above. Thus, the argument above does not answer Reid’s question.
The argument falls apart at necessary premise 5 (though, 1-3 are just as shaky). Love of country is not the same as nationalism (you admit this in your reply when you point out my equivocation between patriotism and nationalism). I can love America without exalting it above all other nations (for example, I can love America but still think that Mexico is better than America). Thus, just because I love America does not mean that I will join the party of American Nationalism. We can both agree that there are many non-Republicans who love America. These citizens have not selected the party of American Nationalism (I still find it incredible that you believe that the Republicans are THE party of American Nationalism. I can understand an argument that Republicans and Tea Partiers are the most nationalistic (thought I think even this is arguable). However, your argument that Republicans are nationalistic and non-Republicans are non-nationalistic makes little sense to me).
Because premise 5 fails, your argument fails. The fact that Mexican American citizens love America does not necessarily lead to the conclusion that even one Mexican American citizen will want to join the political party that exalts America above all other nations.That conclusion might follow if the Republican Party was the party of American Nationalism and every other party hated America. In that case, Mexican American citizens might choose the Republican Party by default. However, every major party loves America. Thus, premises 1-4 lead to the conclusion that a Mexican American citizen will choose one of the major parties. Premises 1-4 do not lead to the conclusion that a Mexican American citizen will choose the Republican Party.

Requiem for Civility

Some things never change. I do not wish to engage in a weeks-long battle of wits (which, based on prior experience, I know would happen), so I will simply say that this will be my final post on the subject of civility.

Perhaps the best example of that which I think we should aspire to is the relationship between President Ronald Reagan (Conservative) and Speaker of the House Tip O'Neill (Liberal). These two men led our country, one as President, one as Speaker, from polar opposite sides of the ideological spectrum. They continually fought with ferocity for the policies they believed in, however, they (usually) avoided making it personal. The running joke was that "before 6p.m. it's all politics; after 6p.m. we're friends."

The bottom line is this: The free and open exchange of ideas is not analogous to a math problem. While there are many strongly held positions, when it comes to ideas, there usually is no absolute truth. The point is to encourage people to read, to think, and to inform themselves such that they become more engaged in what's going around them. Petty invective and personal attacks do nothing of the sort.

Reply to Dear Mr. Harry Reid

The whole topic of Democrats soliciting the Hispanic/Latino vote by siding with immigrants is fascinating from a historical perspective. As I understand it, Democrats have traditionally been more opposed to immigration than Republicans. This springs from the Democratic Party’s traditional alliance with the American worker and the Republican Party’s traditional alliance with the American factory owner.
Traditionally, working class Americans opposed immigration because they feared that factory owners might elect to hire immigrants in lieu of hiring American workers. The American worker must have understood that the highest goal of the factory owner in a free market system is to maximize revenue while decreasing costs. Poor, hungry immigrants work for lower wages than well-fed American workers. Even if immigrants refuse to work for less than their American comrades, the increase in the supply of workers will likely mean that the factory owner can decrease wages (if a worker refuses to work for less than $2 per day, fire him and see if one of the 500 starving, unemployed workers will work for less than $2 per day). Thus, an increase in immigrants would help the factory owner (by decreasing costs) while hurting the American worker (by eliminating job opportunities and decreasing wages).
Consequently, American workers were traditionally against immigration. Factory owners were traditionally for immigration.

All of this is sort of irrelevant. My reason for replying to JAC’s post is to attack the reasons he gives for why the Republican Party is a better party for Hispanics and Latinos than the Democratic Party. However, I think the history discussed above is interesting because although Democrats continue to claim that they represent the interests of labor and Republicans continue to claim that they represent the interests of business, the parties appear to have exchanged their views on immigration. Now, Democrats appear to be more pro-immigration than Republicans.
I can’t explain this shift. Perhaps the Democrats wish to attract more undecided voters. Perhaps someone explained to the Democrats that outside the context of immigration reform, it sounds a little racist to say “Get those DAMN Mexicans out of my country!” I don’t care about explaining the shift. I just want to comment on JAC’s arguments:

1) hispanics/latinos/certainly mexican-americans love their country. the republican party is the party of of american nationalism and the party that believes in american exceptionalism; there are no intelligent liberals who would disagree.
Paraphrased, this argument states: “Because Hispanics and Latinos love THEIR countries, Hispanics and Latinos will want to join the political party that loves AMERICA the most.” An example will illustrate the weakness of this argument. Suppose that Roberto is a young Mexican man who really loves Mexico. He loves Mexican culture, Mexican politics, and Mexican sports. Roberto loves Mexico so much that he thinks that every other country sucks when compared to Mexico.
However, because Roberto cannot find a job in Mexico, Roberto goes to America to find work. According to the above argument, Roberto should join the Republican party when he gets to America because Republicans love America in the same way that Roberto loves Mexico.
Of course this does not follow. Unless we know more about Roberto, we cannot conclude from the fact that Roberto loves Mexico that he will want to join the American party that loves America the most. All we can be sure of is that one of three scenarios will occur:

1) Roberto will get to America and continue to think Mexico is the greatest country on earth (better even than America). In this case, he won’t care about joining the pro-American Republican Party unless it is also the most pro-Mexican party.

2) Roberto will get to America, forget his love of Mexico, but won’t gain a love of America (why should the fact that he loved Mexico guarantee that he will love America? I love filet mignon a ton. However, that does not mean that if I begin to eat only processed cheese products, I will love those products just as much as I loved filet mignon). In this case, he won’t care about joining the pro-American Republican Party unless other attributes of the Republican Party interest him.

3) Roberto will get to America, forget his love of Mexico, and fall in love with America to the same extent that he loved Mexico. In this case, he will clearly want to join the pro-American Republican Party.

Thus, JAC’s argument falls apart if either of the first two scenarios occurs. I will now address the third scenario by attacking JAC’s argument that the Republican Party is the pro-American party.
At the outset, what does it mean to say that the Republican Party is the Party of American Nationalism and the party that believes in American Exceptionalism? Does that mean, by negative implication, that Democrats are the anti-American party?
Of course, this cannot be what JAC means. I have never heard any Democratic politician state that America is lame. Maybe JAC can point me to an official publication in which the Democratic Party states anti-Americanism is central to its platform. It seems to me that just as many Democratic politicians speak about America’s greatness as their Republican counterparts.
Thus, JAC must mean that Democrats are less patriotic than Republicans. How can one quantify love of America? I know many non-Republicans who wave their American flags as proudly as their Republican brothers. I watched non-Republicans tear up with pride when America overcame its history of racial division to elect an African American president. If we cannot say that the Republican Party is the most patriotic party, how else can we say that it is the most pro-American?
What I mean to show by all of this is that even if Roberto wants to join the most pro-American party, there is no guarantee that he will join the Republican Party. Instead, he may determine that all of the parties love America and want America to be great. Thus, he will have to use other criteria to determine which party to join.

2) to steal the point from mark rubio, they (especially 1st generation) desire social/economic mobility. the american free enterprise economic/legal model provides that like no other country, something children of immigrants have impressed upon them. the republican party is the party of free enterprise and free market, verdad?
We could spend weeks arguing about whether the free market system is the best method for ensuring social and economic mobility for immigrants and their families. However, even if we assume that it is, all this argument shows is that immigrants should not join the Communist Party.
Let’s assume that in addition to the Republican and Communist parties, another party exists. I will use the Democratic Party as an example. As far as I can tell, the Democratic Party is not anti-capitalism (unless you mean that pushing any economic regulation is inherently anti-capitalism. If this is your standard, the Republican Party is anti-capitalism). The Democratic Party may view economic regulations more favorably than the Republican Party. However, both parties agree that private industry should drive our economy.
Given that neither party is vehemently opposed to the free-market system, which party should the immigrant interested in social and economic mobility choose? Should he choose the party that wants to ensure that he is paid decent wages and works in sanitary conditions? Alternatively, should he choose the party that wants to permit the immigrant’s employer to pay the immigrant as little as that employer chooses while permitting that employer to provide the immigrant with whatever working conditions that employer chooses?
Of course, the immigrant interested in social and economic mobility should choose the former party. Because the Democratic Party looks upon economic regulations more favorably than the Republican Party, perhaps the Republican Party is not the best choice for the immigrant. Nevertheless, the immigrant may find it economically advantageous to reconsider his political affiliation once he becomes an employer himself!

3) and my ire here is directed less at dirty harry as it is at the national/republican apparatus - they are socially conservative people, and the closer they are to their country of origin, the more conservative. the fact that a majority of them are not republicans is a testament to the political idiocy of the republican party, an idiocy which will not likely last past this election cycle.
Assuming that you are right about immigrants being more conservative, it is strange that Republicans have not done a better job trying to attract immigrants. If Republicans want to attract more immigrant voters, maybe Republicans should not back legislation that appears, at least when discussed on CNN, to be anti-immigrant.
Or Republicans can just get Sarah Palin to run for the White House in 2012. If she does not secure immigrant voters, I don't know what will!

Wow! This post was way too long. Feel free to attack it in bits and pieces.

Quick Reply x4

I'm not sure if this is the correct term, but I think you've established a false dichotomy.  I'll answer your questions but I want you to answer mine afterwards.

1.  Yes, nuclear family is an essential part of western civilization.
2.  Yes, preserve western civilization.
3.  I don't know, but no reason to disagree, so yes.

Now your turn:

1.  Is the hot dog an essential component of Costco's food court?
2.  Was Costco's food court awesome in 1995?
3.  Aren't chicken bakes, churros, and smoothies also awesome?


MINIMAL COMMENTARY FOLLOWS:

Maybe I messed up the point there, but you can see what I'm going for.  There are studies (I'm using plural- I know for a fact that at least one exists) that show that kids raised by gay couples do at least as well as the average kid from a heterosexual mother.  Obviously, there are all sorts of issues with the study (by definition, you would have two parents instead of one, the child was obviously planned for, it doesn't compare the homosexual kids to kids adopted by heterosexual families, etc.), but the fact is that homosexual couples can basically do everything that heterosexual couples can, except for have kids and not gross a certain segment of society out.

If we were in a situation where we suffered from severe underpopulation, or if we were even trending that way, I'd see the argument that we should do everything to discourage homosexuality as being stronger.

Porn > Free Speech

Some of you have heard about the new Google-Verizon deal. I must admit that I don’t really understand the deal. Advocates of net neutrality argue that the deal will harm free speech and innovation. Apparently, the deal will permit companies like Google and Verizon to grant preferential treatment to certain websites (at least on wireless networks). Thus, Google will get to decide whether that unofficial Jonas Brothers website that you want to visit just to see what the kids are into these days (and not because you think that if you really squint, the lead singer kind of looks like that stripper that was super into you in Las Vegas last year) loads as fast as other websites or loads at all. The fear is that Google, an entity that exists to maximize profits, will make this decision based on the amount of money that websites pay Google. If you want a more complete discussion of the evils of the deal check out this article:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/craig-aaron/google-verizon-pact-it-ge_b_676194.html?ref=fb&src=sp

You can insert your own example of how this deal might harm free speech and innovation. More selfish and prurient reasons motivate my apprehension. Will the deal mean that I have to wait twenty minutes for naughtyruthyginsbergXXX.com (I hope that this is not an actual website) to load because that website could not afford to pay for Google’s top speed? Will Google decide that secretantoninscaliasextape.net is too offensive for anyone to view (let’s hope that it does)?

The internet has revolutionized the way that we consume pornography. There was a time when you had to make eye contact with real people before you could watch videos of two or more individuals having sex. Who can forget the embarrassment of exiting the Adults Only section of his video rental establishment at 10 AM on a Sunday morning with an armful of smut only to discover a line of families staring back with disgust? Was I the only one who got to the front of the line only to have the cashier yell across the crowded store “Billy, do we have another copy of ‘Oil Soaked Cheerleaders’ in the back”? Those were dark days, friends.

Today we can enjoy pornography in the warm safety of online anonymity. If I get the sudden urge to check out whether middle-aged Pakistani flight attendants need a spanking, the only eyes I have to look into our my own. Call me an ideologue if you must, but I don’t want to give that up. The Google and Verizon deal may provide some benefits. However, until those companies can assure us of porn neutrality, it won't be a happy ending for me.

Reply to The Warning

If two people come to two different conclusions about the same thing, there must be a reason.  If you're talking about a math problem, it's easy to retrace steps and find where the two people diverged, and it's clear which one of them was wrong.  For example, take 7 + 3 x 10.  If someone says that the answer is 100, you can tell that she added the 7 to the 3 before multiplying, and that was a mistake.  There's even a correct way to describe each step.  When you multiply 3 and 10, you're finding the product.  when you add 30 to 7, you're finding the sum.

With the topics that we've been touching on so far, it's way more difficult to figure out where the thought processes diverge, but they obviously do.  An event happens, and for whatever reason, person A chooses to view it through the filter A (Fox News), person B chooses to view it through filter B (say, CNN).  Once the facts that either filter chooses to relay make it to person A and B's brain, they both process the facts and make their decision based on their own set of values.  There's also other sorts of noise that may influence things.  If person A or person B hears person C's opinion on the matter, they might be inclined to agree or disagree based on the level of respect they have for person C.

Anyway, the point of all of this is, at every step, person A and person B are making a decision.  Person A chooses Fox News because he thinks it's better than CNN.  Implicit in that decision is a relative lack of respect for CNN.  When the facts are being pondered, a person's values dictate what is and is not important.  In forming our opinions, we are acting as judges, and our verdicts are the sum of multiple smaller judgments.  For example, a person might say that it's more important for gay people to be able to say that they're married than it is to protect the definition of marriage.  In doing so, it's hard to believe that someone can come to the opposite conclusion without "missing" something.

Now, the methods we might use to convey this sentiment vary, but the feeling is universal.  Someone might excessively use quotation marks as a relatively subtle way to challenge the legitimacy of something, someone else might choose a more blunt method.  Is there a difference between:  "How's your 'son'?" and flat out saying "I think your wife cheated on you?"  Maybe, but not a significant one.

Thus far, with this blog, my posts have been fairly blunt.  I haven't gone out of my way to offend anyone, but I also haven't gone out of my way to soften anything up.  I know that there's not always an exactly right answer, but if we can get back to the math problem example, we're making different choices from the get go.  One of us is adding 7 to 3, the other is multiplying 3 by 10.  I think that this blog has a chance to be interesting if we can avoid the superficial "agreeing to disagree" and start talking about and maybe even attacking thought processes and values.

I would love for all of us to say "This is how I see it and this is how I got there.  You're wrong because of X".  Then the next person responds by saying "my thoughts on X are right because of Y", and so on down the train.  X and Y could be anything, and defending the branches we thought as we came to our conclusions, I think, will be more interesting than parroting someone else's thoughts.  One side-effect of this process is that the questioning might eventually rub an open nerve.  (I also think it might be interesting to periodically explore why the nerve itself is open)

Anyway, I would love for you to continue to contribute to this blog, but if you expect your values to be characterized as fundamental truths that are out of bounds, then it's not going to work.  You haven't talked about prop 8 yet, but expect me to ask you where the definition of marriage that you advocate comes from, and whether or not that's something that should be separate from the state.  Likewise, I expect you to challenge me: If I have a problem with single-issue voters, how come I don't have a problem w/ "Rock the Vote"?  

Anyway, moving forward, I really do want to get try and have deeper discussions even at the expense of brushing open nerves.  However we do it, though, let's just be honest.  If you think I've been brainwashed, say it.  Let's not say "Good sir, I do believe that your "daughter's" BMI is a tad high", and then act like we didn't just call someone's wife a slut and daughter fat.

Respect: A Warning

On the surface, the idea of starting a blog with four people of varying perspectives sounded like an interesting idea. Four men. Four lawyers. Four friends, devoted to a respectful yet impassioned debate, chronicling the political, social, and economic issues of the day. It sounded like a good idea.

What was I thinking?

These are tumultuous times. Such as they are, it was my fervent hope that we had moved beyond the petty squabbles, and that we might engage in a serious debate. However, it was no sooner than the inaugural post that we had devolved into the all-too-familiar scenario whereby motives are questioned, and sincerity is called into doubt, simply because of a different point of view.

Whether it be by insulting and demeaning those with whom one disagrees, by attacking the sincerity of those who are concerned about the size and scope of government, by mocking those who are consumers of commentary (of any stripe), or by attacking a religion that from art, to science, to education, to medicine, was in large part responsible for shaping what we now know as "Western Civilization," let this serve as a warning. It is unbecoming of a serious person, not to mention a forum that prides itself on welcoming divergent points of view, and I will have no part in it.

Just in case that isn't clear enough, let me try it one more time. If we cannot restrain ourselves from engaging in a childish display of rhetorical chess, I will gladly quit this forum. I work far too hard to justify spending the time banging my head into the wall.

Reply to the Reply

First, I want to address the assertion that the question is really about the definition of marriage, like it's a pop-quiz or something.  Sure, it's possible that the average person might say that a marriage is when a man and a woman put rings on each others' fingers and decide not to see other people.  That's one definition, but it's superficial and it shouldn't be the end of the discussion.  That would be like saying that poker is about having a better hand than everyone else.

You can put together another 4 paragraph semantic argument, and talk about something being "indirect", but we both know that prop 8 was aimed right at homosexuals.  The result of it passing wasn't something obscure, like a dog not being able to marry a cat- the result was that a man could no longer marry a man.  The assertion that it's just a proposition aimed at (re-re)defining marriage that might indirectly impact homosexuals, if that's the assertion you're making, is a lie.

Second, I want to talk about this idea that there's a bunch of social engineering (policy) behind not letting dudes marry dudes; that the government doesn't need to incentivize marriage for gays because there won't be any kids, or that the government shouldn't incentivize it because then everyone would be gay and the human race would die out.  On the surface, that seems to make sense, but I want you to tell me three things that gay people don't have access to through civil unions or something that is available to married people.  I'll bet you can't do it. If there aren't any conventional social engineering carrots to be gained by allowing "marriage" to apply to the gays, then (1) that argument doesn't hold water, and (2) it starts to really like prop 8 exists solely to strip status from homosexuals.

Thirdly, let's look at the problems with society and/or marriage that don't seem big enough to fire people up.  Some large percentage (again, too lazy to look this up) of marriages between men and women end up in divorce, even with young kids involved.... Men cheat on their wives all the time; the opposite is also true.  Last week, 1saleaday had a gold-plated ring on sale for $3 (+5 shipping).  I was only half-joking when I offered to buy them for a bunch of guys coming out for a bachelor party next weekend because it would help pick up chicks.  I could go on; I just find it ridiculous that marriage has just kind of existed for the last however many years- it's been made fun of by every single sitcom ever- even your post had the classic "be careful what you wish for" sentiment, men have been beating their wives and cheating on them, women have been doing the same, there are websites devoted to matching up married men w/ married women.  All of this happens and people shrug their shoulders.  But if gay people want to get married, that gets everyone out to the polls- suddenly, marriage is something sacred that must be protected.

Finally, I want to talk about the assertion that it's lazy to dismiss a person's vote because he's dumb, or has different motives.  My question is, simply, "why?"  A frequent rallying cry on fox news is this idea that a president can retain power by establishing a welfare state.  If you're harming a few and helping the masses, the theory goes, the masses will never vote against you, and the poor doctors and lawyers and small business owners simply won't be able to protect themselves. Compare that to this situation.  If it's a problem that someone's going to try to retain power by pandering to the unwashed masses through handouts, is that somehow worse/different than pandering to the bigots to get something bigoted to pass?  I can't see where you can draw a distinction that doesn't make the second example worse.  At least, theoretically, you might be helping the poor through some form of wealth transfer.

Very interesting Madden article

And now for something lighter- ESPN has a very cool article on the history of Madden football.  It seems like this happens every year about now (the game comes out on Tuesday), but this is probably the most interesting one I've seen.

A few interesting tidbits:

• Trip Hawkins (the man basically behind Madden Football) originally wanted to feature Joe Montana, but he was unavailable.
• The first Genesis version (which was a big hit) was done by a different couple developers, who decided to take the game in a different direction.
• John Madden turned down the opportunity to buy stock in EA at the price of $7.50 in 1989.  The price right now is only $17, but I'm sure it has doubled and redoubled since then.
• And the most interesting tidbit- Electronic Arts actually developed the Joe Montana football title for the Genesis, that was branded Sega.  I have no idea why Sega would pay them to do it- of course they neutered their own game.

Also, not sure how much longer this will last, but if you're interested in picking the game up, Amazon has a $20 credit if you preorder.  Not sure how much longer you can preorder- but $20 back is pretty good.

It's been a few days

I was planning on giving me cowriters a chance to chime in with something, but they've said nothing the past few days, so here I am again.  I'm going to try and keep this brief, but I did want to at least address Prop 8.  There are two points that I'd like to make:  First, I think it's ridiculous that it even existed in the first place.  There might be some legal merit to the pro-prop 8ers argument, but morally, I think that it just falls apart.  Second, I want to complain briefly about our legal system; about the fact that something as serious as this can be gamed, and that the pro-gay side seems to have a flawed gameplan.

Ok, first with prop 8 itself.  It seems like there are a few different kinds of people who were arguing for prop 8.  The easiest to dismiss were the flat out bigots.  People who don't like gays and would do anything to marginalize them.  I know that the constitution would frown upon this, but I think that those people should be marginalized; at the very least, we should take their right to vote away.  It frustrates me so much that you can have an intelligent person sit down, weigh the pros and cons of something, and cast a vote, and then Cletus Van Damme can come in right behind him and cancel him out.  I don't have a great solution for this, but it still pisses me off.  If you just threw the flat-out bigots out of the voting, prop 8 would have lost at first anyway.

There are a couple other subsets of people who seem to vote against it.  Rather than listing every group, though, I want to focus on the only one that I think makes sense: the people who are afraid that gay marriage will make gayness more acceptable- that it will somehow lead to more people being gay.  In a perfect world, I would require a person who was going to vote that way to confess to something along the lines of "if it weren't for peer pressure, I would be a homo myself".  If they say something like "that's ridiculous", then my response would be "you're a liar".  Either you're lying about your own repressed homosexuality, or you're lying about your reason for voting, and you belong in line w/ Cletus.

Also, the arguments that are made are just so offensive- The "slippery slope" argument, that allowing gay marriage is only one step away from promoting pedophilia or bestiality.  That's just flat-out ridiculous (and I know a thing or two about ridiculous arguments, I once wrote a paper advocating the removal of the soft-serve machines from my college cafeteria b/c the "freshman 15" were costing the young ladies attending school there thousands of dollars in future earnings.)  Anyway, the reason that I say these arguments are ridiculous is there's no relation between homosexuality and pedophilia or beastophilia.  If anything, there's a closer link between catholocism and pedophilia :p  I know that's a low-blow, but I can't help but put myself in the shoes of some gay person; it would enrage me to be compared to someone who likes to get boned by horses or bone little kids.

On to the legal system itself.  Like everything else, I don't have a solution, but it sucks that now this case is going to be escalated (eventually to the supreme court), and instead of there being seven independent legal scholars up there, we have seven people who were hand-picked by someone who, by definition, is wrapped up in the ridiculousness that is politics.  I know that some justices have changed their perspectives since getting to the court, but some certainly haven't (and I'm not just complaining about the conservative justices).  In this case, it appears as though there is plenty of law on either side of the debate for an intelligent person to make a sound legal argument.  That means that the supreme court isn't compelled to rule one way or another, so they're going to be going based on their own personal beliefs.  There will be a majority, and there will a dissenting opinion.  I just hope that Scalia and Thomas are joining or writing the dissent, not the decision.

Finally, to the game itself.  If you win, you obviously can't appeal a case (there are probably some exceptions, but I was absent the day they taught the law in law school).  So, until the gays attacked prop 8 (and won), there was no way for a higher court to make a ruling.  There's probably something compelling them to attack sooner, rather than later (something like the statute of limitations), but with a Democrat in the White House, I think they should have waited.  All of the judges are old dudes and ladies.  Any one of them could have a heart attack at any time, not to mention the fact that they could die in a car accident, plane wreck, home invasion, any way that the average person might die.  From an "advancing your own agenda" point of view, the fact that there's a Democrat president means that any judge dying isn't a bad thing.  If it's someone who leans left, his replacement will be the same.  If he leans right, his replacement will vote the other way.  It seems like, as of now, the court leans a little bit right.  If I were trying to maximize the chance that prop-8 remained dead, I would have waited until the last possible second to get things rolling.

Also- this seemed topical.  The book "The Nine" talks an awful lot about the extraordinarily political nature of the supreme court.  I read it a while back, but I've lost my copy.  If you're pressed for something to read, it's worth the $11 that amazon is charging.

The assailant responds

I was going to try and head to bed a little early tonight, but after being accused of assailing both traditional values and economic policy, I felt compelled to respond.  (I would like to note that I, too, work full time)  Actually, I first felt compelled to look up the word "assailed" and confirm that it's some derivative of "assault".  Then I felt compelled to respond.

Let me begin (continue?) by saying that I generally try to avoid assailing anything.  I have no problem with traditional values- the first post in question had more to do with brainwashing than anything else (to catch up, the post in question is here).  If a person believes that students should be responsible at an early age, great.  My issue was that the questionnaire went so much further than that.  I doubt that a person who fell anyplace left of "far right" on the political spectrum (yes, including someone who happened to lie in the center) and answered the questionnaire honestly would be able to get a job at the school.  If every single person in a position of authority is far-right, then how are students supposed to have an intelligent discussion or develop their own opinions?

More interesting, though, is the assertion that things are rarely as simple as they seem on the surface.  I couldn't agree with that more.  Even if none of you fools who happen to read this ever click on a damn ad, I will consider this blog a success if we can at least stimulate a deeper level of thinking and dialog.

The trouble is, I don't really know how to do that.  The trouble with trying to have a discussion about politics is that it's so damn hard to know what is accurate, and what isn't.  I know this has gotten cliche (shoot, even Starcraft II makes fun of it), but Fox News' level of bias is roughly equivalent to that of a beat sports writer.  Excuse the contrived example, but imagine that the grim reaper showed up at your house and offered to spare your life if you could choose the story with less spin- then he handed you a printout from raiders.com and a printout from Foxnews.com (or any of Murdoch's other properties, including the WSJ).  I might eventually choose the Fox article, but the fact that a person would have to actually look at the article and think about it hopefully illustrates my point.*

*In all fairness, I don't really watch any other news stations, and I only watch Fox when my father-in-law is over.  It's entirely possible that I'm a hippie who is less sensitive to liberal propaganda, and they're all equally guilty of this.  Actually, it's likely.

The reason for that rant wasn't to just complain about cable news, it was to illustrate how hard it can be to figure out what the truth is.  With football, at least, the Raiders are 5 weeks away from watching Chris Johnson run through their improved defense for 300+ yards, and we can start to really appraise their playoff hopes.  When they're mathematically eliminated in week 13, we can look back at the stuff posted on raiders.com this summer and know what was totally inaccurate.  On the other hand, with Obama, there never will be a stat sheet.  Even if Obamacare eventually materializes and it's the key to utopia, Fox will run a story on how little progress the pharmaceutical companies have made in the past few years because their incentives have been destroyed.

Frankly, I don't know if we can have a deeper discussion, because I don't know how practical getting to that point might be.  I do know what we shouldn't do: we shouldn't link articles to make our arguments for us.  I think we should realize that the news stations exist not because they're doing the work of god, but for some other reason.  If the person pulling the strings is motivated by profit, then there's always going to be that incentive to run stories that his audience wants to hear.  Therefore, I guess that the first step in having a deeper discussion would be to unplug from the cable news.  If we want to debate something, the easy way out is to click over to our propaganda machine of choice and print out an article written by someone who decided to whore out his intellect and/or reputation in his old age.  I think the better debate, though, comes from taking 5 or 6 steps back and figuring out what, exactly Keynesian means or what the Laffer Curve is, rather than saying that the Laffer Curve predicts X.  If we understand things on that level, we can intelligently talk about whether a tax cut for the rich might actually yield more tax revenue.

Maybe it's not practical to have that level of discussion on this blog; that doesn't mean that it wouldn't be awesome.

The Danger of Populism

Seeing as I work full time, I really do not have time to adequately contribute to this forum. However, after two posts within five days assailing topics ranging from traditional values, to economic policy and tax reform (common theme: populism), I felt compelled to pick up the virtual pen.

Populism is not so much an ideology as it is a tactic, wherein the interests of "common people" (the populace) are contrasted with those of the supposed "elite" in the context of (1) painting a picture of society's alleged problems, and /or (2) proposing various political, social and /or economic solutions. What makes it interesting is that it is not limited strictly to the left or the right. What makes it dangerous is that it is more often than not divorced from a considered approach toward solving anything.

On the left, the recent debate over nationalized health care ("Obamacare") provides a great example. Literally for the past century, the great "progressive" dream has been to socialize medicine, thereby enacting "universal" coverage whereby every American might, in theory, have access to low/no-cost health care. And so it was, literally from the moment he took office, President Obama (along with the Democrat controlled Congress) set out to make that great promise a reality, preaching the virtues of "expanded coverage" and "lower costs." However, simple questions [such as "How do you increase coverage (40 million "uninsured") and lower costs without either (1) increasing the number of doctors or (2) rationing treatment?"] went unanswered.

On the right, the debate over "term limits" for representatives at all levels of government provides another great example. Due to the inherently conservative principle of limited government, those on the right (more often than those on the left) often find themselves exasperated at the seeming incompetence / lethargy / corruption of their representatives. This often leads to calls for term limits. A great idea in theory? Surely. "Citizen legislators," they say. "The way it should be," they proclaim. However, legitimate questions [such as "What about the invaluable experience Senator X gains from his years engaged in the legislative process?" and "What if (insert legislative body) has no problem doing the people's business in its current configuration?"] remain unanswered. See the San Diego County Board of Supervisors for an ongoing battle over term limits. See the California Legislature for an example of how term limits have failed.

The bottom line is that most issues are rarely as simple as they seem on the surface, and without a mature discussion on the merits, bad things happen. Reasonable people can - and should - disagree, but rash decisions based on anger and /or emotion are how bad policy is made.

The real danger of the TEA Parties

So this evening my wife was going through the mail and she got a note from the county assessor back in CA.  Our condo's assessed value continues to drop (yay!), but what spurred this entry was the fact that the note mentioned the Prop-13 value of the home.  To make a long story short, Prop 13 pisses me off, and it reminds me why a person might want to be cautious before jumping on the TEA Party bandwagon.

In case you're not familiar, proposition 13 dates back to about 1980, and basically limits the amount by which the assessed value of home may increase every year.  It starts with the value of the home when you buy it, and the rate of increase is something like 2%.  (I could probably look that up, but this is my blog, so I'm just going to wing it)  On its face, that doesn't seem bad or good- it's only when you look at the application of the rule that you can see where a problem might arise.

On a very basic level, it limits a revenue stream for the state.  Some people might see that as good (what the state doesn't have it can't waste).  I don't agree with that, but I don't see it as particularly nefarious.

Where it starts to piss me off is when you consider how the rule might play out.  First of all, look at who it actually helps- it helps someone who has owned his house for long enough that the assessors' opinion of its worth is something greater than the original value plus 2% per year.  Who doesn't it help?  People who are renting, people who have recently purchased a new home, and people whose homes have dropped in value to something below what they paid for them.  So, if you just finished school and are just starting out in the working world, it's not working for you.  Just retired and want to downsize?  Not working for you.  Do you have a mansion in Bel Aire that has been in the family for decades?  You win!  Your property tax bill is half what it might otherwise be.

If that weren't bad enough, what really pisses me off is the fact that it was sold as a way to help old people on fixed incomes from losing their homes due to rapidly escalating property taxes.  That's an appealing story, but it ignores reality.  If the house has increased in value so much that taxes have doubled, the old people living there could always sell the house and have a nice chunk of money.  What's more, I would bet that most old people who live on fixed incomes would fall into the group that downsized after the kids moved out, or who rent.  Those people aren't helped at all by this.  As a matter of fact, if you consider that tax money is used in a way that theoretically helps everyone, everyone who isn't helped by Prop 13 is, in fact, hurt by it.  Whether it's because more of the tax burden is shifted to these people to compensate for the money saved by the mansion-squatters, or due to the fact that there's less money to go around to fix roads or fund schools, your neighbor saving tax money doesn't help you.

What's insulting about the whole thing is the fact that this likely only really benefits a few rich, powerful, and intelligent people.  CA is in the middle of a budget crisis, but because the people who gain the most from it are opinion-makers (or at least know someone who knows someone), any mention of this in the mainstream or fringe news channels will describe it as the "third rail" and note that prop 13 is untouchable.  Sure, Arnold can lay off thousands of workers or drop their pay to minimum wage, but it would be political suicide to allow some hypothetical grandma's property tax bill to increase by more than 2%

You might be wondering how this ties back into TEA Parties.  It ties in because this is the type of thing that gets passed when there are a few very intelligent puppet masters and a lot of emotional puppets.  People are mad because the country isn't perfect, and they think that it's the government's fault.  I wouldn't be surprised to see the TEA Party movement get behind a bill that "limits the size of government" but also happens to hugely favor the financially elite, and disfavor the hard-working masses who can't see the forest for the trees.

Making bets with friends without losing the bet or your friends

To make a long story short, I'm now fat and to try and motivate myself to get in shape, I'm about to start a bet with a few coworkers regarding who can lose the greatest percentage of their own bodyfat over a 3 month period.

Instead of going over my plan to lose the weight or trying to sell you something from Amazon (I did buy the calipers linked below, though- so if you want to play along at home, feel free to click through the link and spend the $6), I want to lay out four rules I've picked up, either in law school or in real life, that are instrumental in helping make bets with friends without losing anything (the bet or your friends). 

Rule 1:  Get everything in writing

Let's face it.  Bets sometimes (most of the time) are made in haste.  If your body has more testosterone than estrogen, you probably don't like someone putting forth an idea or dismissing one of yours without offering some hard evidence.  One type of exchange that frequently leads to a bet is this:

Person A:  I just ran a mile in 8 minutes- I'm exhausted.

Person B:  That's not hard at all, I could do that.

Person A:  I'll bet you $50 you can't do it.

Person B:  Alright, let's do it.

At this point, B doesn't know if A is serious or not, and A doesn't really know if B has accepted.  If one of them gets out a piece of paper, though, and starts ironing out terms, the other would definitely know that $50 is going to be changing hands in the near future.

Rule 2:  Make sure that the terms of the bet are clear

In contract law, there's something (theory maybe?) called "mutual mistake".  A good way to piss off your friends and lose money is to enter a bet without knowing exactly how one establishes he has won, and exactly what's at stake.  

To illustrate how easy it is to be in this universe without knowing it, I want to take a look at a bet we just made in the office.  One of my coworkers claimed that he would eat a ghost pepper.  We got the whole thing in writing, but one word was left a little vague.  Basically, there was a prize for him winning ($85 plus I would stop drinking the iced teas from our office fridge for a month, and restock the fridge for everyone else), and a penalty if he doesn't try ($50 chipotle gift card), and if he tries and fails, the whole thing is a wash.  The vague part of this agreement is the "tries" part:  Is it enough to lick the thing?  Can he take a small bite and give up?  Small bite and throw up?  Sit down at the table, smell it, and pass out?  Since there's no way that my coworker is winning this bet (he can't even eat jalepeno poppers w/ seeds), the crucial point is going to be determining if he actually owes the $50, or if it's a wash.

Late last week, we ended up agreeing that "try" is defined as getting at least a dime-sized piece of the pepper at least as far as his esophagus.  We're now good to go, but if we hadn't defined that before he actually sat down next to the pepper, this could have been a very frustrating situation.

Rule 3:  Don't make a (name redacted) bet

In the office, we have a recently coined phrase called a (name redacted) bet.  That's because of this particular coworker, who has a habit of making bets with little-to-no upside.  It sounds great to be on the other side of this bet (free money), but the trouble is, this type of bet is a close relative of the "illusory promise" you might be familiar with from contract law.  I have no idea about the legality of the situation, but the fact is, it's tough to collect from someone when he had no chance to collect from you.  In a strange twist, since it's so hard to collect if you win, making a bet like this sometimes can put you in the no-win situation.

To give you an example, this coworker was recently helping me move out of my flooded apartment.  As it got late, I could tell that he was ready to call it a night, but I really didn't want to keep the uhaul for the extra day and spend another night moving my stuff.  So, I asked him if he would just sort stuff while I continued to make trips- he responded that there were "8 hours left".  To shorten the story- by the next day, we had a bet regarding whether or not I could get everything out of the place, with the help of another coworker, in under 3 hours.  (name redacted) realized that the bet was ridiculous, so he actually showed up and helped, and claimed that his help was the reason we made it, so the bet should be a wash.  I think that was kind of chicken-S, but I was in a situation where everyone was helping me move; combine that with the fact that he basically had no chance to win the bet, and I would have looked like a jerk if I'd seriously tried to collect.

Rule 4:  Offer Odds

If you're not familiar with odds, the basic concept is that they allow you to make any bet "fair".  For example, pretend that you want to bet on the outcome of a roll of the dice.  Obviously, the best number is 7, followed by 6 and 8, and then 5 and 9.  Unless you're dumb or have some special information, you don't want to be betting on the 6 while your buddy has the 7.  UNLESS, that is, you get paid more.  With dice, it's easy to figure out how to make it fair.  There are six different combos that give you 7, and five that give you 6.  So the person who is betting on 6 should get $6 when he wins, and the person betting on 7 should get $5.

The beautiful thing about odds is you can use them to make a bet that a person wouldn't otherwise take (the ghost pepper bet, for example) a reality.  If there's something that you think is highly unlikely (say 10-1), offer to pay the person $300 against his $50.  A lot of times, a person unfamiliar with betting will be intoxicated by the larger number and will gladly agree to something that has a negative expected value.

Strange Questionnaire

So I had planned on my first post being an introduction, just in case we someday get a fan or a follower or something.  Yesterday, though, something strange happened, so I'm going to start with that and get to the intro later.

Briefly, my wife attended a job fair for a well-respected and high-performing private elementary school.  Before she could even sit for her interview, though, she had to fill out a pre-employment questionnaire.  This isn't all that unusual, but the questions definitely were.  I'd post the whole thing, but there's a copyright on the bottom and there are some litigious mofos on the internet these days, so instead I'll just summarize:

The questionnaire was a liberal-hunt.  The questions it asked ranged from stuff like "should a parent pay her kids an equal amount of allowance if they don't do an equal amount of work?", to making a determination of what's more important to our nation's health:  Globalization or Sovereignty (A word that I've never spelled correctly without spell-check), to an incredibly subtle "In two sentences describe the benefits of socialism".

In my opinion, such a questionnaire is ridiculous.  First of all, just because a person thinks that it's OK for a mother to redistribute wealth among her children doesn't mean that person necessarily thinks that we should live in a communist state.  Second, (and I'm just guessing that there are right and wrong answers to the questionnaire, which seemed to be the case) it seems misguided to want an entire staff to share the same political views.  How are those students supposed to develop real critical thinking skills if they only see one perspective throughout elementary school?  Especially when you consider that most parents who would consider sending their children there probably have the same perspective, I don't think that "brainwashed" is an inappropriate term to be throwing around.

I'm sure that the other authors will have something to say about this, and I'm looking forward to an interesting and disrespectful conversation.

Finally, to test this more than anything, I'm including a link to the Football Outsiders Almanac, from Amazon. At about $15, it's cheaper than it would be direct from the Football Outsiders website, and it's an amazingly insightful book for a serious football fan.  Instead of the superficial crap you see in all of the fantasy football magazines (Tom Brady is accurate, Chris Johnson is fast), they take a look into a lot of subtleties of the game.   They have a lot of cool stuff going on, but the most interesting thing is that they try to measure the performance of non-marquee positions, and they also use unconventional stats.  For example, when you're watching a game, you know that a carry of 3 yards on a crucial 3rd and 2 is better than a carry of 5 yards on 3rd and 7.  They measure and adjust for that.  So, without boring you more- spend the $15 and buy the book.