So on NPR today they were discussing the objections to Obama's Health Care Plan. One of the commentators (not callers) writes a race column for some Chicago newspaper. Admittedly, she said that there were legitimate issues which needed to be discussed, but then she went on to say that people who are so vehemently objecting to the President's health care plan are doing so because of racial issues they cannot otherwise voice. Obviously, while there may be "legitimate issues," she believes this racially motivated segment of the population constitutes a significant enough portion to be worth mentioning. THEN she says that many of those who have these racial issues with the President don't realize their issues are racial ones because they can't admit it to themselves.
I studied rhetoric and her statement, particularly the last bit, is simply a justification for ignoring opposing viewpoints. You see, if I don't like the Obama plan, then my conclusions are possibly (probably) based on racial issues and since we know those are illegitimate basis of argument, my entire objection becomes likewise irrelevant. Even if I don't know or don't think my motivations are racial, she can conclude they are because so many of us poor dumb bastards just don't know what we really think.
Talk about a fucking elitist argument. It's practically Plato. You either agree or you aren't smart enough to know to agree and thus, your opinion, which is probably based on an invalid reason deep in your subconsciousness, doesn't matter.
It's sad that some people believe this.
Thursday, August 13, 2009
Monday, July 20, 2009
International Law
This post is written with a whole lot of cynical realism. It assumes that self-interest motivates more people and nations than anything else. It assumes that idealism works fine until it’s your ox being gored by the ideal, at which point in time, the ideal becomes anathema.
What is law? Think about this for a moment. Is law simply tradition? Is it an ethical system (of which there are several) or is it a divinely endorsed moral code (in which case there are maybe even more)? Does it have layers; are some laws divinely endorsed (Thou shalt not kill) while others unrelated to ethics at all (the Income Tax Code)? Is law a set of rules only? Maybe a set of rules back by the enforcement power of the sovereign? Is law a social contract for conduct in a society?
I ask because that question comes to mind every time I hear a well meaning pundit say, “international law.” Excuse me, but what is that other than a way of saying, “what I think is right?” “XYZ, the country, has done thus-and-so in violation of international law.” Really? Please show me the statute book, the codification of what sovereign nations may or may not do as passed by the International Parliament or maybe as dictated by His Imperial Majesty, Emperor of the World or maybe simply as decided by Matthew Harrison Brady (see Inherit the Wind.)? Oh wait, we don’t have those institutions. Well surely it will be enforced by the International Police and violators taken into custody by the International Sheriff and put in the International Prison while we wait to have a trial in the International Courthouse. Wait, we don’t have those either?
What do we have? Well we have treaties which are sort of like contracts you enforce with armies. We have the ability to conduct ourselves in our relationship with others, trading or not trading for example. We can try to get other nations to act as we do. Yet, none of that has the force of law. None of that meets the exactitude of law. None of that creates law.
If you really look at it, international law is a farce. It is a Weaver-esque “god-term” which sounds great, until you chip through the gold paint to realize the substance is balsa wood. A nation state may, at will, act as it chooses and if it doesn’t like the dictates of “International Law” as espoused by another, it may ignore them and laugh in their face. There is only a penalty, if whoever espouses “international law” can get enough others on their side to bring home a consequence to the “law” breaker. And if the breaker is one of the big kids… well, the same rules just do not apply.
International law is often espoused by those of the same liberal mindset who breathily talking about “human rights” over lattes and scones. They treat it as if it has an existence outside of the custom of the moment, a solidity beyond their own mind. Yet it doesn’t. As most often used, International Law springs from humanistic ideals about the inherent rights of people. The problem is that not everyone believes in those rights and when those unbelievers, those heretics to the church of International Law, act according to their beliefs, we condemn them for their violation of the law. We say law because it sounds much more serious than to say they violated what we think or even they violated our philosophy. If we say law we sound more authoritative and sure. We sound like we are espousing something that exists beyond simply our opinion. Laws, we all know, must be obeyed. Or else.
But what is the or else here? If we call our ethical system and beliefs (including the belief that we can impose our humanistic system of rights on others in spite of their rights to self-determination (which only apply when they agree with us about having it)) law, then we devalue the concept of law. Equating your opinion to law means that real law has no more force that your opinion; no more independent existence than any other though of yours. It would not have to be obeyed. Tell that to the next sheriff, policeman, or judge you meet.
If you look back at the beginning, I offered one possible definition of law as a social contract. This may be the closest to International Law. If all nations operated under the social contract as did their citizens, you might actually have something that could be considered a law. I just don’t think we are enough there to call it International Law.
What is law? Think about this for a moment. Is law simply tradition? Is it an ethical system (of which there are several) or is it a divinely endorsed moral code (in which case there are maybe even more)? Does it have layers; are some laws divinely endorsed (Thou shalt not kill) while others unrelated to ethics at all (the Income Tax Code)? Is law a set of rules only? Maybe a set of rules back by the enforcement power of the sovereign? Is law a social contract for conduct in a society?
I ask because that question comes to mind every time I hear a well meaning pundit say, “international law.” Excuse me, but what is that other than a way of saying, “what I think is right?” “XYZ, the country, has done thus-and-so in violation of international law.” Really? Please show me the statute book, the codification of what sovereign nations may or may not do as passed by the International Parliament or maybe as dictated by His Imperial Majesty, Emperor of the World or maybe simply as decided by Matthew Harrison Brady (see Inherit the Wind.)? Oh wait, we don’t have those institutions. Well surely it will be enforced by the International Police and violators taken into custody by the International Sheriff and put in the International Prison while we wait to have a trial in the International Courthouse. Wait, we don’t have those either?
What do we have? Well we have treaties which are sort of like contracts you enforce with armies. We have the ability to conduct ourselves in our relationship with others, trading or not trading for example. We can try to get other nations to act as we do. Yet, none of that has the force of law. None of that meets the exactitude of law. None of that creates law.
If you really look at it, international law is a farce. It is a Weaver-esque “god-term” which sounds great, until you chip through the gold paint to realize the substance is balsa wood. A nation state may, at will, act as it chooses and if it doesn’t like the dictates of “International Law” as espoused by another, it may ignore them and laugh in their face. There is only a penalty, if whoever espouses “international law” can get enough others on their side to bring home a consequence to the “law” breaker. And if the breaker is one of the big kids… well, the same rules just do not apply.
International law is often espoused by those of the same liberal mindset who breathily talking about “human rights” over lattes and scones. They treat it as if it has an existence outside of the custom of the moment, a solidity beyond their own mind. Yet it doesn’t. As most often used, International Law springs from humanistic ideals about the inherent rights of people. The problem is that not everyone believes in those rights and when those unbelievers, those heretics to the church of International Law, act according to their beliefs, we condemn them for their violation of the law. We say law because it sounds much more serious than to say they violated what we think or even they violated our philosophy. If we say law we sound more authoritative and sure. We sound like we are espousing something that exists beyond simply our opinion. Laws, we all know, must be obeyed. Or else.
But what is the or else here? If we call our ethical system and beliefs (including the belief that we can impose our humanistic system of rights on others in spite of their rights to self-determination (which only apply when they agree with us about having it)) law, then we devalue the concept of law. Equating your opinion to law means that real law has no more force that your opinion; no more independent existence than any other though of yours. It would not have to be obeyed. Tell that to the next sheriff, policeman, or judge you meet.
If you look back at the beginning, I offered one possible definition of law as a social contract. This may be the closest to International Law. If all nations operated under the social contract as did their citizens, you might actually have something that could be considered a law. I just don’t think we are enough there to call it International Law.
Thursday, July 16, 2009
Today's Headline
The BBC.com site had this little gem today: "Will British Troops Succeed in Afghanistan?"
Ah, sometimes a sense of history is awesome. Names change, but the questions remain.
Ah, sometimes a sense of history is awesome. Names change, but the questions remain.
Tuesday, July 7, 2009
Nukes
Heard yesterday that the U.S. and the Russians signed an understanding that we would each reduce our nuclear stock piles by about 1/3. Iran continues to enrich or try to enrich Uranium. North Korea has nukes and is test firing missiles. Pakistan has nukes and a leaky history about them. China and India have nukes. Great Britain has nukes as do the French.
In 1921, the great powers of that day met in Washington, D.C. for the Washington Naval Conference. That conference led to the Washington Naval Treaty which decided that Great Britain, the U.S., and Japan would build battleships in a 5-5-3 ratio respectively. It also limited the number of ships and the armaments of each ship, which, in turn, caused the scrapping of older ships and reduction in the size of a number of navies. It was designed to prevent antagonism between the two naval super powers of that day, Great Britain and the U.S. In a way, it was the START treaty of its day.
In as much as Great Britain and the U.S. had their fleets divided all over the oceans of the world whereas the Japanese only had a fleet in the Pacific, it lead directly to Japanese naval superiority in that ocean. Many historians believe that this fact was a key fact in the aggressive Japanese policy which ultimately led to Pearl Harbor and Japan's involvement in World War Two.
In 1921 we were reducing the number of battleships and, in so doing, created the greatest naval conflict the world has ever seen. Now we are playing with nuclear weapons, the least of which dwarfs any battleship in destructive power. I've read quite a bit on the monstrous effects of nuclear weapons and I'll be the first to admit, I hate the things. However, I would hate more a situation where we don't have any, but our enemies do. I am not against a reduction in the inventory, but I wish I thought our policy makers had paid a bit more attention in their history classes.
In 1921, the great powers of that day met in Washington, D.C. for the Washington Naval Conference. That conference led to the Washington Naval Treaty which decided that Great Britain, the U.S., and Japan would build battleships in a 5-5-3 ratio respectively. It also limited the number of ships and the armaments of each ship, which, in turn, caused the scrapping of older ships and reduction in the size of a number of navies. It was designed to prevent antagonism between the two naval super powers of that day, Great Britain and the U.S. In a way, it was the START treaty of its day.
In as much as Great Britain and the U.S. had their fleets divided all over the oceans of the world whereas the Japanese only had a fleet in the Pacific, it lead directly to Japanese naval superiority in that ocean. Many historians believe that this fact was a key fact in the aggressive Japanese policy which ultimately led to Pearl Harbor and Japan's involvement in World War Two.
In 1921 we were reducing the number of battleships and, in so doing, created the greatest naval conflict the world has ever seen. Now we are playing with nuclear weapons, the least of which dwarfs any battleship in destructive power. I've read quite a bit on the monstrous effects of nuclear weapons and I'll be the first to admit, I hate the things. However, I would hate more a situation where we don't have any, but our enemies do. I am not against a reduction in the inventory, but I wish I thought our policy makers had paid a bit more attention in their history classes.
Tuesday, June 30, 2009
Getting ice and charge minimums
I don't know if I'm the stupid one in this tale, but I thought I'd relay my shopping experience of yesterday.
Cinda, Clarisse, and I headed out to Sarah's with our ice cream maker, batter, etc. We had everything but the ice (2 bags needed) which we planned to pick up at the last minute to minimizing melting in transit. Stopped at a BP station, Cinda parks, I get two bags of ice and then wait in line to check out. "$3.00" says the clerk. I hand her my credit card. "Credit or debit?" says the clerk. "Credit," says I. "We have a $5.00 minimum," says the clerk. "Then debit," says I. "We have a $5.00 minimum," she says again. I check my wallet for cash as a line is forming up behind me; I have a single dollar bill. "I only have a dollar," says I as I show her this fact. She gives me deer-in-the-headlight eyes; "We have a $5.00 minimum." Now clearly, I am supposed to go find another $2.00 worth of purchases and then get back at the end of the line (which is now about five people long). Instead I gave her the two bags of ice and walked out. I bought my ice two blocks down the road at the grocery store for $0.25 less a bag.
Cinda tells me she could have gotten gas and doesn't seem to understand my insistence that I will not be coerced into spending almost twice as much by some store clerk and her policy. Especially after she has already accepted the card and asked me "credit or debit?". There was no notice of this minimum charge policy either; I looked.
I understand that, with the way the charge companies work, it might be desirable to have minimum charge policies. And, as I did in law school, I do change my shopping habits to avoid spending money in places with minimum charge policies. As long as they save more money avoiding less than the minimum charge than I would spend their they made the right call. but I am not a sheep and I can, and do, express my opinion with where I take my business. In the circumstance at BP, with the line piling up and having already taken the card for the $3.00 purchase, the clerk should have either 1) run the card anyway or 2) taken the dollar in cash and be done with it and on to serving the next customer, especially when ice is cheaper just down the street.
Cinda, Clarisse, and I headed out to Sarah's with our ice cream maker, batter, etc. We had everything but the ice (2 bags needed) which we planned to pick up at the last minute to minimizing melting in transit. Stopped at a BP station, Cinda parks, I get two bags of ice and then wait in line to check out. "$3.00" says the clerk. I hand her my credit card. "Credit or debit?" says the clerk. "Credit," says I. "We have a $5.00 minimum," says the clerk. "Then debit," says I. "We have a $5.00 minimum," she says again. I check my wallet for cash as a line is forming up behind me; I have a single dollar bill. "I only have a dollar," says I as I show her this fact. She gives me deer-in-the-headlight eyes; "We have a $5.00 minimum." Now clearly, I am supposed to go find another $2.00 worth of purchases and then get back at the end of the line (which is now about five people long). Instead I gave her the two bags of ice and walked out. I bought my ice two blocks down the road at the grocery store for $0.25 less a bag.
Cinda tells me she could have gotten gas and doesn't seem to understand my insistence that I will not be coerced into spending almost twice as much by some store clerk and her policy. Especially after she has already accepted the card and asked me "credit or debit?". There was no notice of this minimum charge policy either; I looked.
I understand that, with the way the charge companies work, it might be desirable to have minimum charge policies. And, as I did in law school, I do change my shopping habits to avoid spending money in places with minimum charge policies. As long as they save more money avoiding less than the minimum charge than I would spend their they made the right call. but I am not a sheep and I can, and do, express my opinion with where I take my business. In the circumstance at BP, with the line piling up and having already taken the card for the $3.00 purchase, the clerk should have either 1) run the card anyway or 2) taken the dollar in cash and be done with it and on to serving the next customer, especially when ice is cheaper just down the street.
Monday, June 29, 2009
The Supreme Court may have gotten something right
Today, the Supreme Court handed down a decision in a discrimination case where some city in Conn. had administered a written test for promotion in its fire department and then, when the results failed to qualify enough minority fire fighters, decided to toss out the test results. The Supremes said 5-4 that you can't do that.
I caution that I have not read the decision.
But it strikes me from what I have read that it makes a certain amount of sense to say that you can't discriminate solely on the basis of race, which seems to be what the city did. They got back test results and discovered that only one Hispanic and no African Americans had passed the test. If, on that basis ALONE, they threw out the test, then the Supreme Court is probably correct. The reason I think the Sc might have gotten that one right is because the city failed to probe further into why the test results were so unequal; they just assumed and threw out the test. This means they threw out the test results on the basis of RACE ALONE; not because of differences in test administration or some provable bias in the test itself. Moreover their argument seem to be that the unequal results prove the unfair bias, almost arguing that using a written test biases the results. That argument assumes the desired result; a species of post hoc ergo proctor hoc logical fallacy. I have, and I suspect the majority of Justices would have, no problem tossing out the test if the city had bothered to establish HOW the test was discriminatory beyond the fact that it achieved a politically undesirable result.
At the end of the day, the law must be applied equally as well; and had the result been that not enough Caucasians qualified and the city then tried to throw out the results on that basis, I think quite clearly this lawsuit would have gone against the city. Moreover, I think the question begged here is why are we doing this kind of analysis anyway? Are we to decide the validity of any (and every) test or hiring result based on whether or not the results from that activity exactly match the racial distributions of the population? Oddly enough, random chance rarely produces results exactly on the numbers; it almost always produces some variation and must be allowed to generate results at the ends of the bell curve some time. In this case, you could achieve randomization by randomly selecting names form a hat for promotion or by going strictly on seniority, but those systems would not tend to necessarily put the most competent candidate in the position. Still, if the goal is "fairness" over competence, that would work.
I caution that I have not read the decision.
But it strikes me from what I have read that it makes a certain amount of sense to say that you can't discriminate solely on the basis of race, which seems to be what the city did. They got back test results and discovered that only one Hispanic and no African Americans had passed the test. If, on that basis ALONE, they threw out the test, then the Supreme Court is probably correct. The reason I think the Sc might have gotten that one right is because the city failed to probe further into why the test results were so unequal; they just assumed and threw out the test. This means they threw out the test results on the basis of RACE ALONE; not because of differences in test administration or some provable bias in the test itself. Moreover their argument seem to be that the unequal results prove the unfair bias, almost arguing that using a written test biases the results. That argument assumes the desired result; a species of post hoc ergo proctor hoc logical fallacy. I have, and I suspect the majority of Justices would have, no problem tossing out the test if the city had bothered to establish HOW the test was discriminatory beyond the fact that it achieved a politically undesirable result.
At the end of the day, the law must be applied equally as well; and had the result been that not enough Caucasians qualified and the city then tried to throw out the results on that basis, I think quite clearly this lawsuit would have gone against the city. Moreover, I think the question begged here is why are we doing this kind of analysis anyway? Are we to decide the validity of any (and every) test or hiring result based on whether or not the results from that activity exactly match the racial distributions of the population? Oddly enough, random chance rarely produces results exactly on the numbers; it almost always produces some variation and must be allowed to generate results at the ends of the bell curve some time. In this case, you could achieve randomization by randomly selecting names form a hat for promotion or by going strictly on seniority, but those systems would not tend to necessarily put the most competent candidate in the position. Still, if the goal is "fairness" over competence, that would work.
Friday, June 26, 2009
Socialized medicine
I have heard much discussion about how people are not able to agree on the new Health Care System details. Specifically some won't vote for it unless it has a public insurance option while others will only vote if it doesn't.
I fail to see how any for-profit (private) insurance company can compete with a government sponsored not-for-profit insurance company. Won't the latter always be cheaper? So it seems to me that, in a free market, adding a government health care provider will drive all the private companies out of business.
So the question to me seems to be: Is that what we want?
I fail to see how any for-profit (private) insurance company can compete with a government sponsored not-for-profit insurance company. Won't the latter always be cheaper? So it seems to me that, in a free market, adding a government health care provider will drive all the private companies out of business.
So the question to me seems to be: Is that what we want?
Iran
Much news about Iran lately. Elections, riots, etc. Dire predictions about how that regime has ruined forevermore its legitimacy in the eyes of its populace. Much criticism of the President for NOT making stronger statements.
No country can sustain a democracy whose citizens are not driven to demand it, even at the risk of death.
Should Obama encourage the protesters too much, then he would probably get a bunch of them killed and legitimize, in the eyes of the Iranian people, the claims of interference made by the Iranian government. Moreover, unless the U.S. is willing to put troops on the ground to protect these rioters and to create a democracy (and we all know how well that worked in Iraq), we would be simply setting up those most able to drive the change we would prefer for failure and execution. If Iran is to succeed in becoming a democracy, it must do so through the will, blood, sweat, and tears of its own people. Otherwise, I don't see how that democracy can be sustained once we pull our troops out.
So far, I think Obama's approach is a wise one.
No country can sustain a democracy whose citizens are not driven to demand it, even at the risk of death.
Should Obama encourage the protesters too much, then he would probably get a bunch of them killed and legitimize, in the eyes of the Iranian people, the claims of interference made by the Iranian government. Moreover, unless the U.S. is willing to put troops on the ground to protect these rioters and to create a democracy (and we all know how well that worked in Iraq), we would be simply setting up those most able to drive the change we would prefer for failure and execution. If Iran is to succeed in becoming a democracy, it must do so through the will, blood, sweat, and tears of its own people. Otherwise, I don't see how that democracy can be sustained once we pull our troops out.
So far, I think Obama's approach is a wise one.
The Crazy Left
I've heard a bunch lately about how the "gay community" is upset with the Obama Administration because it filed a brief supporting a Defense of Marriage Act in a case. I even heard one activist saying that they realized that the Administration was obligated to defend the act, but that they did not think it needed to do so as enthusiastically as it did.
I note that the attorney involved on behalf of the government has the obligation to file the best brief he can. If he softballs it, he is behaving in a manner which, in the perfect world, would earn him disciplinary action from whatever bars he belongs to.
Second there seems to be a larger picture problem. The radical, strike that, crazy left seems to be acting like spoiled children on several issues. Having had "their candidate" elected, they wanted all their radical changes made immediately, now, right away, instantly, and overnight. When that hasn't occurred, they are now throwing the equivalent of a political temper tantrum -- they are threatening to take their money and their votes an walk away from Obama. Boy that'll teach him! If enough do that, he won't get elected next time. And then we can have another King George W. or some other conservative crackpot. I'm sure that forcing that result will really make the liberal crazies happy. That'll teach those moderate Democrats.
Same comment for the Crazy Liberals and their demands for the health care package.
'Course the Radical Left voted for Kerry and Gore before him so we know their political worth. Obama won because he carried the middle. And the middle is not necessarily supportive of the Radical Left's agenda. So, in essence, the Left is saying that we know we need those guys, but now that we are elected, fuck 'em. I can't think of a faster way to get a Republican Congress or a Republican in the White House.
And Obama is smart enough to understand it. He talked all through his campaign about healing the divide etc. You don't heal a divide by pursuing the agenda of one extreme. He may get to it eventually, but all the Left is doing right now is making it harder to pursue their agenda. Face it, in view of the economy, nuclear-bio-terrorism, and the extinction level threat from climate change, whether or not Ralph and Roger can get married to each other and then enroll in socialized health care is pretty irrelevant.
I note that the attorney involved on behalf of the government has the obligation to file the best brief he can. If he softballs it, he is behaving in a manner which, in the perfect world, would earn him disciplinary action from whatever bars he belongs to.
Second there seems to be a larger picture problem. The radical, strike that, crazy left seems to be acting like spoiled children on several issues. Having had "their candidate" elected, they wanted all their radical changes made immediately, now, right away, instantly, and overnight. When that hasn't occurred, they are now throwing the equivalent of a political temper tantrum -- they are threatening to take their money and their votes an walk away from Obama. Boy that'll teach him! If enough do that, he won't get elected next time. And then we can have another King George W. or some other conservative crackpot. I'm sure that forcing that result will really make the liberal crazies happy. That'll teach those moderate Democrats.
Same comment for the Crazy Liberals and their demands for the health care package.
'Course the Radical Left voted for Kerry and Gore before him so we know their political worth. Obama won because he carried the middle. And the middle is not necessarily supportive of the Radical Left's agenda. So, in essence, the Left is saying that we know we need those guys, but now that we are elected, fuck 'em. I can't think of a faster way to get a Republican Congress or a Republican in the White House.
And Obama is smart enough to understand it. He talked all through his campaign about healing the divide etc. You don't heal a divide by pursuing the agenda of one extreme. He may get to it eventually, but all the Left is doing right now is making it harder to pursue their agenda. Face it, in view of the economy, nuclear-bio-terrorism, and the extinction level threat from climate change, whether or not Ralph and Roger can get married to each other and then enroll in socialized health care is pretty irrelevant.
Monday, June 22, 2009
The House of Commons
I've had lots I've been meaning to write about in the last week or two, but I haven't gotten around to it for one reason or another. Things like commenting in response to the proposal that the government would limit doctor bills, that the government also then needs to step in and set a limit on the cost of medical school. And law school while they are at it. But that's not today's topic.
In case it didn't catch your radar, the Speaker of the House of Commons had to resign last week. I heard today on NPR that this is the first time a Speaker has had to resign in over 300 years.
My country is younger than that. Just for some perspective on this.
In case it didn't catch your radar, the Speaker of the House of Commons had to resign last week. I heard today on NPR that this is the first time a Speaker has had to resign in over 300 years.
My country is younger than that. Just for some perspective on this.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)