I was asked by a friend from work today about my bumper sticker. With some degree of friendly disappointment, they asked what I meant, and were somewhat unhappy with my response that it meant what it said, we shouldn't have attacked Iraq.
So, I thought I'd take a moment and expound upon that. There were really three reasons cited for going to war in Iraq. I'll explain my arguments against them.
First up is the argument that Saddam Hussein was in league with Al-Qaeda or that he was responsible for the September 11 terrorist attacks. This argument has been pretty effectively countered by none other than our President (registration required for article).
The second argument is that Saddam Hussein had a weapons of mass destruction program that was active and that he was planning to attack the United States imminently or that he was planning to sell these weapons to terrorists who would attack. There is a latin phrase, usually used in legal arguments that is applicable: res ipse loquitur. That means "the thing speaks for itself". There are no such weapons, there was no such program. They could have used them against us in March and they did not. Terrorists could have used them now as revenge and they have not. We have scoured the country and the best we could come up with was vial of botulinum toxin in some scientist's fridge. Since botulism bacteria is what causes food poisoning, there's a few frat house refrigerators that qualify as weapons labs, I'm sure.
With the failure of these two arguments, pro-war advocates usually fall back on the fact that Saddam Hussein was evil and that he needed to be removed from power for the good of Iraq. Well, that's fine - I do not argue that Saddam Hussein was a bad man. He was about as bad as a human can get, and his vile sons were worse. He is pretty much as evil a man as there is. But it is not United States policy to invade countries and right wrongs. Yes, the fact that Hussein is out of power is good, but that end does not justify our invasion of a sovereign nation.
If we have decided on a new policy of forcible removal of bad leaders, let's hear the announcement from the President. He can tell us when Uzbekistan, North Korea, Iran, Syria and a host of other nations are due for their invasion. We're not going to invade those nations, of course. It is not now, nor has it ever been in the 227 years since this nation was founded, American policy to violate the sovereignty of other nations because we do not approve of their leader or his actions. We are not the world's policeman, nor do I think we want to be.
So that is why I say No! to the attack on Iraq. There was no reason for it, unless you accept the premise that the United States should pass muster on all world leaders and forcibly remove those we do not approve of. I'm glad Saddam is captured - the world is a better place with him in prison. But that end does not justify the means. Ends can never justify means in a moral society.
Tuesday, December 16, 2003
Tuesday, December 02, 2003
Why Electoral Reform?
If you watch enough cop/lawyer dramas on TV, you will eventually hear some lawyer (defense lawyer) use the phrase "fruit of the poisoned tree". What this means is that once some part of the evidence is tainted by misconduct, not only is that evidence disallowed, but all the evidence discovered as a result of the disallowed evidence is also disallowed.
I tend to view election reform in much the same manner. From gerrymandering to what amounts to bribery to voting machines that are, from an IT perspective alone, poorly designed (no paper trail?!? Who are they kidding?) the political process has been terribly tainted at its wellspring, the participatory election. Thus, just about anything that flows from that (i.e. all federal, state and local government) is tainted.
Before any changes can be made that will address the growing issues of the day - healthcare, jobs, education, trade and so on - we have to remove the effects of the corrupted system of elections that now exists. To me that means two things - first, real, meaningful campaign finance reform and second, enticing a wider array of political views into the fray.
Campaign finance reform is crucial to changing the political landscape. Even if campain money isn't a quid pro quo directly, there is influence exerted by those who donate large sums of money. So, even if dollar x doesn't translate into vote y the elected official recognizes that the money he needs to return to office hangs by the thread of the donor's goodwill. In jeopardizing that goodwill, he jeopardizes his re-election. In effect, rather than being responsive to the concerns of his constituents, he becomes responsive to the concerns of his donors.
I am sensitive, though, to the rights of free speech given in the Constitution. As a sometime fan, sometime member of the ACLU, it is vital that we do not cause legitimate political opinion to be silenced. Funny thing is, we start getting into my least favorite thing, trying to quantify human motivation. If Bill Gates gives $200 to the Dubya for President fund, well, that's pretty obviously a political gesture of speech - he's offering support. If Bill Gates gives $250,000 to the RNC's Don't Vote For Anyone that Opposes This Platform (a front for a RNC Dubya support group), then there is the whiff of trying to buy something. So, by my VERY crude calculation, $200 donations are good and $250,000 are bad. Well, as long as I don't leave a gray area the size of Rhode Island, I reckon I've made my point.
In all seriousness, I try to understand how to work this out. I mean, should I view this by percent of net income, where for most folks $200 is a large sum and for The Bill a quarter million is bubble gum money? That is sort of silly, regardless of the income of the giver(s) the cost of a political campaign is pretty much static. To put it another way, the costs of running a campaign doesn't change just because your contributors are less affluent. So, trying to work out some sliding scale of appropriateness seems wrong.
Ultimately when anyone gives money to a political campaign, it is in the expectation that something will be given in return. For most folks that means they expect policies that mirror their own beliefs. For others, especially affluent others, this means more specific quids pro quo. The issue boils down to this - if money is the best way for voters to communicate with their elected officials, then those with the most money have the loudest megaphone. And folks, that ain't right.
Perhaps I am approaching this the wrong way. I would like to look at the option of having no campaign contributions at all. What if we decided to publicly fund all elections? What if we mandated public funding of all political campaigns? What if we took advantage of the fact that the broadcast spectrum is leased from the public and require all broadcast media to donate a certain amount of airtime, which would be disbursed equally among all contenders for whatever office?
I'm not certain it would work, and I'm not certain it is consistent with the idea of free speech. But I want to think about it, and I'd like my voluminous readership to think about it too. And not just the "Wouldn't it be great if" thing, but a real, rubber meets the road kind of thinking.
I tend to view election reform in much the same manner. From gerrymandering to what amounts to bribery to voting machines that are, from an IT perspective alone, poorly designed (no paper trail?!? Who are they kidding?) the political process has been terribly tainted at its wellspring, the participatory election. Thus, just about anything that flows from that (i.e. all federal, state and local government) is tainted.
Before any changes can be made that will address the growing issues of the day - healthcare, jobs, education, trade and so on - we have to remove the effects of the corrupted system of elections that now exists. To me that means two things - first, real, meaningful campaign finance reform and second, enticing a wider array of political views into the fray.
Campaign finance reform is crucial to changing the political landscape. Even if campain money isn't a quid pro quo directly, there is influence exerted by those who donate large sums of money. So, even if dollar x doesn't translate into vote y the elected official recognizes that the money he needs to return to office hangs by the thread of the donor's goodwill. In jeopardizing that goodwill, he jeopardizes his re-election. In effect, rather than being responsive to the concerns of his constituents, he becomes responsive to the concerns of his donors.
I am sensitive, though, to the rights of free speech given in the Constitution. As a sometime fan, sometime member of the ACLU, it is vital that we do not cause legitimate political opinion to be silenced. Funny thing is, we start getting into my least favorite thing, trying to quantify human motivation. If Bill Gates gives $200 to the Dubya for President fund, well, that's pretty obviously a political gesture of speech - he's offering support. If Bill Gates gives $250,000 to the RNC's Don't Vote For Anyone that Opposes This Platform (a front for a RNC Dubya support group), then there is the whiff of trying to buy something. So, by my VERY crude calculation, $200 donations are good and $250,000 are bad. Well, as long as I don't leave a gray area the size of Rhode Island, I reckon I've made my point.
In all seriousness, I try to understand how to work this out. I mean, should I view this by percent of net income, where for most folks $200 is a large sum and for The Bill a quarter million is bubble gum money? That is sort of silly, regardless of the income of the giver(s) the cost of a political campaign is pretty much static. To put it another way, the costs of running a campaign doesn't change just because your contributors are less affluent. So, trying to work out some sliding scale of appropriateness seems wrong.
Ultimately when anyone gives money to a political campaign, it is in the expectation that something will be given in return. For most folks that means they expect policies that mirror their own beliefs. For others, especially affluent others, this means more specific quids pro quo. The issue boils down to this - if money is the best way for voters to communicate with their elected officials, then those with the most money have the loudest megaphone. And folks, that ain't right.
Perhaps I am approaching this the wrong way. I would like to look at the option of having no campaign contributions at all. What if we decided to publicly fund all elections? What if we mandated public funding of all political campaigns? What if we took advantage of the fact that the broadcast spectrum is leased from the public and require all broadcast media to donate a certain amount of airtime, which would be disbursed equally among all contenders for whatever office?
I'm not certain it would work, and I'm not certain it is consistent with the idea of free speech. But I want to think about it, and I'd like my voluminous readership to think about it too. And not just the "Wouldn't it be great if" thing, but a real, rubber meets the road kind of thinking.
Tuesday, November 25, 2003
The Oldest Argument in America
There are three levels of government: local, state and federal. Perhaps the single longest running political argument in the United States is the struggle between folks who believe that the central seat of authority should lie in any one of those places. This debate was present at the Constitutional Convention in Philadephia, and it continues to dominate, in various ways, the debates this country has had over the past many years. Slavery as an issue was also framed as one of states' rights: should the federal government have the power to determine the slave or free status of a new state? It continues now - whenever the canard about having "some Washington bureaucrat" involved in the education/medical care/morality standards of a group of people, this is an argument for states rights.
There is a certain logic to the idea that the smaller the area being governed, the more responsive the government can be. On the flip side, the smaller the area governed, the more likely it is that the entities that are to be governed will be outside the jurisdiction or will move to be so if doing so will rid them of regulation. Thus, the broader area of government, the more likely it is that the regulation will have sufficient reach. Thus it can be said that the struggle can be thought of in terms of degree of scope.
Perhaps to give a more down to earth example, let's say I am a clothing manufacturer. If I make clothes for one family I can easily tailor the clothes to fit each member of the family. But, if I am the only manufacturer of clothing, then all the other folks in the community are going naked. So, I am very responsive, but the breadth of my coverage is very small. If I expand my operations to a whole community, I cannot take the time to tailor to each person, so I will make a set of clothing for a range of sizes. These will fit some people perfectly, some less so. There may even be those for whom I make no clothes that fit. My responsiveness has decreased, but my ability to cover more people has increased. As I increase the size of my operation, so do I decrease my ability to be responsive to individuals.
Obviously, there is some medium to be reached. There is some point on every issue where the balance is struck. Defense matters, for example, are a good example of a policy that is best enacted at the broadest possible level - we all want to be defended. On the other hand (in very simplistic terms) what does Nebraska need with a destroyer or submarine? In order to protect the oceans and coastal areas (again, I'm being simplistic) people who are in non-coastal areas have to pay for a navy. So it isn't a perfect fit, but in terms of the overall goal, defense, this misfit is not such a big deal. On the other hand, when it comes to issues of zoning, for example, it makes little sense to approach this on a federal basis. The national government simply does not have the resources to examine how every acre of land in the USA is zoned. The issues of zoning vary on a nearly neighborhood basis, and as such are handled locally. It is the issues that are not clearly under the aegis of local, state and federal governments that cause the problems.
I think it is clear that each issue needs to be individually scrutinized for the "best fit" with regards to the level of government that should help it. I think there also needs to be long looks at hybrid plans - plans that require a national standard (say some sort of educational proficiency) but have the implementation take place at a local level with funding coming from all three levels to ensure that there is the proverbial "level playing field" for poorer and richer districts. It is important not to approach these issues dogmatically (i.e. "Federal gummint is bad" or "only strong central government can be trusted to do what needs to be done").
I know this is sort of a toothless post - mostly I'm exploring my own thinking. Still, it is useful to look at this issue afresh. Perhaps the differences between states rights and federal authority aren't as far apart as we seem. I think the ends are the same, it is the means we are trying to work out.
There is a certain logic to the idea that the smaller the area being governed, the more responsive the government can be. On the flip side, the smaller the area governed, the more likely it is that the entities that are to be governed will be outside the jurisdiction or will move to be so if doing so will rid them of regulation. Thus, the broader area of government, the more likely it is that the regulation will have sufficient reach. Thus it can be said that the struggle can be thought of in terms of degree of scope.
Perhaps to give a more down to earth example, let's say I am a clothing manufacturer. If I make clothes for one family I can easily tailor the clothes to fit each member of the family. But, if I am the only manufacturer of clothing, then all the other folks in the community are going naked. So, I am very responsive, but the breadth of my coverage is very small. If I expand my operations to a whole community, I cannot take the time to tailor to each person, so I will make a set of clothing for a range of sizes. These will fit some people perfectly, some less so. There may even be those for whom I make no clothes that fit. My responsiveness has decreased, but my ability to cover more people has increased. As I increase the size of my operation, so do I decrease my ability to be responsive to individuals.
Obviously, there is some medium to be reached. There is some point on every issue where the balance is struck. Defense matters, for example, are a good example of a policy that is best enacted at the broadest possible level - we all want to be defended. On the other hand (in very simplistic terms) what does Nebraska need with a destroyer or submarine? In order to protect the oceans and coastal areas (again, I'm being simplistic) people who are in non-coastal areas have to pay for a navy. So it isn't a perfect fit, but in terms of the overall goal, defense, this misfit is not such a big deal. On the other hand, when it comes to issues of zoning, for example, it makes little sense to approach this on a federal basis. The national government simply does not have the resources to examine how every acre of land in the USA is zoned. The issues of zoning vary on a nearly neighborhood basis, and as such are handled locally. It is the issues that are not clearly under the aegis of local, state and federal governments that cause the problems.
I think it is clear that each issue needs to be individually scrutinized for the "best fit" with regards to the level of government that should help it. I think there also needs to be long looks at hybrid plans - plans that require a national standard (say some sort of educational proficiency) but have the implementation take place at a local level with funding coming from all three levels to ensure that there is the proverbial "level playing field" for poorer and richer districts. It is important not to approach these issues dogmatically (i.e. "Federal gummint is bad" or "only strong central government can be trusted to do what needs to be done").
I know this is sort of a toothless post - mostly I'm exploring my own thinking. Still, it is useful to look at this issue afresh. Perhaps the differences between states rights and federal authority aren't as far apart as we seem. I think the ends are the same, it is the means we are trying to work out.
Monday, November 17, 2003
Confirmation Wars
I watch the unfolding confirmation wars with mixed feelings. First of all, I have to give a little back history. When the Florida election debacle ended, I decided that I would make the best of it. Bush claimed to be a consensus builder and a man who could work both sides of the aisle. At first blush, there seemed little difference between Bush and Gore - on a political continuum, they seemed more alike than not. So maybe Bush was anti-abortion - I doubted that the Senate would let him get away with much, closely divided as it was (IIRC, once all was done, it was 50-50 with Cheney available to break ties). Finally, after eight increasingly shrill years of Clinton-bashing, I would trade a little conservatism for some peace and quiet. I figured if Gore were elected, it would be four or eight more years worth of manufactured scandals, increasingly noisy partisanship and little forward progress. So, I looked at Bush as a "not good thing", but certainly livable. I mean, what did I think would happen? Well, things happened all right, and I feel somewhat betrayed by Bush. Not just for the various injustices and downright untruths he's foisted off on me, but because he said he wanted to heal the divisions, bridge the ideological chasms and bring us together as one nation. Instead, I see us further divided than we were in November 2000 - and that is after the tragically unifying events of September 11, 2001. So, I'm bitter about being hoodwinked.
So, when Bush attempts to pack the court with like minded idealogues, I'm pretty unhappy about it. After seeing the amount of obstructionism that the Clinton White House fought the last six years of his presidency, I'm feeling like a scorched earth campaign is in order. Bush seems to like Old Testament justice, so let's eye for an eye him on these four most egregiously ideological choices. It feels satisfying to give 'em a taste of their own medicine.
On the other hand, I really want that peace and quiet. I would like to see people debate the issues without stooping to insult slinging. I'd like to find a place where folks with different ideas than mine discuss the pros and cons of their theories without starting to act like my kids. I'd like to find a really cogent argument for/against states rights. I'd like to hear from some folks who studied economics to talk about theories of economic stimulation. I'd like to see a site discussing the ups and downs of various legal arguments. Intelligent debate by intelligent people. Doggone it, I'd genuinely like to learn the ins and outs of the competing theories of government that separate us. Perhaps there is middle ground. Perhaps we can get together and find ways to make it all work.
So, if I want to restore a tone of civility to politics, it would seem a bad idea to block these four (now three) nominees. Of course, there are those partisans who want to "go nuclear" and use a parliamentary loophole to cut off this (and future) filibusters. And the other side threatens further measures to be even more obstructionist. It's sort of mutually assured destruction, but with Robert's Rules of Order instead of nukes.
When my two eldest girls are acting like this, I generally declare them both losers and neither one gets what they want (I've appropriated SO many Barbie dolls this way). In an earlier time, someone might have spanked them both and sent them to bed.
I was about to say that it is a shame no one is available to give the Democrats and Republicans the spanking they so richly deserve. I'm wrong though. There is someone - that would be us, the voters. Maybe if we got off our either apathetic or spectating behinds and ran against these bozos, their parties and their way of doing business, we might get things changed. I'll run for office, you run for office. Let's get out and vote for new blood, and not just the guy from the other party, but new blood from new parties with new ideas. We are the supreme power in this land - we control the executive and legislative branches, and through those two, we control the judicial. Punt the lot of them back to their homes and jobs and let's get new people in. Instead of politicians, lets get lawyers and teachers and steelworkers and cab drivers and programmers in office. We'll do our thing and go back to our old lives, to be replaced by more folks who serve as an avocation, not a vocation.
If only . . . .
So, when Bush attempts to pack the court with like minded idealogues, I'm pretty unhappy about it. After seeing the amount of obstructionism that the Clinton White House fought the last six years of his presidency, I'm feeling like a scorched earth campaign is in order. Bush seems to like Old Testament justice, so let's eye for an eye him on these four most egregiously ideological choices. It feels satisfying to give 'em a taste of their own medicine.
On the other hand, I really want that peace and quiet. I would like to see people debate the issues without stooping to insult slinging. I'd like to find a place where folks with different ideas than mine discuss the pros and cons of their theories without starting to act like my kids. I'd like to find a really cogent argument for/against states rights. I'd like to hear from some folks who studied economics to talk about theories of economic stimulation. I'd like to see a site discussing the ups and downs of various legal arguments. Intelligent debate by intelligent people. Doggone it, I'd genuinely like to learn the ins and outs of the competing theories of government that separate us. Perhaps there is middle ground. Perhaps we can get together and find ways to make it all work.
So, if I want to restore a tone of civility to politics, it would seem a bad idea to block these four (now three) nominees. Of course, there are those partisans who want to "go nuclear" and use a parliamentary loophole to cut off this (and future) filibusters. And the other side threatens further measures to be even more obstructionist. It's sort of mutually assured destruction, but with Robert's Rules of Order instead of nukes.
When my two eldest girls are acting like this, I generally declare them both losers and neither one gets what they want (I've appropriated SO many Barbie dolls this way). In an earlier time, someone might have spanked them both and sent them to bed.
I was about to say that it is a shame no one is available to give the Democrats and Republicans the spanking they so richly deserve. I'm wrong though. There is someone - that would be us, the voters. Maybe if we got off our either apathetic or spectating behinds and ran against these bozos, their parties and their way of doing business, we might get things changed. I'll run for office, you run for office. Let's get out and vote for new blood, and not just the guy from the other party, but new blood from new parties with new ideas. We are the supreme power in this land - we control the executive and legislative branches, and through those two, we control the judicial. Punt the lot of them back to their homes and jobs and let's get new people in. Instead of politicians, lets get lawyers and teachers and steelworkers and cab drivers and programmers in office. We'll do our thing and go back to our old lives, to be replaced by more folks who serve as an avocation, not a vocation.
If only . . . .
Tuesday, November 11, 2003
Veteran's Day
I personally view war as the last of all options and generally, war is a hallmark of a failure of policy. This is stand I may discuss further at a later time - today it is not the topic I want to address.
General William Tecumseh Sherman said "War is hell." I do not know the context in which he made that remark - certainly the torching of Atlanta and his scorched earth campaign was hellish enough. I do know that various tough guys (real and fictional) have used the quote to cavalierly describe the difficulties that they faced in doing some heroic act.
I view the quote somewhat more literally - war is an eternity of torment for people who fight in it. The fear, the unimaginable violence and the ease with which humans can become sub-human are sights no person should have to see. Those who fight in war see the worst that humanity has to offer. I wonder if any veteran has returned from war wholly unscarred by the experience. I believe that most veterans continue to bear the burden of what they witnessed in wartime until their death.
I also view those who have had to take up arms for our country as heroes. I may not agree with the policies that put us in war - in fact, I generally do not agree with them. That has no bearing on my regard for the men and women who must be the executors of the policy of war. These people, in my name, in your name, in the name of generations passed and generations yet to come set aside their plans, their hopes, their dreams, their very lives to take up arms and fight. That is a sacrifice on my behalf that demands respect.
I do not suggest soldiers are infallible, and I do not suggest that soldiers are paragons of virtue. If My Lai taught us anything, it taught us that the best men can do awful things when confronted by the horror of war. Regardless of that or other crimes American soldiers may have committed, those who go forth and fight on our behalf are deserving of a measure of respect and honor from each of us.
Let's also not forget that this is Veterans Day, not Memorial Day. This day commemorates all those who came home. While there is an air of solemnity here, there should also be an air of celebration. Not because they got out alive (though that is a good reason to be happy), but because of what they contributed after their service. People like Senators Kerrey and McCain, veterans both. People like Jessica Lynch and Shoshanna Johnson, veterans of our latest war, both ready to get on with their lives as citizens. Veterans should be celebrated not just for what they contributed during wartime, but also for what they continue to contribute each day.
General William Tecumseh Sherman said "War is hell." I do not know the context in which he made that remark - certainly the torching of Atlanta and his scorched earth campaign was hellish enough. I do know that various tough guys (real and fictional) have used the quote to cavalierly describe the difficulties that they faced in doing some heroic act.
I view the quote somewhat more literally - war is an eternity of torment for people who fight in it. The fear, the unimaginable violence and the ease with which humans can become sub-human are sights no person should have to see. Those who fight in war see the worst that humanity has to offer. I wonder if any veteran has returned from war wholly unscarred by the experience. I believe that most veterans continue to bear the burden of what they witnessed in wartime until their death.
I also view those who have had to take up arms for our country as heroes. I may not agree with the policies that put us in war - in fact, I generally do not agree with them. That has no bearing on my regard for the men and women who must be the executors of the policy of war. These people, in my name, in your name, in the name of generations passed and generations yet to come set aside their plans, their hopes, their dreams, their very lives to take up arms and fight. That is a sacrifice on my behalf that demands respect.
I do not suggest soldiers are infallible, and I do not suggest that soldiers are paragons of virtue. If My Lai taught us anything, it taught us that the best men can do awful things when confronted by the horror of war. Regardless of that or other crimes American soldiers may have committed, those who go forth and fight on our behalf are deserving of a measure of respect and honor from each of us.
Let's also not forget that this is Veterans Day, not Memorial Day. This day commemorates all those who came home. While there is an air of solemnity here, there should also be an air of celebration. Not because they got out alive (though that is a good reason to be happy), but because of what they contributed after their service. People like Senators Kerrey and McCain, veterans both. People like Jessica Lynch and Shoshanna Johnson, veterans of our latest war, both ready to get on with their lives as citizens. Veterans should be celebrated not just for what they contributed during wartime, but also for what they continue to contribute each day.
Monday, November 10, 2003
Time To Get In the Game
Working on these various entries/essays/rants/whatevers has crystallized a desire in me to run for office. It seems to me that I can rant and rave here in the blogosphere (and I am doing so) but real change will only come if I will it to happen. In other words, change starts with me. And, rather than be a sideline critic, I think I'd be better off joining the fray. My ultimate goal is to be in a position to effect real change. Making an ultimate determination of what that means requires a lot of thinking and deciding. I could say I want to be President or a member of the House or Senate, and if I think the strong Federal system is the best way to help people, then that is my goal. On the other hand, if I think that the best way to affect change is to work on a state level, if I think the rise in states rights is a good idea, then perhaps state legislator or governor is more appropriate. I've not yet decided where I stand on that issue (or at least I'm not convinced of my pro-Federal stance).
I've also made a change in my personal politics. Though my car has been wearing a Green Party bumper sticker for a while now, I'm officially changing my party on my voter registration to unaffiliated. Since the Greens are not recognized in North Carolina this is as close as I can come to officially stating my membership in the party. Basically, despite what I see Howard Dean doing with his campaign, I still see too many fingerprints of the Democratic Leadership Council (i.e. Republican Lite) on the Democratic party. The Democrats have decided to move to the center so as to appeal to the broadest base of support. The problem is, this centrist policy ends up selling out unions, the poor, minorities and the environment all in the name of appealing to the center. There is an argument to be made that the Democrats represent true centrism versus the disguised theocracy/corporatocracy of the Republicans. As long as the electorate does not discriminate between the rhetoric of the Republican party and the reality of their policies, there is a logic to the Democratic position, especially when it comes to the presidency. Still, the needs of those lost by Democrats in their move to the center should be represented, and I think the Green party is best equipped to do that. I also think that for the sort of changes that need to be made in our political process, the two major parties are too entrenched to allow for that change. I'm not talking about armed insurrection, or adoption of a pure Vegan diet as national policy, but rather reform of the election process.
Two concepts I have found that capture my interest are "clean money" reform and Instant Runoff Voting. I think that a combination of these methods could really change the way we elect officials and even persuade more folks like me to run for office. This is ultimately the place we want to be. Atrios has a neat graphic up today. It is interesting to see that Dr. Dean has such great support in the small donation group. I think it imperative that this not be the exception, but rather the rule.
So, I am thinking of running for office here in Charlotte. It is a starting point, and as Molly Ivins put it to The Terminator - if you really want to help out and perform public service, run for school board or town council and learn how things work on the ground. By the way, I'm paraphrasing Ms. Ivins and not linking because her Creators.com website has no archive beyond the past three columns (about a week and a half). I will run as a Green when I run. I will set up a website and blog to talk about what I'm doing and why. I will stand for electoral reform, jobs, education and infrastructure. It should be an instructive experience for me.
I've also made a change in my personal politics. Though my car has been wearing a Green Party bumper sticker for a while now, I'm officially changing my party on my voter registration to unaffiliated. Since the Greens are not recognized in North Carolina this is as close as I can come to officially stating my membership in the party. Basically, despite what I see Howard Dean doing with his campaign, I still see too many fingerprints of the Democratic Leadership Council (i.e. Republican Lite) on the Democratic party. The Democrats have decided to move to the center so as to appeal to the broadest base of support. The problem is, this centrist policy ends up selling out unions, the poor, minorities and the environment all in the name of appealing to the center. There is an argument to be made that the Democrats represent true centrism versus the disguised theocracy/corporatocracy of the Republicans. As long as the electorate does not discriminate between the rhetoric of the Republican party and the reality of their policies, there is a logic to the Democratic position, especially when it comes to the presidency. Still, the needs of those lost by Democrats in their move to the center should be represented, and I think the Green party is best equipped to do that. I also think that for the sort of changes that need to be made in our political process, the two major parties are too entrenched to allow for that change. I'm not talking about armed insurrection, or adoption of a pure Vegan diet as national policy, but rather reform of the election process.
Two concepts I have found that capture my interest are "clean money" reform and Instant Runoff Voting. I think that a combination of these methods could really change the way we elect officials and even persuade more folks like me to run for office. This is ultimately the place we want to be. Atrios has a neat graphic up today. It is interesting to see that Dr. Dean has such great support in the small donation group. I think it imperative that this not be the exception, but rather the rule.
So, I am thinking of running for office here in Charlotte. It is a starting point, and as Molly Ivins put it to The Terminator - if you really want to help out and perform public service, run for school board or town council and learn how things work on the ground. By the way, I'm paraphrasing Ms. Ivins and not linking because her Creators.com website has no archive beyond the past three columns (about a week and a half). I will run as a Green when I run. I will set up a website and blog to talk about what I'm doing and why. I will stand for electoral reform, jobs, education and infrastructure. It should be an instructive experience for me.
Monday, November 03, 2003
Gaily We Move Along
Now, I'll state from the outset that I am a supporter of civil rights for gay couples. This means I believe that any rights and responsibilities I have gained by being a citizen and a married man should also accrue to gay individuals and couples. This does not mean special rights - it just means the same rights as me. As far as individual rights are concerned (with the notable exception of military service) the rights of homosexuals are fairly well protected by the fourteenth amendment. There may be issues with enforcing access to these rights, but the rights are pretty well defined. The rights that are not as well defined are the rights associated with gay couples. Heterosexual couples have long had a set of rights that accrues to them when they become married. These include things like joint filing of tax returns, rights of survivorship and the right to jointly carry insurance. These rights are denied gay couples. I have heard two arguments behind this. The first is a moral argument, based in literal interpretation of biblical text. The second is a question of legal process.
I am no biblical scholar. I believe my essay on Christian Fundamentalism makes that clear. I think that essay also makes it pretty clear that literal interpretations of what constitutes a sin does not fly with me. So, when I hear the outcry over various homosexuality related issues is primarily based on biblical injunctions against the behavior, I tend to tune out pretty quickly. For my reasoning along those lines, please refer to my earlier posting. I'll say that if someone is willing to accept every biblical decree at face value and without question, then they need to review the legal standing of women and the modern abolition of slavery as examples of how this literal interpretation has fallen to the social evolution of man. Regardless of my belief in social evolution and the rightness of my belief in equal protection and rights, I do recognize that churches are separate entities from government, a fact I am very grateful for. Recognizing that the church should not meddle in affairs of the state comes with the acceptance that the state should not meddle in affairs of the church whenever possible. Thus, if the various religions wish to prohibit the marriage of gays, there is little the state can (or should) do to force them to do so.
As for the second argument, the debate pretty much comes down to probabilities and "drawing a line somewhere" as a good friend and member of the bar told me. The reasoning is that every set of two people who live together is not necessarily a couple deserving of joint rights under law. For example, two people who are roommates should not have rights of inheritance, rights to visit in the hospital, the ability to be jointly insured and so on. These are rights reserved for people who are couples. The issue comes in when we try to define what is a "couple". In an effort to solve that problem, we have created the concept of marriage, which is the religious blessing of a couple. Among its other benefits, marriage bestows the rights attached to being a legally recognized couple. In addition to the religious acknowledgment of this status, there are rules regarding common law marriage, which basically recognizes that a man and woman who have spent a certain time together are granted the legal rights associated with marriage. Since I have earlier accepted the notion that the state cannot force religions to perform marriages of gays, I then turn to the ideal of some sort of civil partnership law. Here is where it gets sticky, according to my (former) lawyer friend (former lawyer that is, always my friend). Basically, the argument is that if two people are living together and they are opposite sexes, the odds are better that they are couple (as legally defined for purposes of various joint rights) than if they are two members of the same sex. This difference in probability is what causes the problem. In the absence of any objective test of "couplehood" the state has to use what objective tests it can to limit those seeking these joint rights.
Here is my objection to that test. As it stands now, marriage for heterosexual couples is little bar if any to those seeking to exploit the joint rights available to married couples. From the drive-up wedding chapels in Las Vegas, to quickie no-fault divorces, a man and woman can become a legally recognized couple pretty much at a whim, and dissolve that couple without much more effort. Thus, it is difficult for me to accept the idea that somehow these joinings are somehow more legally valid than just about anything else. I'm not saying that marriage isn't a special and sacred thing to those who enter it with good intentions, love and strength. I am saying that it is so ridiculously easy to marry and divorce in this country that to confer some special status on marriage is an ill-considered belief that all those who marry are doing so with the best of intentions.
The state has no way of determining who are deserving of status as a couple, either for heterosexual or homosexual partners. It is merely playing the odds when it says that couples of opposite sexes are more likely to be legitimate than couples of the same sex. It is playing those odds, it says, to avoid fraudulent claims of couplehood. Yet it accepts a claim of couplehood from two people who coughed up a few bucks in Vegas to have an overweight Elvis impersonator declare them husband and wife. If that is considered legitimate, I fail to see why some other legally binding status cannot be conferred to gay couples without stretching concerns over fraud any further than they are already stretched.
I am no biblical scholar. I believe my essay on Christian Fundamentalism makes that clear. I think that essay also makes it pretty clear that literal interpretations of what constitutes a sin does not fly with me. So, when I hear the outcry over various homosexuality related issues is primarily based on biblical injunctions against the behavior, I tend to tune out pretty quickly. For my reasoning along those lines, please refer to my earlier posting. I'll say that if someone is willing to accept every biblical decree at face value and without question, then they need to review the legal standing of women and the modern abolition of slavery as examples of how this literal interpretation has fallen to the social evolution of man. Regardless of my belief in social evolution and the rightness of my belief in equal protection and rights, I do recognize that churches are separate entities from government, a fact I am very grateful for. Recognizing that the church should not meddle in affairs of the state comes with the acceptance that the state should not meddle in affairs of the church whenever possible. Thus, if the various religions wish to prohibit the marriage of gays, there is little the state can (or should) do to force them to do so.
As for the second argument, the debate pretty much comes down to probabilities and "drawing a line somewhere" as a good friend and member of the bar told me. The reasoning is that every set of two people who live together is not necessarily a couple deserving of joint rights under law. For example, two people who are roommates should not have rights of inheritance, rights to visit in the hospital, the ability to be jointly insured and so on. These are rights reserved for people who are couples. The issue comes in when we try to define what is a "couple". In an effort to solve that problem, we have created the concept of marriage, which is the religious blessing of a couple. Among its other benefits, marriage bestows the rights attached to being a legally recognized couple. In addition to the religious acknowledgment of this status, there are rules regarding common law marriage, which basically recognizes that a man and woman who have spent a certain time together are granted the legal rights associated with marriage. Since I have earlier accepted the notion that the state cannot force religions to perform marriages of gays, I then turn to the ideal of some sort of civil partnership law. Here is where it gets sticky, according to my (former) lawyer friend (former lawyer that is, always my friend). Basically, the argument is that if two people are living together and they are opposite sexes, the odds are better that they are couple (as legally defined for purposes of various joint rights) than if they are two members of the same sex. This difference in probability is what causes the problem. In the absence of any objective test of "couplehood" the state has to use what objective tests it can to limit those seeking these joint rights.
Here is my objection to that test. As it stands now, marriage for heterosexual couples is little bar if any to those seeking to exploit the joint rights available to married couples. From the drive-up wedding chapels in Las Vegas, to quickie no-fault divorces, a man and woman can become a legally recognized couple pretty much at a whim, and dissolve that couple without much more effort. Thus, it is difficult for me to accept the idea that somehow these joinings are somehow more legally valid than just about anything else. I'm not saying that marriage isn't a special and sacred thing to those who enter it with good intentions, love and strength. I am saying that it is so ridiculously easy to marry and divorce in this country that to confer some special status on marriage is an ill-considered belief that all those who marry are doing so with the best of intentions.
The state has no way of determining who are deserving of status as a couple, either for heterosexual or homosexual partners. It is merely playing the odds when it says that couples of opposite sexes are more likely to be legitimate than couples of the same sex. It is playing those odds, it says, to avoid fraudulent claims of couplehood. Yet it accepts a claim of couplehood from two people who coughed up a few bucks in Vegas to have an overweight Elvis impersonator declare them husband and wife. If that is considered legitimate, I fail to see why some other legally binding status cannot be conferred to gay couples without stretching concerns over fraud any further than they are already stretched.
Monday, October 27, 2003
Such a plethora of topics. I wanted to address the new icon I added to my sidebar - my pro-gay marriage graphic. Actually, at some point I wanted to address my feelings on homosexuality in general. Today, though, events bring me to a topic that I hadn't considered lately.
I've linked to Riverbend's blog before, so you can probably guess that I have a great deal of compassion for Iraqis who are just folks like most of us. I also have a great deal of sympathy for the soldiers and their families, some of whom are paying a tremendous price for this war in Iraq. I also feel a lot of pain for the workers from the U.N. and Red Cross. They are there to try and help - no more - and are getting blown up for their efforts.
So what do we do? I was anti-war before we went in. Now that we are there, what do we do? We went in, without any sort of international help (at least nothing substantive outside the U.K.), without any agreement from the international community. We blew the holy Hell out of their country from the air. Then we rolled across the desert in our tanks, APCs and Humvees, looking like some sort of latter-day cavalry charge. Of course, when we reached the beleaguered settlers (read: Baghdad and its citizenry) what did we do? Did we immediately set out to restore all the infrastructure we built? Did we work to secure the priceless historical artifacts from the "Cradle of Civilization"? No, but we showed our true intentions immediately. We secured the Ministry of Oil complex and set up security enough there to hold against an attack from some sort of mass army we expected to see, but which never materialized. So now we have a country which, despite having lost a vicious dictator and his even more evil sons, is perhaps even more dysfunctional than before. We went in and ruined their functional country. Regardless of who their leader was or what he did, is the current situation better? Is it going to become better anytime soon (I mean within the next five years)? We wrecked the joint, so it should be incumbent upon us to fix it, at least partially.
But what's the cost of that? Blood first of all. More blood every day. Soldiers from our volunteer army, not guys like President Bush the Younger or his ilk. Not guys like me who have jobs in cubicles. The guys for whom the military was a way to make something of themselves when no other opportunities were available. These guys made a personal commitment to themselves and to the country, and we should be very proud of them. But their blood keeps spilling onto the sand, and I do not see how to stop it, short of getting them out of there. But to get them out, we either have to complete the task (at a cost of billions of dollars and much more blood), somehow get the U.N. to come in and take over or just abandon Iraq. None of these is a good option. How about the stresses that the combat troops are under? Looking at Atrios today, I see that our returning soldiers have the same sorts of memories as the kids in Vietnam did. Small wonder - I'm sure the great majority of Iraqis are good people who do not, in general, wish harm upon our soldiers. Still, if you are over there, how do you deal with the fact that every man, woman and child may be an innocent or may be about to kill you? How do you make snap life or death decisions like that? What happens if you guess wrong and an innocent dies? If you have your own family at home that you are responsible for, can you afford to have anything less than a hair trigger? What happens when your best efforts to save yourself and your family kill another and tear someone else's family apart? I feel for anyone who has to make such a decision - I do not know how I could and keep my sanity intact.
Our best option would seem to be to get out and let the U.N. take over. Given the events of today why would the U.N. or anyone else want this job? I know there is a lot of anger and hate toward Americans in Iraq, but, for the love of God, why is it being taken out on people working for the U.N. or the Red Cross? They are not there to plunder or kill, they want to help!
All I feel is sadness and frustration. Innocent people such as aid workers, American soldiers and Iraqi civilians are all dying for this war. More innocent are going to die, because the United States will not leave Iraq until the oil wells and the production facilities are pumping dollars into the pockets of the war profiteers.
There's really no truth here, just unanswered and maybe unanswerable questions. That and death.
I've linked to Riverbend's blog before, so you can probably guess that I have a great deal of compassion for Iraqis who are just folks like most of us. I also have a great deal of sympathy for the soldiers and their families, some of whom are paying a tremendous price for this war in Iraq. I also feel a lot of pain for the workers from the U.N. and Red Cross. They are there to try and help - no more - and are getting blown up for their efforts.
So what do we do? I was anti-war before we went in. Now that we are there, what do we do? We went in, without any sort of international help (at least nothing substantive outside the U.K.), without any agreement from the international community. We blew the holy Hell out of their country from the air. Then we rolled across the desert in our tanks, APCs and Humvees, looking like some sort of latter-day cavalry charge. Of course, when we reached the beleaguered settlers (read: Baghdad and its citizenry) what did we do? Did we immediately set out to restore all the infrastructure we built? Did we work to secure the priceless historical artifacts from the "Cradle of Civilization"? No, but we showed our true intentions immediately. We secured the Ministry of Oil complex and set up security enough there to hold against an attack from some sort of mass army we expected to see, but which never materialized. So now we have a country which, despite having lost a vicious dictator and his even more evil sons, is perhaps even more dysfunctional than before. We went in and ruined their functional country. Regardless of who their leader was or what he did, is the current situation better? Is it going to become better anytime soon (I mean within the next five years)? We wrecked the joint, so it should be incumbent upon us to fix it, at least partially.
But what's the cost of that? Blood first of all. More blood every day. Soldiers from our volunteer army, not guys like President Bush the Younger or his ilk. Not guys like me who have jobs in cubicles. The guys for whom the military was a way to make something of themselves when no other opportunities were available. These guys made a personal commitment to themselves and to the country, and we should be very proud of them. But their blood keeps spilling onto the sand, and I do not see how to stop it, short of getting them out of there. But to get them out, we either have to complete the task (at a cost of billions of dollars and much more blood), somehow get the U.N. to come in and take over or just abandon Iraq. None of these is a good option. How about the stresses that the combat troops are under? Looking at Atrios today, I see that our returning soldiers have the same sorts of memories as the kids in Vietnam did. Small wonder - I'm sure the great majority of Iraqis are good people who do not, in general, wish harm upon our soldiers. Still, if you are over there, how do you deal with the fact that every man, woman and child may be an innocent or may be about to kill you? How do you make snap life or death decisions like that? What happens if you guess wrong and an innocent dies? If you have your own family at home that you are responsible for, can you afford to have anything less than a hair trigger? What happens when your best efforts to save yourself and your family kill another and tear someone else's family apart? I feel for anyone who has to make such a decision - I do not know how I could and keep my sanity intact.
Our best option would seem to be to get out and let the U.N. take over. Given the events of today why would the U.N. or anyone else want this job? I know there is a lot of anger and hate toward Americans in Iraq, but, for the love of God, why is it being taken out on people working for the U.N. or the Red Cross? They are not there to plunder or kill, they want to help!
All I feel is sadness and frustration. Innocent people such as aid workers, American soldiers and Iraqi civilians are all dying for this war. More innocent are going to die, because the United States will not leave Iraq until the oil wells and the production facilities are pumping dollars into the pockets of the war profiteers.
There's really no truth here, just unanswered and maybe unanswerable questions. That and death.
Jobs Leaving Charlotte
I'm a Charlottean and a SAS programmer. Not too long ago, SAS programming was a marketable skill. Then it began to morph into business analysis, with less of an emphasis on programming. Now this - these SAS jobs, these business analyst positions are moving offshore. Okay, I can pretty much hear the gears grinding. "He's liberal, he's moaning about job loss, this is going to be another anti-globalization screed." And you would be wrong, at least partly.
I'm not opposed to a "global economy". I think that having a global pool of talent to apply to any problem will inevitably lead to better solutions to the problem. I think that since all human life is equally valuable, every human should have the same rights and privileges as every other person, be that freedom from repression or freedom to own a TiVo. If a programmer in India (or China or Mexico or Romania) is better than I am at some job, then by all means, he should get the gig.
Here's the first problem though. The salary levels those places are quite a bit lower than here. Thus, even if I am a better programmer than the person in India, I have to be so much better as to offset the salary difference. And while I'm pretty good, I'm not nearly that good. It is, in effect, a VERY uneven playing field. If I am going to compete with the programmer from India, I have to price myself competitively. If I do that, though, I am unable to afford to live in America.
This is the second problem. When a service provider, be it a programmer or a farmer or whatever, prices their labor, they price it at a level that will enable them to pay their expenses (housing, food, medical, etc.). In America, that price level is a whole lot higher than in India or wherever. So, when my Indian counterpart prices his labor, he is able to do it at a discount compared to mine.
The solution to this is not to make it more difficult to move work around the globe. I believe that as the world comes together, this worldwide distribution of work is a good and right thing. Imposing penalties for this movement will not change the dynamic, rather it will force whole companies to move offshore rather than just parts of their work. While there is an argument to be made that keeping a corporate shell in the U.S. while it's work is done overseas is no great thing, I think keeping corporations here has benefits. The solution, I think, is to accelerate the economic trend.
Ultimately, if jobs keep moving offshore, the supply of workers will far outstrip the demand. This will lead to a reduction in the cost of labor. As the cost of labor goes down, so does the buying power of the labor force. This will, eventually, lead to a decline in prices in the United States. This decline in prices will also be aided by the cheaper labor which will make the cost of goods go down. In time, prices and wages will stabilize worldwide. At that point in time, all service providers will be able to price their labor competitively. The playing field will be level and the demand for workers in America will once again rise. What is needed is some way to make this transition as painless as possible for those of us whose wages will be falling. We need to find a way to make the global stabilization of wages and prices happen very quickly or we need to consider the need to support people who are struggling while we wait for the stabilization to occur.
Now, having said that, there is a huge catch. Deflation (the lowering of prices, the opposite of inflation) is a huge economic bugaboo, one that I think is highly unlikely to happen voluntarily. So, the expectation must be for us to wait until such a time as workers wage demands in the rest of the world reach the same level as currently exists here. That may be quite some time in the future. It is, I think, incumbent upon organized labor to work toward unionizing those countries to combat the sorts of oppression (low wages, sweatshop conditions, child labor) that characterized the growth of industry in our country. Again, though, this is a struggle that will take quite some time.
Herein is the problem, the question for which I have no solution. In order to be competitive in the global economy, my cost of labor must be competitive with similarly skilled workers in that economy. If, however, I price my labor at that competitive level, I am utterly unable to afford to live. I think advocating the abolition of GATT, NAFTA and the WTO is the wrong solution. Hiding from a problem hardly makes the problem go away. I think we need to look very carefully at how we address wage and price disparities between the various countries involved in the global economy. Otherwise I think there will be a large and growing segment of discontented folks who have no jobs, or who have jobs that cannot support their families. That set of unhappy people has been, until now, largely uneducated and politically apathetic. As more white collar jobs are sent offshore, that demographic will shift, and that shift will then force the issue. It is better to deal with this now rather than later.
I'm a Charlottean and a SAS programmer. Not too long ago, SAS programming was a marketable skill. Then it began to morph into business analysis, with less of an emphasis on programming. Now this - these SAS jobs, these business analyst positions are moving offshore. Okay, I can pretty much hear the gears grinding. "He's liberal, he's moaning about job loss, this is going to be another anti-globalization screed." And you would be wrong, at least partly.
I'm not opposed to a "global economy". I think that having a global pool of talent to apply to any problem will inevitably lead to better solutions to the problem. I think that since all human life is equally valuable, every human should have the same rights and privileges as every other person, be that freedom from repression or freedom to own a TiVo. If a programmer in India (or China or Mexico or Romania) is better than I am at some job, then by all means, he should get the gig.
Here's the first problem though. The salary levels those places are quite a bit lower than here. Thus, even if I am a better programmer than the person in India, I have to be so much better as to offset the salary difference. And while I'm pretty good, I'm not nearly that good. It is, in effect, a VERY uneven playing field. If I am going to compete with the programmer from India, I have to price myself competitively. If I do that, though, I am unable to afford to live in America.
This is the second problem. When a service provider, be it a programmer or a farmer or whatever, prices their labor, they price it at a level that will enable them to pay their expenses (housing, food, medical, etc.). In America, that price level is a whole lot higher than in India or wherever. So, when my Indian counterpart prices his labor, he is able to do it at a discount compared to mine.
The solution to this is not to make it more difficult to move work around the globe. I believe that as the world comes together, this worldwide distribution of work is a good and right thing. Imposing penalties for this movement will not change the dynamic, rather it will force whole companies to move offshore rather than just parts of their work. While there is an argument to be made that keeping a corporate shell in the U.S. while it's work is done overseas is no great thing, I think keeping corporations here has benefits. The solution, I think, is to accelerate the economic trend.
Ultimately, if jobs keep moving offshore, the supply of workers will far outstrip the demand. This will lead to a reduction in the cost of labor. As the cost of labor goes down, so does the buying power of the labor force. This will, eventually, lead to a decline in prices in the United States. This decline in prices will also be aided by the cheaper labor which will make the cost of goods go down. In time, prices and wages will stabilize worldwide. At that point in time, all service providers will be able to price their labor competitively. The playing field will be level and the demand for workers in America will once again rise. What is needed is some way to make this transition as painless as possible for those of us whose wages will be falling. We need to find a way to make the global stabilization of wages and prices happen very quickly or we need to consider the need to support people who are struggling while we wait for the stabilization to occur.
Now, having said that, there is a huge catch. Deflation (the lowering of prices, the opposite of inflation) is a huge economic bugaboo, one that I think is highly unlikely to happen voluntarily. So, the expectation must be for us to wait until such a time as workers wage demands in the rest of the world reach the same level as currently exists here. That may be quite some time in the future. It is, I think, incumbent upon organized labor to work toward unionizing those countries to combat the sorts of oppression (low wages, sweatshop conditions, child labor) that characterized the growth of industry in our country. Again, though, this is a struggle that will take quite some time.
Herein is the problem, the question for which I have no solution. In order to be competitive in the global economy, my cost of labor must be competitive with similarly skilled workers in that economy. If, however, I price my labor at that competitive level, I am utterly unable to afford to live. I think advocating the abolition of GATT, NAFTA and the WTO is the wrong solution. Hiding from a problem hardly makes the problem go away. I think we need to look very carefully at how we address wage and price disparities between the various countries involved in the global economy. Otherwise I think there will be a large and growing segment of discontented folks who have no jobs, or who have jobs that cannot support their families. That set of unhappy people has been, until now, largely uneducated and politically apathetic. As more white collar jobs are sent offshore, that demographic will shift, and that shift will then force the issue. It is better to deal with this now rather than later.
Monday, October 20, 2003
Fundamentalism and Me
I find Fundamentalism, as it is defined in the dictionary, an odd concept. For one thing, it fails to recognize that the document which Fundamentalists insist is the literal and absolute truth, has been translated from its original language to another and then, in some cases translated again. What's more, the idiom of the time has been translated to a more modern idiom. In addition, there is, in the Bible, a great deal of societal custom that is no longer considered an acceptable part of a civilized society. Despite these things, however, Fundamentalists insist that the literal interpretation of the Bible is right and appropriate.
I've taken some classes in Latin and German, and I've struggled through a few bits of Spanish. One thing that is imminently clear: the old bromide about a translation being the equivalent of looking at the backside of a tapestry is very apt. Most words that are translated from one language to another are approximations of their original meaning. This is all the more pronounced when one is comparing texts from times long passed. The act of translation, by its very nature, changes the text from its original form to a view through the lens of the translator's ideas and opinions on how the language should be translated. So, how is it that Fundamentalists can adopt a philosophy that embraces the exact, literal interpretation of the Bible, when that Bible has been translated from its original language (which varies from book to book)? What's more, it is also interpreted from the older English of the King James Version to the New King James Version or from some other older version to some newer version. It is not a stretch to say that the original thoughts of the author were penned at least two translations ago, and depending on the genealogy of the version in question, perhaps as many as four or more. It is fair to say that insisting on the literal interpretation of texts that have been fundamentally altered by one or more translators is, well, a bit odd.
Then there are some of the more archaic social customs of Biblical times. According to the Bible, slavery was acceptable. Various punishments such as stoning were not considered barbaric. There are a great number of things that are explicitly listed as acceptable that are now considered barbaric and cruel. For one to then insist on a literal interpretation of that text denies any change in social mores over the last 4000 or so years. I think no moral person, not even the most Fundamentalist, would insist, for example, that slavery is a good and moral thing. It is impossible, I think, to make the argument that the ethics of society have not evolved since the days of the writing of the various books of the Bible. It is equally impossible to argue that most, if not all, of this ethical evolution is to the good. Things like the status of women in society, the status of people of different races and beliefs and the ideas concerning the way people treat one another have all grown from the days of the book of Genesis or even the book of Matthew. In point of fact, the birth of Christ marks an incredibly radical shift in ethical belief about a person's relationship with God. Before Christ, the God of the Bible was a harsh and often cruel God. Some examples of that are the Flood and the fall of Sodom and Gomorrah. Once Christ was born, once the Son of God was part of the planet, the opportunity for forgiveness was given to all who truly repented of their sins. This is a tremendous departure from Old Testament belief. Yet even with such a radical shift appearing in the text itself, the idea of moral evolution is, at best, approached with a great deal of skepticism.
Thus, I find Fundamentalism very difficult to understand. It seems to me that this inflexible use of literal interpretation is merely a way for people to avoid consideration of various ethical problems, instead using a very old text that is likely quite different than the original as the matrix from within which all decisions must be made. In some ways, the Bible can then act as a sort of moral computer. Feed in a question and the Bible will give you a solution, all without the need for messy thinking.
I've taken some classes in Latin and German, and I've struggled through a few bits of Spanish. One thing that is imminently clear: the old bromide about a translation being the equivalent of looking at the backside of a tapestry is very apt. Most words that are translated from one language to another are approximations of their original meaning. This is all the more pronounced when one is comparing texts from times long passed. The act of translation, by its very nature, changes the text from its original form to a view through the lens of the translator's ideas and opinions on how the language should be translated. So, how is it that Fundamentalists can adopt a philosophy that embraces the exact, literal interpretation of the Bible, when that Bible has been translated from its original language (which varies from book to book)? What's more, it is also interpreted from the older English of the King James Version to the New King James Version or from some other older version to some newer version. It is not a stretch to say that the original thoughts of the author were penned at least two translations ago, and depending on the genealogy of the version in question, perhaps as many as four or more. It is fair to say that insisting on the literal interpretation of texts that have been fundamentally altered by one or more translators is, well, a bit odd.
Then there are some of the more archaic social customs of Biblical times. According to the Bible, slavery was acceptable. Various punishments such as stoning were not considered barbaric. There are a great number of things that are explicitly listed as acceptable that are now considered barbaric and cruel. For one to then insist on a literal interpretation of that text denies any change in social mores over the last 4000 or so years. I think no moral person, not even the most Fundamentalist, would insist, for example, that slavery is a good and moral thing. It is impossible, I think, to make the argument that the ethics of society have not evolved since the days of the writing of the various books of the Bible. It is equally impossible to argue that most, if not all, of this ethical evolution is to the good. Things like the status of women in society, the status of people of different races and beliefs and the ideas concerning the way people treat one another have all grown from the days of the book of Genesis or even the book of Matthew. In point of fact, the birth of Christ marks an incredibly radical shift in ethical belief about a person's relationship with God. Before Christ, the God of the Bible was a harsh and often cruel God. Some examples of that are the Flood and the fall of Sodom and Gomorrah. Once Christ was born, once the Son of God was part of the planet, the opportunity for forgiveness was given to all who truly repented of their sins. This is a tremendous departure from Old Testament belief. Yet even with such a radical shift appearing in the text itself, the idea of moral evolution is, at best, approached with a great deal of skepticism.
Thus, I find Fundamentalism very difficult to understand. It seems to me that this inflexible use of literal interpretation is merely a way for people to avoid consideration of various ethical problems, instead using a very old text that is likely quite different than the original as the matrix from within which all decisions must be made. In some ways, the Bible can then act as a sort of moral computer. Feed in a question and the Bible will give you a solution, all without the need for messy thinking.
Sunday, October 19, 2003
Dennis Miller - You're Killing Me
I am a liberal. I believe in the power of government helping folks over the power of corporations helping folks. That's not quite true - really I believe corporations only help anyone when it benefits them. Corporate altruism is either bad business or an oxymoron. Still, aside from the vitriolic rancor of O'Reilly, Limbaugh, Coulter et al, the serious theory behind conservatism is of interest to me, if only because it is instructive to me to understand the flip side of my own beliefs. So, when a real live conservative wants to talk about the theory behind their belief, I am, I think, a receptive audience.
To my mind, conservatism is characterized by the desire for a strong defense, the belief that market forces are the most effective methods not only of economic performance but of social change and social justice and the belief that smaller, less intrusive, more localized government is preferable to a large centralized government. There is also the idea of "strict constructionism" which could be put as "constitutional fundamentalism". That is to say that the Constitution should get as literal and narrow a definition as can reasonably be made. I'm not sure of the basis for this, but I presume it has something to do with the fact that when we try to divine intent, we stray into a VERY unclear area where just about anything can be justified. Now, I don't really believe market forces work for social good, but I'm open to hearing arguments about it and I certainly do not disregard the other central tenets.
In addition to this, though, the Republican party has a second sort of conservatism, social conservatism. This is characterized, in my mind, by uncompromising positions on gay rights, the right to choose and the open declaration of America as a Christian nation. And here is where conservatives lose me. First of all, there's the move to make anything associated with homosexuality illegal. That is, make it a government function to police sexual practices. This seems counter to the idea of a smaller and less intrusive government. Then there is the drive to declare America a Christian nation. Now, as I read the first amendment, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion . . . .", seems to be pretty clear on this point, certainly if one takes it very literally as a strict constructionist might.
And this takes me to my title. I've always enjoyed the various rants of Dennis Miller. His politics seemed somewhere between libertarian and liberal, at least liberal in terms of the above social issues. One thing that has always seemed to be true, though of Dennis Miller is that he has a rather low tolerance for bull. Which is why I am utterly mystified by his sudden conversion to the side of George W. Bush. Actually, a bit more than mystified, I'm a little hurt. If Miller had chosen to be a sort of Rockefeller Republican, I can certainly understand and respect that. But to align himself with the Fundamentalist Christian president, the ultra-intrusive Justice Department and the rest of the current administration - well, it seems like he's pretty much going counter to all the things he's been saying for the last 15 or so years. Maybe it was all schtick and his true beliefs were different than what he presented to us. Still and all, I feel like the man who made himself out as the comic "crap detector" was feeding us a heaping plate of it all along.
To my mind, conservatism is characterized by the desire for a strong defense, the belief that market forces are the most effective methods not only of economic performance but of social change and social justice and the belief that smaller, less intrusive, more localized government is preferable to a large centralized government. There is also the idea of "strict constructionism" which could be put as "constitutional fundamentalism". That is to say that the Constitution should get as literal and narrow a definition as can reasonably be made. I'm not sure of the basis for this, but I presume it has something to do with the fact that when we try to divine intent, we stray into a VERY unclear area where just about anything can be justified. Now, I don't really believe market forces work for social good, but I'm open to hearing arguments about it and I certainly do not disregard the other central tenets.
In addition to this, though, the Republican party has a second sort of conservatism, social conservatism. This is characterized, in my mind, by uncompromising positions on gay rights, the right to choose and the open declaration of America as a Christian nation. And here is where conservatives lose me. First of all, there's the move to make anything associated with homosexuality illegal. That is, make it a government function to police sexual practices. This seems counter to the idea of a smaller and less intrusive government. Then there is the drive to declare America a Christian nation. Now, as I read the first amendment, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion . . . .", seems to be pretty clear on this point, certainly if one takes it very literally as a strict constructionist might.
And this takes me to my title. I've always enjoyed the various rants of Dennis Miller. His politics seemed somewhere between libertarian and liberal, at least liberal in terms of the above social issues. One thing that has always seemed to be true, though of Dennis Miller is that he has a rather low tolerance for bull. Which is why I am utterly mystified by his sudden conversion to the side of George W. Bush. Actually, a bit more than mystified, I'm a little hurt. If Miller had chosen to be a sort of Rockefeller Republican, I can certainly understand and respect that. But to align himself with the Fundamentalist Christian president, the ultra-intrusive Justice Department and the rest of the current administration - well, it seems like he's pretty much going counter to all the things he's been saying for the last 15 or so years. Maybe it was all schtick and his true beliefs were different than what he presented to us. Still and all, I feel like the man who made himself out as the comic "crap detector" was feeding us a heaping plate of it all along.
Friday, October 17, 2003
Terrorism: A Question Without an Answer?
Let me preface this by saying that my mother-in-law died in the World Trade Center. The issues surrounding that and how they affect my viewpoint are ones that are way too complex to look into here. I'm just letting you know that bit of background so you can take it into your calculations.
Terrorism. Specifically, what do we do about terrorism? How do we stop it?
Here is one truth I feel about terrorism. No amount of violence will cause terrorists to stop doing what they do, not unless you kill every terrorist, their wives, their kids, their brothers, their sisters, their cousins and their parents. One living survivor is enough to keep the hatred going. Violence cannot end this, except (maybe) through genocide, something that we all want to avoid.
Here is another truth I feel about terrorism. We find ourselves in a world where we have created the means for one person to quickly and (relatively) easily kill thousands. The goal of military technology has always been to kill more with less. I'm not saying that as a criticism - countless soldiers have been spared because we developed better ways of killing enemy soldiers. War is horrible and killing is horrible, but if you are in a war, it is incumbent upon you to win that war with as little hurt to yourself as possible. The net result is the ability of one man to kill thousands. That ability, though, is what gives terrorism its teeth. We opened this Pandora's box, we loosed this genie from its bottle. The ability of terrorists to do their work is the consequence of that.
Here is another truth I feel about terrorism. Allowing those in a minority to dictate anything to those in the majority is a very bad idea. When as few as five people are capable of bringing down one of the Trade Center towers, that means any five people with an axe to grind are capable of devastating acts. Can we allow those same five folks to dictate policy to the country? Of course not.
So, having said all that, what does it mean?
In summation, we cannot bargain with terrorists. We cannot fight terrorists. Even the smallest groups of people are capable of conducting devastating terrorist attacks. Sounds pretty hopeless, really.
I think that the upshot of this is as follows: terrorism will always be with us and always be an issue, no matter what we do. We can do a few things though. We need to look at why the people who conduct these attacks decide that this is the proper answer. We need to understand the despair and anger. In cases where the anger has some rational basis, we need to examine what is causing the anger and see what we can do to mitigate it. Terrorism's mother's milk is anger and despair, its lifeblood is hate. Remove these things are terrorism will wither away. This isn't to say that terrorists should go unpunished - those who commit these acts, those who plan them and those who finance them deserve the full weight of our displeasure. This punishment needs to be tempered, though, with some degree of mercy and humanity. If the punishment is so harsh as to create more hatred and anger and despair, then it merely creates more terrorists. We also have to accept that being a target for terrorism is the cost of doing business as a superpower. We cannot address all the various gripes the world and its billions have. The tricky bit is to know which groups to listen to and which ones not to listen to; which groups to keep a close eye on and which groups to disregard. I didn't say it was easy, but this balancing act is the only way I know of to counter the threat of terrorism.
Terrorism. Specifically, what do we do about terrorism? How do we stop it?
Here is one truth I feel about terrorism. No amount of violence will cause terrorists to stop doing what they do, not unless you kill every terrorist, their wives, their kids, their brothers, their sisters, their cousins and their parents. One living survivor is enough to keep the hatred going. Violence cannot end this, except (maybe) through genocide, something that we all want to avoid.
Here is another truth I feel about terrorism. We find ourselves in a world where we have created the means for one person to quickly and (relatively) easily kill thousands. The goal of military technology has always been to kill more with less. I'm not saying that as a criticism - countless soldiers have been spared because we developed better ways of killing enemy soldiers. War is horrible and killing is horrible, but if you are in a war, it is incumbent upon you to win that war with as little hurt to yourself as possible. The net result is the ability of one man to kill thousands. That ability, though, is what gives terrorism its teeth. We opened this Pandora's box, we loosed this genie from its bottle. The ability of terrorists to do their work is the consequence of that.
Here is another truth I feel about terrorism. Allowing those in a minority to dictate anything to those in the majority is a very bad idea. When as few as five people are capable of bringing down one of the Trade Center towers, that means any five people with an axe to grind are capable of devastating acts. Can we allow those same five folks to dictate policy to the country? Of course not.
So, having said all that, what does it mean?
In summation, we cannot bargain with terrorists. We cannot fight terrorists. Even the smallest groups of people are capable of conducting devastating terrorist attacks. Sounds pretty hopeless, really.
I think that the upshot of this is as follows: terrorism will always be with us and always be an issue, no matter what we do. We can do a few things though. We need to look at why the people who conduct these attacks decide that this is the proper answer. We need to understand the despair and anger. In cases where the anger has some rational basis, we need to examine what is causing the anger and see what we can do to mitigate it. Terrorism's mother's milk is anger and despair, its lifeblood is hate. Remove these things are terrorism will wither away. This isn't to say that terrorists should go unpunished - those who commit these acts, those who plan them and those who finance them deserve the full weight of our displeasure. This punishment needs to be tempered, though, with some degree of mercy and humanity. If the punishment is so harsh as to create more hatred and anger and despair, then it merely creates more terrorists. We also have to accept that being a target for terrorism is the cost of doing business as a superpower. We cannot address all the various gripes the world and its billions have. The tricky bit is to know which groups to listen to and which ones not to listen to; which groups to keep a close eye on and which groups to disregard. I didn't say it was easy, but this balancing act is the only way I know of to counter the threat of terrorism.
Tuesday, October 14, 2003
Raison d'Etre
Wow, that was portentous. Or, perhaps I should say, that was pretentious? Whichever, what I wanted to do now was take a moment and introduce myself and explain what I am trying to do here.
Blogs are, I think, very much a vanity thing. To imagine that one's own natterings are somehow of interest to the world at large is, I think, a very functional definition of vanity. The counter to that is just because it is vanity does not preclude it being useful. Politics is perhaps the perfect expression of vanity: imagining that one's ideas are not only interesting, but are capable of leading people to a better life, whether that is in a school district or a nation is unbelievable vain. Yet we rarely view politicians as vain men, at least when it comes to their ideas. Their obsession with their "legacy" is another matter entirely. So, while I am indulging my ego with this project, I would ask that you look beyond the stroking of my ego to the thoughts I share as having some value.
I have found over the past year or so, news stories have set me into a frame of mind that encourages philosophical thoughts. Whether these stories are on my NPR affiliate, on one of the many websites I like to keep up with (see partial list on the right), or just in conversation with friends, I find that I am turning these thoughts over with an eye toward how they make me feel, and more importantly, what is the reason they make me feel this way. For example, the previous entry was inspired in part by reading Riverbend's blog about life in wartime Iraq, as well as various stories that boil down to the premise that one's material wealth has some relationship to the value of one's life. In my way, then, I am trying to reject that premise and to also commiserate with Riverbend, a person who I have a great deal of admiration and sympathy for. I also believe I am a liberal, though not without a pragmatic streak, and even on occasion, flat out hypocrisy in my thinking.
This blog rises from those things. I wanted to share these musings with people to see if I am representative of anything in my thinking. I also wanted to record these philosophical ramblings to help me spot my own hypocrisies, or, to put it more nicely, to encourage me to maintain some semblance of continuity in my own thinking. Finally, and perhaps most vain of all, I wanted to record my thoughts so that I could show them to my girls some day and hopefully provide some idea of what their dad was blathering on about.
Oh yes, one other thing - the name of the blog. It's pretty simple - the philosophical bases for my thinking are things that I think are universal truths (or at least they should be in my arrogant mind). They should be self-evident. As in "We hold these truths to be self evident . . . ".
Blogs are, I think, very much a vanity thing. To imagine that one's own natterings are somehow of interest to the world at large is, I think, a very functional definition of vanity. The counter to that is just because it is vanity does not preclude it being useful. Politics is perhaps the perfect expression of vanity: imagining that one's ideas are not only interesting, but are capable of leading people to a better life, whether that is in a school district or a nation is unbelievable vain. Yet we rarely view politicians as vain men, at least when it comes to their ideas. Their obsession with their "legacy" is another matter entirely. So, while I am indulging my ego with this project, I would ask that you look beyond the stroking of my ego to the thoughts I share as having some value.
I have found over the past year or so, news stories have set me into a frame of mind that encourages philosophical thoughts. Whether these stories are on my NPR affiliate, on one of the many websites I like to keep up with (see partial list on the right), or just in conversation with friends, I find that I am turning these thoughts over with an eye toward how they make me feel, and more importantly, what is the reason they make me feel this way. For example, the previous entry was inspired in part by reading Riverbend's blog about life in wartime Iraq, as well as various stories that boil down to the premise that one's material wealth has some relationship to the value of one's life. In my way, then, I am trying to reject that premise and to also commiserate with Riverbend, a person who I have a great deal of admiration and sympathy for. I also believe I am a liberal, though not without a pragmatic streak, and even on occasion, flat out hypocrisy in my thinking.
This blog rises from those things. I wanted to share these musings with people to see if I am representative of anything in my thinking. I also wanted to record these philosophical ramblings to help me spot my own hypocrisies, or, to put it more nicely, to encourage me to maintain some semblance of continuity in my own thinking. Finally, and perhaps most vain of all, I wanted to record my thoughts so that I could show them to my girls some day and hopefully provide some idea of what their dad was blathering on about.
Oh yes, one other thing - the name of the blog. It's pretty simple - the philosophical bases for my thinking are things that I think are universal truths (or at least they should be in my arrogant mind). They should be self-evident. As in "We hold these truths to be self evident . . . ".
On The Value of Human Life
All human life is equally valuable.
Yes, I know, I'm not really breaking new ground here. But let's look at this statement closely. All human life, be it American or Iraqi, Palestinian or Israeli, Republican or Democrat is of equal value. Okay, this may be a bit more questionable, but still, this is pretty well within the scope of what is considered mainstream thought. All human life being equal also means that all lives are of equal worth. Saddam Hussein's life is as valuable as George W. Bush's. Charles Manson's life is as valuable as Mother Teresa's. Oh dear, here come the cries of outrage.
The truth of the matter is, though, that when we start grading lives, we begin to get into a very dangerous area, one where, I think, we have no business treading. Okay, so we say Manson's life is worth less than Mother Teresa (a stance that the soon to be sainted woman might have disputed). Why is Manson worth less? Well, he committed horrific, inhuman crimes. This takes away from the value of his life. Mother Teresa was a godly, patient and giving person who helped some of the most wretched humans without thought of herself. This adds to the value of her life.
Once we start doing this sort of "life-calculus" though, where does it end? In a clear-cut case like the one above, it may be readily agreed that the equation is valid. However, even the most clear cut cases can quickly become murky. If one were to pose the question of Yassir Arafat's life-value versus Ariel Sharon's life-value to the Israeli cabinet and to the Palestinian cabinet, I think that diametrically opposed "clear-cut" views would be expressed. Or, to put it simply, in attempting to determine the value of any human life, it is frankly impossible to do so, without resorting to wholly subjective measures, which render any such judgment valid only to the observer, and therefore, worthless to society at large.
I will make note of one rather large exception I take to this truth. I believe each individual can and does determine the value of his life. For example, if I were forced to choose between my life or that of my wife and daughters, the choice is crystal clear - I would suffer anything to make them safe. If I choose to join the armed forces or the police, I realize that I am placing my life at risk for some greater good (well, hopefully, anyway).
Overall, though, the truth here is that as a society, we must recognize that all human life has equal value. That is a premise that I hold inviolable for any just and moral society.
Yes, I know, I'm not really breaking new ground here. But let's look at this statement closely. All human life, be it American or Iraqi, Palestinian or Israeli, Republican or Democrat is of equal value. Okay, this may be a bit more questionable, but still, this is pretty well within the scope of what is considered mainstream thought. All human life being equal also means that all lives are of equal worth. Saddam Hussein's life is as valuable as George W. Bush's. Charles Manson's life is as valuable as Mother Teresa's. Oh dear, here come the cries of outrage.
The truth of the matter is, though, that when we start grading lives, we begin to get into a very dangerous area, one where, I think, we have no business treading. Okay, so we say Manson's life is worth less than Mother Teresa (a stance that the soon to be sainted woman might have disputed). Why is Manson worth less? Well, he committed horrific, inhuman crimes. This takes away from the value of his life. Mother Teresa was a godly, patient and giving person who helped some of the most wretched humans without thought of herself. This adds to the value of her life.
Once we start doing this sort of "life-calculus" though, where does it end? In a clear-cut case like the one above, it may be readily agreed that the equation is valid. However, even the most clear cut cases can quickly become murky. If one were to pose the question of Yassir Arafat's life-value versus Ariel Sharon's life-value to the Israeli cabinet and to the Palestinian cabinet, I think that diametrically opposed "clear-cut" views would be expressed. Or, to put it simply, in attempting to determine the value of any human life, it is frankly impossible to do so, without resorting to wholly subjective measures, which render any such judgment valid only to the observer, and therefore, worthless to society at large.
I will make note of one rather large exception I take to this truth. I believe each individual can and does determine the value of his life. For example, if I were forced to choose between my life or that of my wife and daughters, the choice is crystal clear - I would suffer anything to make them safe. If I choose to join the armed forces or the police, I realize that I am placing my life at risk for some greater good (well, hopefully, anyway).
Overall, though, the truth here is that as a society, we must recognize that all human life has equal value. That is a premise that I hold inviolable for any just and moral society.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)