The Right Coast |
|
|
Thoughts from San Diego on Law, Politics, and Culture
Right Coasters
Gail Heriot Saikrishna Prakash Michael Rappaport Maimon Schwarzschild Thomas Smith Christopher Wonnell Email Us Gail Heriot Saikrishna Prakash Michael Rappaport Maimon Schwarzschild Thomas Smith Christopher Wonnell Links Andrew Sullivan Atlantic Blog The Buck Stops Here Corporate Law Blog Crescat Sententia Crooked Timber Curmudgeonly Clerk Daniel Drezner En Banc EveTushnet.Com FreeSpace How Appealing Instapundit Law and Econ Blog Little Green Footballs Legal Theory Blog The Leiter Reports Marginal Revolution Overlawyered Pejmanesque ProfBainbridge.Com Punishment Theory Rasmusen Weblog SFA Politics & Relig Southern Appeal SpoonsExperience USS Clueless The Volokh Conspiracy The Yin Blog Archives The Bear Flag League Aaron's Rantblog (LA) Absinthe & Cookies Accidental Jedi (Fres) Angry Clam (LA) Baldilocks BlogoSFERICS (Expat) BoifromTroy (LA) CalBlog (Los Angeles) California Republic Citizen Smash(SD) Cobb (Los Angeles) Daily Pundit (SF) Dale Franks e-Claire(Northern CA) Fresh Potatoes(Orang) Infinite Monkeys The Interocitor (LA) The Irish Lass (Sacra) Left Coast Conserv. Lex Communis (Fres) Master of None (LA) Miller's Time (Sac) Molly's Musings (SD) Mulatto Boy (LA) Howard Owens (Vent) Pathetic Earthlings) Patio Pundit Patterico's Pontifications(LA) PrestoPundit (Orange) QandO Right on the Left Beach Shark Blog (Expat) Slings and Arrows (SD) So. Cal Law Blog (LA) Tone Cluster Window Manager Xrlq (Orange) 
|
November 30, 2003
Another Aggie Joke? By Gail Heriot Football is serious business is Texas. When Texas A&M suffers a humiliating defeat to Texas, heads often roll. But whose head? Should it perhaps be the head of Bill Byrnes, the highly-paid Aggie coach? He doesn't think so. His finger is pointing in a different direction--at conservative students protesting race-based admissions standards.. Like several conservative campus groups across the country, Aggie conservatives recently staged a "bake sale" to protest the inequity of race-based admissions standards at A&M. Asian Americans were charged $2 per cookie, white males were charged $1, and white females 75 cents. Hispanics were charged 25 cents and blacks were charged 10 cents. There was considerable protest against the protest. Unlike nearby Southern Methodist University, however, Texas A&M did not declare the bake sale hate speech and forcibly shut it down. The Twilight Zone argument that certain speech must be stifled in order to promote a diversity of viewpoints mercifully did not carry the day at College Station. So Coach Bill Byrnes gives us a different Twilight Zone argument: Protesting race-based admissions standards will hurt A&M on the gridiron. "Free speech is not an issue for me, " he says, "[b]ut I'm disappointed over the national attention that Texas A&M received recently because of a few individuals and their idea of a protest." "The Texas A&M Bake sale plays right into the hands of those who recruit against us, in both athletics and in the general student population." Byrnes urges readers to "speak out against anything like this that discredits Texas A&M University." Anyone like me who has ever been married to a Texan has heard enough "dumb Aggie" jokes to fill volumes. But they've also met enough of those Aggies to know it's just a joke. Somehow I get the feeling that Byrnes really believes that Aggies are stupid if he thinks he can convince them that his team's losing season should be blamed on campus dissent over affirmative action. Dale Amon gets it By Tom Smith You probably saw this already on instapundit, but it bears repeating. The interesting irony is that it will be hard for the Western press to blame the US for Iraquis purging the Baathists. And unless it can be turned into an anti-US story, it will hardly be covered at all. Also, journalists will not want to be embedded (in bedded?) with the Baathists when bullets start flying in their direction. And it's yet another reason for the UN not to be involved. While you may not actually have to be in the act of committing genocide to be protected by UN peacekeepers, it helps. The UN in Iraq is shorthand for giving the Baathists a screen from behind which to carry on its terror campaign. Anyone they kill while the UN dithers would be, of course, a victim of American arrogance and incompetence. The New Yorker. You Betcha, The New Yorker By Tom Smith Here I was, about to write that the New Yorker really might have become worth reading again. In the December 1 issue, there is an interesting account of a noise dispute in an expensive upper East side co-op building. On one side is an old time resident couple, on the other a resident and her recently moved-in boyfriend, who is the world's leading maker of replicas of famous diamonds. (Apparently some of the famous diamonds on display in museums are fakes.) He makes the fake gems using an industrial machine he moved into his girlfriend's apartment. And yet, upon inspection, it seems to be a remarkably quiet machine. The noise it makes is even kind of soothing. Then there is a review of John Updike's new collection of stories by Louis Manand. It begins badly with this sentence: "I am not one who golfs." He's probably trying to be self-mocking to some extent. But that sentence stands at such a nauseating distance from "I don't golf" that it's hard to go on. But one must, mustn't one, if one wishes to be fair in one's reading of a review in the New Yorker. At least that's how I feel about it. At any rate, it turns out to be a pretty good review of Updike, and manages to say some true things about the modern short story, which is certainly more than one has any right to expect (especially if one has read any post-modern lit crit lately). And there are several cute to funny cartoons, such as one featuring two of Santa's elves, one saying to another "Well, at least it beats my old job working at Walmart." But then, just as I was thinking I could safely open the covers of the magazine again, I foolishly looked at the "Talk of the Town" section. This section has evolved from discussions of urban trivialities to an op-ed space. It is a gaseous thing, so inflated by self-importance that one worries one might be injured by the explosion that surely must come at any moment. This week's flatus draws a strained comparison between the NFL and marriage, suggesting that people who care about "institutions" are a stupid, unprincipled lot. Institutions are what we run to when we can't find our principles, the writer opines, in a moment of astonishing pomposity. Here's the idea. The NFL is upset about the new steroids that avoid testing technology. This is silly of them, because professional football is such a violent, injurious sport that being concerned about damage inflicted by drugs as opposed to tackles is hypocritical. Limits of space and patience preclude one from listing all the ways in which this argument makes one want to pull out one's hair, if one has any hair. But just a few points. Maybe the NFL thinks pro football is violent enough, and doesn't want it to become more violent, and so doesn't want defensive tackles getting any bigger or meaner than they already are. Maybe they don't want to pay any more for medical care than they already do when players' internal organs give out. Maybe they want to lengthen the careers of good players. Maybe they understand the game and business of football better than some writer at the New Yorker whose idea of violence is a really snide remark at a party, whispered so the lady it is about won't hear it and beat him up. But it's worse, according to this chatterer. You see, people want to defend the silly institution of football, just like they want to defend the silly institution of marriage. Doing so, somehow, is supposed to lack principle. (At this point, I really wish this guy was a quarterback looking one way, and Dick Butkus, who had been sprinting for the last ten yards, was coming from the other.) I don't see how "football is worth keeping, and so is marriage" is not a principle. Or how about, "You folks seem to hold in contempt what I value, so maybe I should not listen to you." Sounds like a principle to me. And furthermore, what's wrong with taking refuge in institutions. When arguments fail, you need them to survive, or at least to make surviving worth doing. November 28, 2003
Law professor and deadly hunter By Tom Smith A picture of yours truly with his trusty Indian sidekick. To the Chargers: Please get lost By Tom Smith Here in America's finest city, we have a pathetic professional football team that is threatening to leave for LA or some other burb if the taxpayers won't cough up the dough for a new stadium in which the mostly losing team may be worshipped. I just want to say, go, please. Why are you still here? San Diego just watched in horror as thousands of homes burned and more than a dozen died, partly because the city and county did not have enough fire trucks, modern radios and helicopters to stop the blaze. We could buy some of those. But, Oh, no! Bad idea! Instead, let's pad the pockets of millionare sports promoters and athletes. Come to think, evacuees did congregate at the stadium. I suppose there is something to be said for having a nice stadium to go to after your house burns down. But, maybe, just a thought here -- we could spend more money on our struggling public school system. San Diego public schools range from the barely adequate to the dangerous and dysfunctional. And more cuts are on their way from Sacramento. But hey, why not spend the money instead on a new, different concrete monstrosity in Mission Valley, one more in the contemporary style of concrete monstrosity. The old concrete monstrosity does not have the thing every civilized society needs. You guessed it-- skyboxes. How can we hold our heads high as San Diegans when our stadium lacks the plush, private quarters that big wheels need to swill scotch and watch football in comfort? Johnny and Jose can learn to read latter, as long as the local elite doesn't have to watch football in the open air. I mean, the very idea of Chip and Porky not having a high definition plasma monitor on which to watch the Chargers punt, while working hard to add that next 25 points to their total cholesterol, just really makes me sad. Poor Chip. Poor Porky. Or, if sports is the thing, how about spending more money on sports programs for kids? The are precious few public programs for kids in San Diego wanting to learn how to swim or surf or pay baseball. Sure, this can all be done privately, but if we are determined to spend the public's money, we might, just for novelty's sake, try using it to help people who don't drive Bentleys and fly private jets. What I am trying to say is, Mr. Spanos, why don't you pay for your own f@#$ing stadium? If we are going into the business of bribing pampered, spoiled, foul-mouthed, excessively tattooed, drug-abusing, and generally bad-example setting professional athletes with the hard-earned money of people who suffer under inadequate police and fire protection, publc schools and other public services, why don't we bribe them to win? If we are going to crawl on our bellies to the Chargers, like peasants groveling up to evil lords, with pennies clutched in our hands, dare we ask that they actually win once in a while. It's humiliating enough to have to bribe people much richer than you are to play football. It is worse that they do it so badly. So, if we are going to buy a football team, why don't we buy another one? Maybe the Cowboys or the Steelers would like to change digs. But to the Chargers, I say, go long, and keep going. November 27, 2003
Why traveling to Mexico scares me By Tom Smith I don't consider myself a travel wimp. But Mexico still scares me. Bad manners in Congress By Tom Smith I confess I just don't get what the Democrats are complaining about. To me they look like a defensive tackle, who has been sacking quarterbacks all day, start whining when an offensive lineman finally manages to knock him down. Yes, the Republican leadership held open the roll call in the House for an unusually long period. But the fillibuster of judicial nominees is unusual as well. The Republicans are spending too much money--I happen to agree with the Democrats there. But come on, I am supposed to believe the Democrats would not spend just as much if they had the chance? November 26, 2003
GOP Panty Raid By Gail Heriot I peeked into a Victoria's Secret store a few days ago. OK, I admit it. I was actually in the store, but I didn't buy anything. Honest. It was crowded with some very happy looking people, women and men (the latter seemed particularly happy), apparently from up and down the social ladder. I doubt you would have found a more diverse group of American voters somewhere else at the mall. They seemed blithely unaware of the effect the Bush administration's new tariff on Chinese imports will certainly have on their future purchases. The mechandise at Victoria's Secret is largely imported from China; that's how the store is able to offer ladies' lingerie at prices that most Americans can happily afford. It comes in all shapes, colors and sizes; some with lace, some with bows and some even with diamonds encrusted on them. Some is even in fairly good taste. (I won't say that I've never purchased anything from Victoria's Secret; a lady has to have a few secrets, you know.) Like Bush's ill-fated steel tariffs, the lingerie tariff is a cheap political tactic. For steel, Karl Rove thought Bush needed to do a favor for Pennsylvania, which he considers a potential swing state if the 2004 election turns out to be close. This time around, it's said to be the need to please the leaders of certain Southern states, which are feeling the pinch of competition from Chinese corsets, bras and panties. America's reputation as the world's leading supporter of free trade, however, should be worth more than that. A lot more. Moreover, if Karl Rove thinks that the political ramifications of this will be positive for the GOP, he is likely mistaken. The fact that shoppers at Victoria's Secret appear ignorant of the Bush-imposed tariffs doesn't mean the GOP is insulated from harm. Consider this: As American women forgo these little luxuries (and substitute, for example, potato chips and dip), they will feel less desirable. Indeed, as time goes by that feeling may become a reality. In frustration, their menfolk will turn to alcohol and eventually to crime. All these changes will hurt the GOP. When women fell undesirable, they feel insecure and vote for Democrats. That's why married women are a strong Republican constituency while single women tend to vote the other way. The Republican party hence has good reason to want to keep them (and their husbands) happy in their marriages. When men are drunk, their loyalty to the GOP may be undiminished, but they can't find their way to the polls, so they don't vote. And, of course, once they are convicted of a felony, they lose their right to vote entirely. Bush may well lose the election on account of this misguided panty raid and never know why. Sound far-fetched? Well ... ok ... you got me. But it would be no less than what the GOP deserves for its cheap political manipulations. That's all for now. I'm going back to the mall before the prices go up. November 23, 2003
On line Dating By Tom Smith I had no idea on-line dating was such a big deal. For me, reading this article in the NYT magazine this Sunday was a visit to an alien culture. How could you go on 100 dates in a year? Five dates in a week and go to bed on three of them (spirtual suicide in one week)? Hook ups for cheating spouses, and everything else. Interesting and too weird. While your there, check out Donald Trump's egregious comb over. I hope that model is getting well paid. (About half-way down the page, on your left. Click to see the whole portfolio. Do the shareholders of Boeing really have to spend $10 million to decorate the inside of the company's business jet?) Finally a Ford Foundation Grant of which Henry Ford Would Have Approved By Gail Heriot The New York Sun ran a series recently on the Ford Foundation's million-dollar grants to virulently anti-semitic and anti-Israeli organizations. The Sun's website is by subscription only, so here is a secondary account. To add a little extra spice, these organizations apparently advocate terrorism. What's interesting is that the Ford Foundation has probably not given a grant in years that the great capitalist Henry Ford would have approved of. Now at last they have. Ford's lunatic screed, the International Jew, is still canonical among the anti-semitic lunatic fringe in the English-speaking world. Maybe the Ford Foundation's hard left bureaucrats were just looking for some common ground between Ford and themselves. David Brooks has sex? By Tom Smith There are some things I prefer not to think about. David Brooks having sex is one of them. His having multiple partners in one year, even more so. Just to make sure, I asked a certain lady with whom I am on close terms, but who prefers to remain anonymous, this question: "Does David Brooks having sex make you feel a little queasy?" She said "Yes. O God yes. Thanks for that visual." Brooks says having sex with several partners within a one year period amounts to spiritual suicide. Trying to have sex with several partners in one year and failing might work too. I guess if you wanted to get it over with quickly you could have sex with several partners all at once. Mark Shields can have sex, and even smoke a cigarette afterwards. Jim Lehrer, well, I'm sure he committed spiritual suicide years ago. Margaret Warner, well, I am not going to discuss ladies in this post. But David Brooks. No. For all of us, it is a topic he should avoid. A Martyr to Blogging By Tom Smith Microsoft fires a blogger for posting photo on his blog showing Apple G5's arriving at Redmond campus. I am so ready to switch to Apple, especially since Microsoft seems to be on a campaign to make WordPerfect unstable and happy to let Word remain unbelievably lame. But switching costs are real. It's almost enough to make you believe in all that networking, path-dependency balony. History of Last Big Defensive War against Muslim Fanatics By Tom Smith You guessed it. Those much maligned Crusades. I like the crusaders, partly because my mother was recently made a lady of the Equestrian Order of the Holy Sepulchre of Jerusalem, the oldest continuously existing order of nobility in the West. (Yes, I am proud of my mom.) It was founded during the First Crusade, a mere 1000 years ago or so, and has a fascinating history in its own right. The order is no longer military, and is devoted mostly to charitable work. On the crusades, here's a summary of recent scholarship. (hat tip to little green footballs.) For the general reader, there's this little book on The Monks of War. A little too much detail and not enough mayhem for my tastes, but pretty good so far. And this on the Templars. This is a legitimate history; beware the voluminous garbage published about the Templars, which figure in many conspiracy theories. Embrace your inner nerd By Tom Smith If you blog or read blogs, there is a good chance you are a nerd or have nerd-like tendencies. It's OK. Embrace it. Among other things, nerds are known for surprising sexual powers. Look at Glen Reynolds! Anyway, PBS's Nova is a good show for your inner nerd. The recent show on Magnetic Storms was quite good. The End of the World As We Know It theme was a bit overdone, but definitely worth watching. Contrast that to the Nova series on String Theory. I still don't get it. But I can summarize for you. The universe, believe it or not, is made out of little string thingies that are really, really, really, really, really small. The evidence for this is . . . well, there is no evidence for this. But it's a really elegant theory, and the media spokesperson for String Theory, Brian Greene, is pretty good looking for a physicist. It ought to be called, the Elegant Self-Promoting Physicist. Did I mention strings are really small? They are. Or would be, if they existed. But whether they exist or not, they sure are elegant. November 22, 2003
Recipie of the Week By Tom Smith Lots of bloggers post recipies, so why shouldn't I? Here's my favorite: Scotch and Water Take a "double old fashioned" glass. Fill it all the way to the top with ice cubes. Now, slowly pour a blended scotch whiskey in the glass until it is half-way full. Now add water until the glass is almost full. (If your tap water is vile, use bottled water.) Stir with wrong end of spoon or if clean, your finger. Drink. Repeat. This may seem like a simple recipie, but there are some nuances you could miss. First, note I say fill the glass all the way to the top with ice. If you do not, you will be drinking a triple or a quadruple scotch instead of a double. Do you really want to do that? You do? Well, OK then, don't fill it all the way to the top. Notice I say blended scotch. Why not a single malt scotch? You are a Republican after all, and entitled to drink single malt scotch. The answer is simple. Some single malts taste like cough medicine aged in gasoline drums. You don't want to drink those. But others, and here is the key point, are too good. If you make one of these out of Glenlivet or McCallan, next thing you know you will be into the second half of the bottle saying "come here pretty lassie!" as you chase your wife around the table. Give her a break. Choose Johnnie Walker Red Label or some other respectable but resistable brand. Finally, I recommend using ice. They do not use ice in Scotland. However, we are not in Scotland. If I were freezing my tail off in the dark 8 months of the year, I probably would not use ice either. But I'm not. I live in San Diego. Be an American. Use ice. David Brooks for gay marriage By Tom Smith David Brooks is strongly pro- gay marriage, it seems. Last night on the Lehrer News Hours he said so. He seems to think marriage builds character, like marching in the snow or something. If I thought marriage would make gays prone to make life-time commitments, I might be for gay marriage. But it might undermine what is left of that in all marriage. I'm probably still in the undecided camp on this one. But I know one thing. That Nino Scalia is hot. When he comes out in that black robe, scowling at the whole world, I just want to say, enjoin me! enjoin me! OK, Brian, do I qualify as heterosexual now? (Brian Leiter wants to revive the old argument that homophobia actually means you have repressed homosexual feelings.) John Searle on Terrorism By Tom Smith This brief op-ed piece by John Searle is as sensible now as when it was first written. Searle is one of the leading living philosophers and prone to wise observations on political matters on and off campus. Great Products? I'll give you great products By Tom Smith Tyler Cohen recommends $600 binocs and $16,000 stereo speakers. Yes, I want them. But let's get real. Here are my recommendations: 1. Take along deluxe baby swing. Legally sedate your baby. Perfect thing for your screaming ball of rage. Why does swinging and watching flashing lights calm the savage beast? Who knows. But it works. The French, I am told, have baby vallium. They would. You can use the baby swing, however, without causing brain damage, which may lead to leftist internationalism and saying phhhhhhhhht! in adulthood. 2. Dyson DC07 vacuum cleaner. I love this thing. A high-tech vacuum that really works. Sucks up matted dog hair, assorted kid detritus, year old dirt. At $500, a little pricey for a vacuum cleaner, but after you see the pints of crud you've been living with, you'll fall in love. Also, you're supporting the best of free market innovation. Long story there. It is (drum roll) the Dyson DC07 (Get it at amazon.com). November 20, 2003
My IQ By Tom Smith Here is an IQ test on the web. It's kinda fun, and some of the questions are tricky! According to this test, I have an IQ of 131, which is pretty good, I think, but not as good as say, 151. I think I have that right. For $14.95 you can buy the full report on your intelligence (I'm not that stupid) and you can also buy exercises to improve your intelligence. A perfect gift for your friends! The peculiarity of gay marriage By Tom Smith I'm having a hard time deciding what to think about gay marriage. Without having read the opinion, it seems to me the Massachusetts court's decision as reported is pretty weak. It would take constitutional language living, growing and mutating at an impressive clip to require gay marriage under typical equal protection language. Whatever version of originalism you adopt, if the framers of your constitutional language and every one who lived within a couple of decades of them would react with shock, disbelief and horror to your interpretation of their language, chances are good your opinion is more about your opinion than about the text you are supposedly interepreting. But that is old news. Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court is infested by radical activists, and it's raining in Seattle. Of course it would be better for the commonwealth of Massachusetts if the state's legislature could sort this out. But that leaves the question, what would you do if you were an assembyperson in Boston? Well, that would depend on whether you were from Brookline or West Waterwheel, that is, upon how well organized the gay lobby was in your district. But what would be the right thing to do, assuming somewhere there is a politician curious to know what that is? For me it is a hard question partly because we do not live in a world in which it would be an easy question. If we lived in a Nozickian minimal state, or something like it, from the perspective of law, marriage would just be one of probably several long or medium term contracts people could enter into with other people regarding the disposition of property, establishing some agency relations and agreeing on the custody of children. It would be left to private associations such as churches to define marriage as a sacrament that could only be entered into by a man and a woman, was for life, and so forth. If people felt strongly they only wanted to live near other such people, they could move to Our Lady's Town in Utah, or whereever. And I would probably choose to live in one of the more traditionalist suburbs. As I have mentioned before, I think tolerance is philosophically possible and practically desirable. But, alas, we don't live in such a world. In this world, the state has established something like a church, where the religion is itself. The state asserts a power to define what marriage is legally, and inevitably, morally, or at least with respect to the norms of society. It is precisely because this is the case that gay activists are so keen on having the state recognize gay marriage. If it were just a matter of securing certain legal benefits to themselves, some sort of civil union statute would probably be preferable. Some of the legal baggage of marriage would be avoided. Such a statute could presumably be made more modern and flexible than the ancient law of matrimony. But instead the idea is to acquire for homosexual relations the status that has traditionally been reserved for monogamous, heterosexual relationships. So you see this odd manuever of making libertarian arguments for the bestowing of a legal status that is not founded upon contract. It is anomolous, like somebody insisting they have a constitutional right to be knighted. The prestige of marriage comes from its legal status, not its contractual terms. If it were otherwise, gays would be less keen to be able to marry, and the rest of us would care less whether they could. Marriage law is ancient and important. A credible argument can be made, and has been, by Harold Berman, that the elevation of marriage to a sacrament entered into voluntarily by a consenting man and woman is the origin or at the origin of the idea of individual human rights in the West. Before the Church imposed this rule, wives were a commodity and their consent to marriage neither necessary or significant. At the same time, the modern state has done what it does so well, and demeaned the institution entrusted to it. Marriage reform laws such as no-fault divorce seem to have been a disaster for women and children, whom marriage was intended to protect. If marriage is redefined again to include gay marriage, and this further undermines it as an institution, it would only be the latest in the modern state's attack on all institutions save itself. Institutions have a way of changing people, but they also respond to what people want of them. It is hard to believe that gay couples would want of marriage the same things that straight couples do. I am just guessing, but I suspect gay couples on average would desire more flexible arrangements, easier exit provisions, and other significant differences. Not only gay couples that are like old married couples would want to be married. Couples that are less like what we usually think of as married might well want to be married as well. Open marriage may not work well with straights, but it might with gays, or gay men anyway. Who knows. In any event, it is naive to think new people moving into the neighborhood won't change the neighborhood. If secular marriage were a more vital institution, I would have more confidence that marriage would change gay culture more than vice versa. But the institution of marriage is not in great shape as it is. Drugs, Sex and Sports By Tom Smith Andrew Sullivan apparently approves of this notably superficial and stupid comment on drugs in sports appearing on Slate. So what's all the hysteria about drugs for? Here's the idea. Using drugs in sports, especially high level sports, is cheating. At the highest levels, margins of victory are very small, and drugs can easily be the margin of victory. We do not want who wins to be determined by who has the best anti-detection technology, or who is willing to do the most damage to their kidneys or liver. It corrupts the sport, and may have already ruined some sports, such as professional cycling, beyond repair. Talk to professional cyclists off the record, and after a few legal drinks, and they will tell you amazing stories about the lengths cyclists go to to dope themselves and hide the evidence. I hope Lance Armstrong is telling the truth when he says the only thing he is on is his bike, but I admit I doubt it. And the fact that many of the Olympics promotors are corrupt is no excuse for the athletes themselves to cheat. The whole idea of athletic competition is to create an arena governed by rules so that victory and merit correspond. It is an artificial exercise in nobility of body and spirit. Not rigorously enforcing rules against drugs would undermine all of that. More Infinity By Tom Smith As I explained below, I am (very) slowly reading through this book on Cosmology and Theology. As I mentioned, Lane's argument for the creation of the universe depends on the impossibility of the existence of an "actual infinite." If infinite past time is an actual infinite, then it's impossible, so the universe must have started at some point, which gets you closer, at least, to a creator. But is infinite past time an actual infinite? An actual infinite would be something like a hotel with an infinite number of rooms, or a universe with an infinite number of particles in it. But how is an infinite past a set with an infinite number of things in it? As Lane notes, both Aristotle and Aquinas thought an infinite past would not be an actual infinite. Lane refers to the work of Von Snickleberry (or some other obscure name) of an Aquinas scholar I have never heard of, saying that this very prominent contemporary scholar thinks Aristotle and Aquinas are wrong on this point. Well, excuse me, but if Aristotle and Aquinas think not-p, I'm not sure I'm impressed that Von Stinkybann or whatever his name is thinks they're wrong. Only Stanley Fish would be impressed by that sort of argument from authority. It seems more plausible to think, as Aquinas did, that you have a present moment, then another one. But you do not get a sort of accumulation of moments as time passes. Is the idea that they are somehow stored somewhere? It seems more plausible to suggest one present moment kind of replaces another, so that only the present actually exists at any given time. In any event, the argument is that an infinite number of things actually existing creates logical paradoxes. I would think you could just as plausibly say, moments of time must not accumulate, because then if you had an infinite past, you would have an actual infinite, which is impossible. So time must just sort of pass, rather than accumulate. Heck, for all we know, maybe that's one of the reasons time does pass, rather than build up over time (little joke, there). So, I'm a little disappointed. It looks like this argument for the existence of God is flawed, for reasons I will probably discovered are well recognized in the second half of the book. As I was contemplating these things, somebody jostled my shoulder. It was my wife. "You're snoring," she said. Those darn Syrians By Tom Smith Is it just me, or does this seem just a little bit anti-Semitic? (hat tip Andrew Sullivan.) The French really are different By Tom Smith The excellent food and travel magazine Gourmet has a feature this month on the Club Meds for families. Here's how they work. You go there and find a bunch of French families. The French dads do absolutely nothing ever by way of child care, which works because you dump your kids off at the kid's center, where they bribe and pander to the little tadpoles like crazy. The French moms are sleek and sexy and wear bikinis. The American moms are sunburned, share kid care with American dads, who therefore have less time to flirt. The staff consists of hunky guys with 6-packs under instructions to flirt like crazy with the moms. The dads don't care because they're busy with the female staff members and other sexy moms, presumably (this last sentence is my speculation. Maybe Frenchmen have overcome narrow-minded bourgeois jealousy.) I know this sounds great to some people. I think it shows the French really are different. November 18, 2003
That darn universe By Tom Smith Japanese physicists find mystery particle. Hat tip to man without qualities. And the award for most tedious author from California goes to . . . By Tom Smith Joan Didion! Didion has a new book out about California and I am not going to read it. Just reading the review of it in the NYT book review was so annoying, I knew I could not stand the book. From the back cover: In Where I Was From, Didion turns what John Leonard has called “her sonar ear, her radar eye” onto her own work, as well as that of such California writers as Frank Norris and Jack London and Henry George, to examine how the folly and recklessness in the very grain of the California settlement led to the California we know today–a state mortgaged first to the railroad, then to the aerospace industry, and overwhelmingly to the federal government, a dependent colony of those political and corporate owners who fly in for the annual encampment of the Bohemian Club. Here is the one writer we always want to read on California showing us the startling contradictions in its–and in America’s–core values. Please make her stop. Please. The Bohemian Club? That must be at their annual get together with the Elders of Zion. And "the folly and recklessness in the very grain of the California settlement"? Hooo boy, that's deep. It's about culture, you see. It's that culture thing. She should be arrested for impersonating a smart person. The annoyingness of Joan Didion is elusive. It is like trying to describe why the screech of fingernails on a blackboard is so discomforting. To begin with, she is wound up way too tightly. She chips out sentences which are fraught with anxiety but not with meaning. She makes portentous observations that are supposed to be deep, but aren't. She wrote a whole essay debunking the Reagans, revolving around the fact that they had a wet bar in their living room. Imagine that! A wet bar in their living room! How, how, can you imagine just how . . . how what? Tacky? Yucky? Middle class? And I care because? You just want to say, for Christ's sake, Joan, just take another valium like all your readers do. Or her essay on migranes. She gets them, you know. Probably because she's just so darn sensitive, so darn literary, and this world is tough on girls like that. You don't have to read the essay. Here's the punch line: Migranes suck! Or, you can try to read one of her novels. Here's the plot: Joan is from California, but she went back East, but she's from California, but she went back East, but where she's from is California. They're really fascinating. Oh, by the way, another essay displays the fact that Joan was close friends with famous movie director Roman Polanski, but then Charles Manson's fruitcake family cut up Sharon Tate, and that was very alienating indeed. But this essay was published before Polanski fled the country rather than face charges of molesting little girls, which was very darn morally ambiguous if you ask me. Still, that Joan was friends with Polanski and then his wife got murdered is just fascinating, you have to admit, and morally ambiguous too. Joan Didion is from an old California family. I mean a really old California family. I mean, they knew all the original grizzly bears and everything. All this new stuff, suburbs, the defense industry, people who don't get migranes, people who don't miss the New Yorker, people with all their cars, well, it's just so, so, so, so. And, on top of it all, morally ambiguous as all get out. California is not what it used to be, and just for the record, I really, truly do not give a shit. I hope I have been clear on this point. I cannot in the end do justice to the true tediousness of Joan Didion. I suggest you do not buy one of her books and do not enjoy her for yourself. Citizen Military check on President's War Powers By Tom Smith Interesting essay on how reserve component of our military force acts as a check on the President's war powers. Thanks to Intel Dump for the pointer. Oink! Oink! Oink! By Tom Smith If you've ever been to an old-fashioned state fair (such as the Southern Idaho State Fair I went to as a kid) and observed a huge, prize-winning sow suckling her greedy little piglets, you have an idea what the new energy bill is like. Impressive, yet disgusting. The Wall Street Journal (subscription required) reports many pure pork giveaways in the bill, including $8.5 billion over the next 5 years which we consumers will have to pay to buy ethanol, that silly, stinky gas additive that Congress says we have to use, and which makes farmers, fat-cat agribusiness and Senators from farm states so happy. I despise ethanol. I had to sit through endless meetings when I was at the Council of Economic Advisers listening to Boyden Gray, Bush Sr. crony, Bonesman, tobacco heir and general gentleman blow-hard wax ecstatic about the virtues of pouring corn juice into our gas tanks. Could it have anything to do with his family's vast agricultural holdings? Perish the thought. But old money Republicans aren't the only conspirators in this rip off. You have big agri-businesses, such as the repellant Archer-Daniels-Midlands "business," which is no more than a (sometimes) legally operated rent-seeking scam, and farm state agri-business flunkies such as Tom Daschel, joining forces on this piece of economic folly and political mendacity. Shame on Republicans for betraying the free market and on Democrats for adding pointless expense to consumer products poor people spend more of their income on than anybody else. Other risable expenditures include a giant new aquarium for that great sea-faring state, that star of the ocean, Iowa. For environmentalists who couldn't find ANWAR on a map, and would never go there anyway since it's not accessible by Lexus SUV, there's a ban on drilling for oil in northern Alaska. But oil companies aren't too upset. They are benefiting, along with coal and nuclear power companies, from $23 billion in tax giveaways. And Ted Stevens from snowy Alaska has secured $18 billion in financing for a pipeline that would be cheaper to put in through Canada. $350 million for stupid "green energy" projects rounds out the bill, including energy subsidies to a mall which includes a Hooters. I really don't think men need federal subsidies to be induced to look at busty women in tight T-shirts. The internet proves that. November 17, 2003
Algore update By Tom Smith First the internet, now this. (Toward the end of the article. Hat tip to Drudge.) Confessions of a Conservative By Tom Smith This weekend I spent a fair amount of time listening to Stanley Fish expound his views. Whenever that happens, I realize I really am, deep down, some kind of liberal. Probably the classical kind. But I really, really want the state to be neutral. I really, really think there's a big difference between particle physics and whatever the latest version of creation theory is. My current view is that God created the universe, but when he did, there weren't any fish. But physics is also very different from the latest crack-pot lit crit view as well. I think toleration is swell, necessary and possible. As to other people's religions, I think some are dumb, some are cute, some are impressive, and some I just don't care about. I live with it, and so should you. I do not find this philosophically mysterious. Maybe Fish thinks everyone lives inside their own orthodoxy because he seems unable to get a clue as to what it would be like to believe something other than he does. I don't find it that hard. I read all of Leon Uris's novels in high school and wanted to covert to Judaism. Good thing I didn't since it was scandalous enough when I brought a Jewish girlfriend home from Cornell. So now, I feel like, bring on the liberals. It's bad enough to realize you're a liberal, albeit of the libertarian kind. Now Brian Leiter makes me think I'm a realist too. You mean all I have to think is that appellate courts resolve issues underdetermined by the law, by referring to other sorts of things, such as political and moral norms, or economic desiderata? Oh dear. I thought everybody thought that. I know the conservative mantra is "enforce the law, don't make it." But I took that to mean, don't make it unless you have to. I do think it is unfair to attribute to most conservatives (or liberals) the idiotic things said by Senators and Persons of Congress. They're in Congress! If contempt of Congress were a thought-crime, then anybody with any sense would be in jail at least half the time. I mean, how does anybody get asked a question going to moral character from Teddy Kennedy, and not say, "Well, at least I didn't drive an innocent girl off a bridge and leave her to drown," or "You'd think someone who looked as much like a manatee as you do wouldn't mind diving into the water." And you could do the same for many of the others on the judiciary committee. To make a truly profound cultural comparison, I turn to the recent film vehicle for The Rock called The Rundown. This PG-13 adventure flick, perfect for growing boys, features the admirable Rock versus a really wonderfully evil Christopher Walken. The Rock is a formidable martial artist, but refuses to use guns (too violent). In the final showdown, The Rock has to decide whether to pick up two 12 gauges, as they are the only way to save his (sort of) buddy. After an interminable delay, he picks up the guns. The crowd goes wild, or at least is relieved. I feel that way about the Republicans in Congress facing the likes of Chuck Schumer. It's politics, okay? Cancel the seance with James Madison and start fighting. It's like (to quote another hero) Sean Connery in the Untouchables: "They pull a knife, you pull a gun." What are you prepared to do? Everest DVD By Tom Smith I watched this one over the weekend. The Imax production values are great, and the story of the 1996 disaster is covered to some extent. There is the usual amount of self-congratulation typically found in mountaineering flicks. But the real reason to rent or buy this DVD is the almost unwatchably intense interview with Beck Weathers, the Texas M.D. climber whom Jon Krakauer et al. left to die on the mountain. Weathers somehow awakened himself from a hypothermic coma, walked through perhaps minus 75 Fahrenheit temperatures back to camp, lived through the night and another storm, and, finally with the help of some other climbers, including some of the Imax crew, made it down to Camp 2. From there he was helicoptered out in the highest helicopter rescue, as far as I know, in history. Weathers lost his hands and much of his face to frostbite. His face now looks pretty good; his reconstructed nose looks almost natural. Watching him brush away tears with his reconstructed flipper-hands is pretty wrenching stuff. Watching the Imax film with its amazing photography and soaring music, then the interview, which probes the very bottom of courage and regret, makes for a striking contrast. I would be the first to admit that Into Thin Air is a swell book and a compelling read, but the fact remains that Krakauer sat shivering in his tent while others (such as guide Rob Hall) died trying to save their rope-mates, or just died alone in the freezing wind, wishing they could see their families one last time. It is ironic that Krakauer made a million bucks on the disaster while others who were better and braver climbers and men lost everything. Beck Weathers now has his own book out; if it's anything like the interview, it will be well worth reading. There is a picture in David Breashears' Everest: Mountain Without Mercy that says it all to me. It shows climbers walking past the "partial cadaver" (the lower half of a frozen body with climbing boots still attached) on their way up the mountain. (p. 189) Whether this is consistent with the 'code of the mountains' or not (I have debated this with other climbers), I think the code needs an amendment to the effect that you do not leave the dead at the side of the route. You at least pack them off to crevasse and say a few words. Maybe if that were the code, high alpine climbers would be a little less casual about death. (After several years, the body was finally disposed of in a crevasse.) Like Krakauer, if the chance presented itself ($60,000 and 45 days of spare time would have to fall from heaven) I would go to Everest in a second, even though I kind of sort of disapprove of the commercialization of the mountain. But I like to think I would at least ask in similar circumstances, "Where the hell is Beck?" November 16, 2003
But where's the proof? By Tom Smith Something to read while Bush haters scream about wanting the proof. Where is it, huh? huh? huh? Well, at least more people may read the books By Tom Smith The odds of Hollywood getting right any part of Patrick O'Brian's magnificent 20 volume sea saga were so remote, I suppose I should not be disappointed. Christopher Hitchens suggests the new Patrick Crowe vehicle Master and Commander gets the most important things wrong, or just leaves them out. At least it's PG-13 so I can take my kids. People who should read the series are people who hate tyranny (Napoleon was a great villain and we get to see him thwarted in the books); lovers of liberty and enlightenment (the books include a lot of wonderful history of natural philosophy and deft psychological portraits of the enlightenment mind set); Catholics (the most interesting character is not Lucky (and fighting) Captain Jack Aubrey, but the Irish-Catalan, minor nobility, devout Catholic, but equally devoted scientist, naturalist and surgeon, not to mention unbelievably cold-blooded intelligence agent against Bonaparte; and, of course, Francophobes (greedy, cynical, hypocritical, bien sur que oui). Oh yes, and lovers of good literature. Somebody called these books Jane Austen with cannons, and that's not far from the truth. Another critic called the series the greatest historical novels ever written. I can't think of any better, certainly. The LA Times said "It has been said that this series is some of the finest historical fiction of our time . . . . Aubrey and Maturin have been described as better than Holmes and Watson, the equal of Quixote and Panza . . . . All this is true. And the marvel is, it hardly says enough." Such fulsome praise is typical, and only a little overblown. Begin at the beginning. I envy anybody reading them for the first time. Catholic left on rise in Latin America? By Tom Smith Liberation Theology strikes me as an embarrassment to both Catholics and Marxists. But liberation theology is dead you say, thirty years in the grave. As Jean-Francois Revel said so well, however, just because an ideology is dead, does not mean it cannot reach out and pull you into its grave. Apparently liberation theology is on the rise again in Latin America. Thanks to relapsed catholic for the pointer. November 14, 2003
The Senate is Not Constitutionally Obligated to Vote By Michael Rappaport In a provocative and interesting post, my colleague Larry Solum argues that the Senate has a duty to advise and consent to presidential nominations of judges, and to do so in a timely manner. Thus, the Senate’s filibuster of the nominations cannot constitutionally postpone a Senate vote indefinitely. While I find Solum’s post to be extremely interesting and original, I must disagree. Certainly as to President Bush’s circuit court nominees, such as Estrada and Brown, the Senate has no legal obligation to take an up or down vote on their nominations. Solum first argues based on the text and structure of the Constitution, claiming that the President has a duty to nominate judges and therefore the Senate has a corresponding duty to vote on the nominations. His textual argument is that the Constitution says that the President “shall nominate” and therefore obliges him to make nominations. But this argument will not work. While I have several concerns about this argument, let me just mention the most important. This textual argument seems to suggest that the President must nominate persons to all positions that are open, but historically this has never been the understanding. Presidents have decided not to fill vacant offices for various reasons, including saving money. Certainly, there is no constitutional infirmity with the President choosing to allow offices to remain unfilled. Solum might reply that it is legal for Congress to make the appointment of an office discretionary (and therefore these historical examples should be analyzed on that basis). But Congress can make the appointment of vacant offices mandatory and the President would therefore have an obligation to fill them. While I have reservations about the ability of Congress to make the appointment of offices mandatory, lets assume that it has that power. Solum must then argue that Congress has made the appointment of circuit judges mandatory. While I have not checked the statutes recently, I do not remember any language purporting to require that the President fill these judicial offices. Thus, the nominations would appear to be discretionary and therefore both the President and the Senate are not obliged to act. Solum also makes a structural argument. If the President did not have a duty to make nominations, then he “could dissolve the Supreme Court by refusing to appoint” the Justices. This is a clever example because the Constitution establishes and appears to require the existence of a Supreme Court, but again I do not think it works. It is possible that President Washington might have been constitutionally obligated to nominate justices to the Supreme Court in order to allow the Court to sit, but that hardly suggests that Presidents are required to fill judicial offices generally. Even if there were two vacancies on the Supreme Court, it could continue to operate and therefore it is quite possible that the President would not be required to make a nomination. Certainly, that there are, let us assume, 15 vacancies out of 150 circuit court judges, imposes no obligation on the President or the Senate. The circuit courts can continue to operate with these vacancies and the Constitution does not even require the existence of lower federal courts. Another argument against Solum’s view is the similarity between a failure to vote on a nomination and a vote that refuses to confirm. Certainly, the Senate has no obligation to confirm nominees, even if that prevents the Supreme Court from having a quorum in order to sit. Yet, the refusal to vote operates in much the same manner: a refusal to vote denies confirmation (until such time as a vote is held and the Senate chooses to confirm). If the Constitution permits the Senate to vote no, it is not at all clear why it does not allow the Senate not to vote. Solum’s second argument is based on history – in particular, on President Washington’s conception of the Senate as an executive council. (I will discuss this argument only briefly, but I may have a bit more say about it when I get to the office and check my files.) While President’s Washington’s view is plausible, it is certainly not compelled and there are strong arguments against it. First, the Constitution states that each house shall determine the rules of its proceedings and that strongly suggests that the Senate need not allow the President to require that they meet in the White House or that they meet when he says so. Indeed, it is not clear that the Constitution even allows Congress to delegate such power to the President. Second, President Washington’s view has not been followed, if it ever was, in the last 200 years. It is hard to argue that it ought to be resurrected at this late date. Given Solum’s strong views on judicial precedent, this should be an especially strong argument for him (even though the practices of the Senate are not judicial precedents but legislative ones). In the end, Solum makes an interesting and impressive case for an obligation of the Senate to vote on judges – a much stronger case than I thought possible. But despite his evident ability as a lawyer, I do not believe that he shows that the Constitution requires the Senate to vote on President Bush’s circuit court nominees. Bushenfreude By Tom Smith This is funny, and too true. Do you have a Howard Dean sticker on your new BMW? Let Iraquis get to it By Tom Smith This from the WSJ (registration required) seems right to me. The constitutionalist nation-building version of US occupation always struck me as pie-in-the-sky. I'm afraid the model for defeating the Baathists and OBL types in Iraq now is more like getting Escobar in Colombia than founding a city upon a hill. (And even the American revolution was a lot nastier than it gets credit for.) The Iraquis know where the bad guys are and how to root them out. US infantry can't do that job and we don't want Delta Force or the CIA to do it, at least not openly. It will not be pretty. It was not pretty in France after they finally threw out the Nazis, at least if I remember The Sorrow and the Pity correctly. Destroying the remnants of the old regime is job one, then it will be time for the Iraquis to worry about the finer points of democracy. Whether Iraq can emerge as an example of democracy working in the Middle East remains to be seen. I am probably more skeptical on that point than other Right Coasters. I will be happy enough if we've stopped them from working on cutting edge bio-weapons. (On that subject, Judith Miller has a touching story of Iraqui talent scouts scouring the former Soviet Union for bio-weapons experts, asking such questions as "Would it be possible to design a virus that would only kill Jews?") November 13, 2003
Justice Nutball removed from office By Tom Smith Now it's former Chief Justice of the Alabama Supreme Court Moore. Maybe Moore could take the 2 ton monument home with him. While I'm generally sympathetic to religion in the public square, I think Moore did more harm than good to religious people by living up to all the worst stereotypes. I suspect he is planning a run for some state-wide office, and going for the same vote Howard Dean is after. (Aloha to my brother Steve for the link, now practicing law in the only place with nicer weather than San Diego.) Another reason we need Wal-mart in San Diego By Tom Smith Base low-level employee wages on a profit incentive? Create incentives for employees to police one another against theft and shoplifting? Oh, no, that would be wrong. California law is just so damn dumb . . . November 12, 2003
Infinity, etc., etc. By Tom Smith My kids get a magazine from the Discovery channel, and the most recent issue was on space. It announced in a little blub that astronomers had discovered that we were part of a multiverse, and that in fact there were an infinite number of universes, and so therefore there must be some that had children in it just like those reading the magazine (but presumably slightly different). I must have missed the announcement of this important discovery. In fact, the possibility or impossibility of the "actual infinite" is a fascinating topic in the philosophy of mathematics and indirectly in philosophical theology. Curiously, some of the better arguments for the existence of God rely on the impossibility of the actual infinite. The "actual infinite" may not be what you think it is. You are familiar with the set of positive, whole numbers, (1, 2, 3 . . . ). You can always go one higher in any ennumeration of them, so they are potentially infinite. That is not the same thing as actually infinite. An actually infinite set would be a set like the set of rooms in a hotel that actually had an infinite number of rooms. While the potentially infinite makes sense, the existence of the actual infinite gives rise to all sorts of paradoxes, the most famous of which is Hilbert's Hotel, named after David Hilbert, the great German mathematician. Suppose a hotel had an infinite number of rooms and every room was full. A new guest shows up and wants a room. You say, no problem, and move the guest in room 1 to room 2, the guest in room 2 to room 3, and so on, putting the new guest in room 1. So you can make room for one more. But how is this possible, given that all your rooms were full, ex hypothesi? After you consider this and many more such paradoxes, you may conclude, along with probably the majority of mathematicians and philosophers, that while actually infinite sets are beautiful and useful in mathematics, they could not really exist. If you want to read up this sort of thing, here is one of the best collections of stuff, which includes Hilbert's seminal essay, "On the Infinite." What does all this have to do with the Big Guy? The argument goes that an infinite succession of past moments of time would be an actual infinite, which is impossible, so time must have had a beginning, and that beginning must have been caused by God. It seems to me like a version of the Aquinas first mover argument, put in the form of modern mathematics. William Lane Craig deftly presents the math and the philosophy in this book. (Interestingly, really committed atheists, such as Stephen Hawking, really hate the idea of a universe with a beginning, sensing correctly that it implies, at least intuitively, a beginner, if you will. He contorts himself amazingly to come up with the baffling idea of "imaginary time," a temporal dimension that is at a right angle to our familiar time (don't ask me), in order to avoid the conclusion the universe had a beginning. The lengths some people will go to . . . !) But to get back to the Discovery channel, whether an infinite past would be an instance of an actual infinite or not, an infinite collection of actually existing universes certainly would be. So maybe it's just an infinite number, minus one. (Just kidding!) But even if there were an infinite number of universes, it does not follow that there must be another one with a Discovery magazine in it. In fact, this could be the only universe with that rather lame magazine in it, and still we could have an infinite number of universes. You could have a universe just like this one, but with no magazine (let's hope so), and me standing 5 feet from my chair, then one where I'm half that distance, then another where I'm half that distance, and so on, ad infinitum. You could, that is, have an infinite number of universes without having all possible universes represented. That is, assuming you could actually have an infinite number of anything, which I doubt. November 09, 2003
Islamic Humiliation By Michael Rappaport Thomas Friedman writes about humiliation in the Islamic world. He seems to suggest that many Muslims feel humiliated by Israel and the United States. The Palestinians did not accept a peace deal because they were not winning a state, but having it handed to them by Israel and the US. The Iraqis are not appreciative of being liberated because they wanted to liberate themselves. My first reaction to this column was to think it absurd, and terribly insulting to the Iraqis and Palestinians. But upon reflection, something like this may actually be occurring, at least to some extent. Indeed, how does one understand France other than as a country that is humiliated by the United States, because the United States had to liberate the French and has a culture that dominates in the way that the French wish theirs did? If John saves Bill's life, then Bill may resent him and feel humiliated. But what is the solution? Of course, John should not repeatedly remind Bill that he saved his life. But if John does not behave that way, there is little else he can do to make Bill feel better. The main solution must result from Bill dealing with his ungrateful and resentful feelings. He must act more maturely. Similarly, the United States and Israel must not rudely remind the Palestinians or the Iraqis what they have done or offered. But United States and Israel have not behaved rudely. If the Iraqis or Palestinians feel humiliated, the fault lies with them and they must deal with it. After all, feeling humiliated can be an act of hostility that prevents peace. Islamic fundamentalists may feel humiliated that the United States is not an Islamic country, but so what. All the United States can do is to continue to act properly and try its best to help the fundamentalists to deal with their issues. November 08, 2003
Interesting reaction to Bush's speech By Tom Smith I listen to KPBS and watch PBS on TV partly to know what the American left-liberal is thinking. Interesting to me is, in spite of no doubt scouring the ground for experts critical of Bush and asking leading questions, neither the Lehrer News Hour nor All Things Considered could get any of their Arab commentators to say anything very negative about Bush's speech. In fact, they all endorsed Bush's vision for democracy in the Middle East, and only added "don't forget the Palestinians." It speaks poorly for the left in the US and Europe if they have to throw in with Islamo-fascists in order to find people who enthuastically reject the Bush Doctrine for the Middle East. November 07, 2003
Keep an eye on this guy By Tom Smith Former fighter pilot, family physician, preacher, congressman, now governor of Kentucky. CBS caves and saves blogger money By Tom Smith Thank goodness. I was about to write a check to one of the Protect Reagan committees that sprang up. Henninger gets it about right on opinionjournal. Alternative Health By Tom Smith And while you're at it, watch the latest Frontline on PBS if you get a chance. Very interesting coverage of the huge (maybe 18 billion annually) business of alternative health care in the US. It's a big business in San Diego, and its (non-regulation) by Congress is an interesting study in public choice. Expectations Effect By Tom Smith A very interesting (and scary for parents) column in the WSJ's science journal (B-1) today. Both children and lab rats respond very sensitively to expectations of performance. Here's a sample, which I hope is protected by fair use: British philosopher Bertrand Russell was only half joking when he described the powerful effect that the nationality of a scientist can have on lab rats. "Animals studied by Americans rush about frantically, with an incredible display of hustle and pep, and at last achieve the desired result by chance," he wrote in 1927. "Animals observed by Germans sit still and think, and at last evolve the solution out of their inner consciousness." Expectation effects, also known as the Pygmalion effect, have been documented time and again (479 studies have found that teachers' expectations affect how students do, for instance). But nailing down exactly how expectations are conveyed to students, athletes or research volunteers through the nonverbal, subtle and usually unintentional messages that Prof. Rosenthal calls "covert communication" has been much tougher. More alarming is how little-known the expectation effect is. And that means there is a good possibility that some of the effects we attribute to a particular cause -- from the benefits of smaller class sizes to the health-improving effects of wealth -- actually reflect the power of expectations. The power of expectations in the classroom is downright scary. In a typical experiment, elementary-school teachers were told that one group of kids had done extraordinarily well on a test that predicts intellectual "blooming," and so would make remarkable academic gains. The test seemed prescient: After a few months, the "bloomers" it identified had achieved statistically significant gains over the other students. What Philosophy is Up To These Days By Tom Smith Brian Leiter has a quite good and interesting introductory essay that describes the lay of the philosophical land these days. Well worth reading. (Brian posts this in connection with his blog fight with Jacob Levy, which I mean to encourage for the same purely selfish reason I watch boxing on cable TV -- it's fun to watch skillful people fight. But I don't mean to take sides!) Good hunting to task force 121 By Tom Smith The New York Times is reporting the set up of a new covert action task force to hunt down Saddam and OBL. Here's to wishing they get visits soon from Mr. JDAM. (I heard this expression -- visit from Mr. JDAM -- from a Marine colonel just back from Iraq and thought it was pretty cute.) Slate provides good background. In other news, worry about a possible imminent attack in Saudi Arabia has prompted the US to close its embassy. November 06, 2003
Perp sites By Tom Smith The useful and entertaining Corplaw Blog directs us to something new to me at least: perp sites! On trial for a serious federal financial crime? Why not set up your own web site and tout your innocence? I like Martha, I concede. A lot of her kitchen tips really are useful, and to me it appears the feds are just head-hunting. Throw a ball at the para-legals picnic at any big Wall Street firm and you'll hit a bigger insider trader than Martha. Richard Scrushy is another story. IUPG, of course, but he looks like a truly astonishingly big-time looter. If he is guilty, I hope he goes to the big house. Here's my favorite part of the DOJ's press release on the indictment: The money laundering counts of the indictment allege that Scrushy knowingly engaged in financial transactions using criminally derived property, including the purchase of land, aircraft, boats, cars, artwork and jewelry, among other items. The indictment seeks forfeiture of all such gains derived from criminal activity, totaling $278,727,674.35, including: several residences in the state of Alabama and property in Palm Beach, Florida; a 92-foot Tarrab yacht called Chez Soiree, a 38-foot Intrepid Walkaround watercraft and a 42-foot Lightning boat; a 1998 Cessna Caravan 675, together with amphibious floats and other equipment, and a 2001 Cessna Citation 525 aircraft; diamond jewelry; several luxury automobiles, including a 2003 Lamborghini Murcielago, a 2000 Rolls Royce Corniche, and two 2002 Cadillac Escalades; and paintings by Pablo Picasso, Marc Chagall, Pierre-August Renoir, among others. Blog fight! By Tom Smith Two interesting, well argued and completely opposed views from Brian Leiter and Jacob Levy on the recent awarding of the Kluge Prize in the human sciences to Leszek Kolakowski, Professor Emeritus of Philosophy and Social Thought here at the University of Chicago. Monster cycle By Tom Smith This blog is supposed to cover culture, which here in San Diego includes things like motorcycles and weightlifting. And books, of course. In any event, did anybody else notice the monster motorcycle on page B-1 of the Wall Street Journal yesterday? I don't bother linking to the pay site of the Journal, so the link above is to a page with some nice photos of the Chrysler Tomahawk, a 4-wheeled cycle with a 500 cu. in. V-10 engine borrowed from the Dodge Viper. I don't care if it screams mid-life crisis, I still want one. I also want a Harley. I never used to be like this. Now I really don't have to feel guilty about not donating to NPR By Tom Smith San Diego heiress Joan Kroc (her husband was one of the founders of McDonald's) recently died, and her bequests are making news. In addition to a $50 million bequest to our own University of San Diego to endow an Institute of Peace Studies (an another $50 million to Notre Dame for similiar purposes), she has left $200 million to National Public Radio, the station I masochistically listen to almost every morning. I never, ever give money during Pledge Month. I figure I pay taxes, and that is enough. Also, I start out with $1000 budgeted to give them every year, but then take away $1 every time they say something biased or egregiously stupid. So far they always owe me money. Some ancient history. The year I worked in the Council of Economic Advisers, the office next door was for the guy in charge of international trade issues. I had been following the debate over the free trade agreement with Canada (later rolled into NAFTA) with concern. NPR had me convinced it might not pass the Senate. They were taking the Canadian left view that it would lead to the nasty Americanization of that great, snowy fishing paradise to our north. After the vote, I remarked to my colleague that he must have been greatly relieved by the passage of the treaty, thus making a complete fool of myself. He looked at me puzzled, saying the treaty had enjoyed a large margin of support from early on; nobody had been the least worried it would not pass. Now whenever I listen to NPR, I constantly remind myself that it is not just biased; it is actively trying to mislead me. It's hard to avoid being misled and drive at the same time. November 04, 2003
L.A. Times Misleads Public in Defending Diversity By Gail Heriot On Monday, the L.A. Times ran a story with the headline, "Overall, Race No Factor for Low-Scoring UC Applicants." Only in paragraph eleven does the reader realize that the story is an effort to mislead and that the Times' own findings suggest that race is very much a factor in UC admissions decisions. According the the Times' investigation, UC-Berkeley admits low-scoring Blacks and Latinos at a race TWICE that of Whites and Asians. UCLA is only somewhat better. It is about 25% more likely to admit low-scoring Blacks and Latinos than low-scoring Whites or Asians. The Times attempts to cover over this by arguing some of the other campuses do not appear to be discriminating by race. But the fact that UC campuses like Santa Cruz and Riverside do not appear to be motivated by race in choosing among applicants proves nothing. It is simply the result of the fact that those schools do not pick and choose from UC-eligible students; they admit them all. If Santa Cruz or Riverside wanted to discriminate in favor of one racial group or another, they would have to do it by influencing the UC eligibility index (which, sadly, they appear to have done--a bit on that below). They cannot do it by admitting more Black or Latino applicants from the UC eligible pool. Yes, yes, I know, the fact that Berkeley admits low-scoring Blacks and Latinos at a rate twice that of low-scoring Whites and Asians does not in itself prove race discrimination. It simply shows that Berkeley's admissions criteria (whatever they are) have a disparate impact based on race. But that observation cuts both ways for the L.A.Times story. The Times' assertion that "overall, race is not a factor" cannot be proven just by the numbers either. And either way, the story is misleading. It suggests that the evidence they have uncovered exonerates the UC system when in fact it does the opposite. What the L.A. Times has uncovered is enough to warrant a serious inquiry into UC admissions practices. Let me give a little background on the issue: A few weeks ago, the Chairman of the UC Board of Regents, John Moores, released a preliminary report on freshman admissions at UC-Berkeley showing that nearly 400 students had been admitted to the freshman class of 2002 with SAT scores of 600 to 1000 and GPAs that were unimpressive by Berkeley standards. At the same time, students scoring hundreds of points higher on the SAT and higher average GPAs were rejected. Moores expressed concern that something was amiss; he was met with jeers by UC insiders who essentially said that Moores didn't know what he was talking about and should not meddle in admissions matters. (For those of you who are unfamiliar with the University of California system, its eight undergraduate campuses are charged witht the task of educating the top 12 1/2 % of California's high school graduates (as defined by a somewhat complex formula that weighs both high school GPA and standardized test scores). The more prestigious campuses--most notably Berkeley and UCLA--are much more selective, usually admitting only those students in the top 1% to 3% of the pool. Campuses that are lower in the pecking order--like Santa Cruz or Riverside--accept all "UC eligible" students. Students who receive 1000 or less on the combined SAT (i.e. the 50th percentile or lower) would traditionally be regarded substantially below the cut for UC eligibility and are far, far below the typical Berkeley or UCLA student. Moores was right to suspect that something was amiss. Here's what appears to be happening: Since the passage in 1996 of Proposition 209, which banned racial preferences in (among other things) UC admissions, modifications to UC's admissions policy have been directed almost exclusively to methods of getting around the initiative's requirements. Two post-Proposition 209 innovations combine to make the effect Moores is concerned about happen. 1. Shortly after Proposition 209's passage, the Board of Regents adopted a program by which the top 4% of the graduates of each California high school are UC eligible regardless of their SAT scores. Why do this? Most of the students statewide who are in the top 4% of their high school class were already UC eligible. The exceptions, however--students with high class ranks but low standardized test scores--disproportionately come from rural and inner city high schools where low standardized test scores are often the norm. The group is disproportionately, but by no means exclusively or even nearly exclusively, Black and Latino. Some UC administrators deny that their support for this plan stemmed solely from its minority impact (and some are probably telling the truth). But it is worth pointing out that the only state universities even to consider such a plan have been those at which racial preferences have been prohibited or found to be illegal (California, Florida and Texas). A large number of the politicians, college administators and political activists supporting the change have been completely candid about their reasons: It will increase the racial representation of Blacks and Latinos. The only problem from the standpoint of those who favor racial prefernces is that the 4% solution did not reserve seats for such students at any particular campus. It simply ensured that they would be admitted to the UC, most probably Santa Cruz or Riverside. Schools like Berkeley and UCLA were supposed to admit students only from the top of the UC eligibility poos and new students admitted to the pool by the 4% solution had academic credentials that placed them at the bottom of the pool. 2. More recently, the selective campuses instituted what they call "comprehensive review" procedures under which non-academic factors like the degree to which a student has overcome barriers get greater emphasis than before (and hence academic factors get less emphasis). This innovation has made it possible for Berkeley and UCLA to reach into the new minority-rich pool of students created by the 4% solution and bring them to the more prestigious campuses. These students are thus double-promoted over where they would have been prior to the adoption 4% solution. Are Berkeley and UCLA deliberately picking Black and Latino students over White and Asian students in their comprehensive review? I wouldn't be shocked. And if they are, they are following a grand old tradition. When the Ivy League universities of the 1920s and 1930s adopted admissions policies that were designed to find "well-rounded" students rather than mere test-taking grinds, everyone knew that their real purpose was simply to exclude Jewish students. The rhetoric used by the UC in support of comprehensive review sounds much the same. The UC Board of Regents owes it to the public to ensure that history does not repeat itself. Favorite Weapons Part III By Tom Smith Steve Bainbridge takes a philosophical turn on the favorite weapon debate, nominating a Marine and his rifle. This puts me in an awkward position, as I hardly want to take the part of hardware over wetware. But as Steve opened the human factor door, I will walk through. Marines are hard men and women, there's no doubt. I have had many Marines as students over the years, and they make good students as well. It may be because 12 hours in the law library doesn't seem that tough compared to humping a 60 pound pack for 30 miles. Though they would be the first to tell you, you've also got to love the SEALs. Having seen the awful G.I Jane, about lady SEALs, I asked a former SEAL who was a student of mine if it were true, as in the movie, that SEALs captured during manuevers were tortured to add realism to the exercise. "Well," he said, "they do this thing where they cover your face with a cloth and pour water on it until you pass out, but I wouldn't say tortured." I guess I shouldn't admit I sort of liked Starship Troopers (the movie). You mean the book is better, Steve? Spectre gunship also way cool By Tom Smith Tung Yin makes a plausibe case that Spectre AC-130 Gunship should be included in the Way Cool Weapons Systems list inspired by Brian Leiter's reminder that we spend a mint on weapons. I am surprised I forgot the Spectre, as I am the proud owner of a Spectre baseball cap, given to me by a former research assistant who lured me into the world of guns. November 03, 2003
My Favorite Weapons System By Tom Smith Brian Leiter's recent attack on Thomas Freidman got me thinking. While disparaging Freidman, Brian writes of our friends the Europeans: After all, the Europeans, not being as thoroughly cowed and indoctrinated, may have noticed that the US outspent Iraq on warfare preparations by a ratio of 400 to 1; indeed, that the US outspends the next ten biggest spenders on warfare preparations; that the US has nuclear weapons, biological weapons, chemical weapons, while Iraq does not; that the US has invaded or overthrown governments in more than a dozen countries, unleashing ruthless reins of terror unparalleled outside Stalin's Russia in the 1930s, while Iraq, as a third-rate power, had merely invaded one country, and had unleashed terror only against its own population (with essential help and support from the US); that the US war machine is now run by religious zealots, while Iraq was a secular state, and so on. This got me thinking, given that we spend so much on weapons, and that we have so many, what would I choose as my favorite, if I really had to choose? I know, it's hard. There is the issue of childhood favorites. The ungainly but formidable B-52. The oh-so-correctly named P-51 Mustang. The apocalyptic Ohio class Trident SSBN. When I was a child, I thought as a child, and so forth. Decisions, decisions. But in the end, it has to be the USS Ronald Reagan. Feast your eyes on this baby. Not only is it one of the scariest ships ever built, it is a thoughtful memorial to the man. November 02, 2003
Grocery Strike News By Tom Smith My wife's nurse talked to a picketing striker who said that the union was now going to picket only Albertson's and Von's, steering shopping towards Ralph's, in the hopes of undermining the united front of the grocery stores. Interesting strategy. November 01, 2003
But what if our taxes go up, and they don't spend it on fighting fires? By Tom Smith The L.A. Times needs to get its story straight. You mean, we could pay more taxes, and still have disorganized, inadequately equipped, late on the draw fire fighting? It's so confusing! St. Boyton the Crusader By Tom Smith I would handle it this way. Pres: General, you realize you musn't say anything to offend those Muslims around the world who don't want to see us and our children burn like gas-soaked rags? General: Yes, Sir. Pres: Now go out there and kill some more terrorists! General: Yes, Sir! This from the weekly standard. Hat tip to Yale Diva. (Like that girl, apparently another Audrey Hepburn fan. Daaaah, dah, dum, daaah, dah, dah, dah, dum, I'm crossing you in style, some day . . . .) It's our fault because we don't like taxes By Tom Smith Our beloved L.A. Times picks up the spin that low taxes made San Diego burn. The L.A. Times makes me burn. It did have a link to this cool interactive fire map, however. (It takes a long time to load.) |
