Supremely Partisan

The Supreme Court heard arguments for and against the Affordable Care Act (aka Obamacare, aka Romneycare, aka Nixoncare, aka Heritage Foundationcare) earlier this week, and by all accounts, most of the justices had made up their minds prior to entering the chamber, with the liberal block intensely questioning the law’s opponents, while the conservative block (sans Clarence Thomas of course, who hasn’t asked a question since 2006) were equally intent on grilling the solicitor general.

I’ve long felt that Thomas’ apparent disinterest in uttering a word on the bench was indicative of a uniquely jaundiced view of his role. That his knowledge and understanding of the constitution and constitutional law was so complete as to render oral arguments immaterial; that the material written and submitted by both sides prior to arguments contained everything he could possibly need to make his decision.

Of late, I’ve come to revisit this long-held belief. While Justice Thomas’ lack of auditory enthusiasm still galls, in controversial (i.e., politically partisan) cases, I believe it is in fact an unspoken acknowledgement of a reality that neither the left nor, most emphatically, the right, is keen to accept; that the constitution doesn’t offer one word of guidance on these crucial decisions of our day. That a good minority of our nation’s case law is being made up as we collectively go along, and is done so not through reason or reflection, but strictly along partisan lines. Bush v. Gore. SuperPacs. The Affordable Care Act. All 5-4 or soon-to-be 5-4 decisions.

It wasn’t always so. The constitution is an amazing document, and offered compelling answers to some of the thorniest practical, moral, and ethical questions of the day. Over the following century or two, both in its originalform and doubly so through its amendments, the document continued to address these questions; it was, to use a popular phrase from judicial activists, a “living document”.

Many of the issues the Court faces today however seem to fall outside of the boundaries laid down in the document. That shouldn’t surprise anyone; it is a document written in the 18th century that drew heavily upon the geopolitical reality of the day, upon British common law, and upon what were then cutting edge enlightenment schools of thought. Philosophy, case law, geopolitics and, most of all, society and technology have continued to grow and evolve since that time.

The net effect seems to be that the Justices, both at the Supreme Court and often at the District and Appellate levels pick and choose textual tidbits that support their predetermined positions, not unlike an undergraduate (or Congressional, or Facebook…) debate where the real if unspoken objective is to find more citations from the relevant works or figures that support your position than your opponent can find to support his or hers.

The current makeup of the Supreme Court lends credence to this admittedly troubling view. It’s well known that ours is the most educated (and elite) Court on record. I did a quick Google search on the Justice’s educations, and found the following:

Justice Alma Mater Year

Antonin Scalia Harvard 1960
Stephen Breyer Harvard 1964
John Roberts Harvard 1979
Elena Kagan Harvard 1986
Ruth Bader Ginsburg Harvard/Columbia 1959
Samuel Alito Yale 1972
Clarence Thomas Yale 1974
Sonia Sotomayor Yale 1979


Antonin Scalia and Stephen Breyer both attended Harvard, both graduated at the top of their class, and they did so a mere four years apart from one another. John Roberts and Elena Kagan graduated seven years apart, while Sonia Sotomayor graduated from Yale five years after Clarence Thomas, and seven years after Samuel Alito.

In short, these are men and women who went to the same schools and presumably took the same classes, very likely with the same teachers. And yet their views on the constitutionality of our nation’s most partisan questions quite literally couldn’t be more diametrically opposed from that of their fellow alumni. Can you imagine Breyer and Scalia finding common cause on a case that pits Democrats against Republicans? Sotomayor and Thomas?

If there was a fundamental constitutional principle behind these major cases, it’s not illogical to expect those whose formative judicial education came from the same school and some of the ame classes and teachers to share a common view. I might disagree with my fellow Kellogg lumni about many things, but if a business question was put before us that asked whether sunk costs should be considered in future investment decisions,or whether focusing a product on a specific niche was generally superior to attempting to please all consumers, we would assuredly find broad agreement. And even if we disagreed on one issue, it’s inconceivable that we’d do so on every major issue.

This raises a host of concerning and, at best, unappetizing realities, but also a question I for one find intriguing. Most people would assume that a Court filled with the brightest minds from the nation’s most prestigious law schools is an unmistakably positive development. But is it possible that the interests of the Court, and of the nation, are better served by filling it with the mix of elected and appointed officials (some of them not even lawyers) that historically have filled the Court’s seats, or would any composition be similarly tainted by the hyper partisanship that is the mark of the modern American political system?

Santorum Surge II

If there is anything I've learned regarding politics, it's to expect the unexpected.  Actually that's not just politics but in life in general.  Obviously the unexpected doesn't happen all the time - then it wouldn't be unexpected.  But think about seminal events in recent history - or just your own personal history.  At the moment that said event was occurring, often we find ourselves saying, "If you would have told me 3 months ago that X - I wouldn't have believed you. "  If you would have told me that a Freshman Senator named Barack Obama (rhymes with Osama) would be our first black President elected in 2008, in 2004 - I would have laughed in your face.  But by that time the events had been set in motion.  Grant it, a lot still had to happen for the pieces to fall into place but the big ones, the structural ones, were already set (namely Clinton scaring other serious contenders away except for Edwards, Obama being extremely capable at organizing and building an organization around him, a core of Democratic support - possibly the most engaged 10-20% that would not settle, Bush winning re-election forcing him to account for his shitty tenure- had Kerry won he would have gotten blamed and would have lost bad in 2008, probably) . 

This sort of realization of how events unfold led me to predict, WRONGLY, that we would see marijuana legalization in four years (right after Obama was elected).  But you can see how it could have happened - Obama is elected and leaves states to their own devices, Schwarzenegger had publicly stated he was in favor of it as a tax generating project, a sagging economy and growing deficit, Ron Paul had bolstered the libertarian republicans about freedom in general, public opinion was moving in the right direction and as of right now support for medical marijuana is above 50%), the media was increasingly addressing the issue as a serious topic to discuss as opposed to a joke or as some way to deride "stoners"- this is important as key mover of public opinion.  Despite all this, and that for some inexplicable reason, Obama has gone back on his "leave it to the states policy"- legalization has not happened (although that was probably  50-50 bet anyway).  Hey, you win some, you lose some.  A few pockets of the country have legalized but unlike gay marriage, a wave of change has not followed it yet. 

My point is, is that despite Romney being the clear front runner early  (Hillary Clinton, Howard Dean anyone) and still by delegate count - you never saw him catch fire.  Obama actually faced this as well being the insurgent 4 years ago, but eventually Edwards attacked Hillary causing her to sling mud, making her look dirty. Obama talked about hope and change. And he snuck Iowa out of his back pocket (unbeknownst to us at the time he actually had an advantage over Clinton because of his superior ground game) lending him some immediate legitimacy.  The difference between Romney and Obama though, is that Romney is/was a known quantity.  Obama was not.  And despite being the conservative's conservative 4 years ago, nobody trusts him now.  The base is LOOKING for a reason to not vote for this guy. 

I don't know about historical precedents in this sort of situation - but the republicans have a nominating process where , depending on MI, AZ, and Super Tuesday, any one of the possible nominees, won't be able to secure the nomination (w/o super delegates).  Brokered convention?  Establishment pick that won't piss off the base? Christie, Palin, Jindal…. This much is certain, someone must be nominated.  But the establishment, despite the weak economy, already didn't think they could beat Obama (evidenced by the weak field) and now the economy may be improving.  LITERALLY anything is possible, Paul, Santorum, CHENEY, even Pawlenty (who should be kicking himself).  Whatever happens, I won't be surprised.

Romney as nominee - 50/50

The Santorum Surge

Given the tumult in the Republican primary race, it seemed remiss not to take a closer look both at the surging Rick Santorum and at the race as a whole.

First off, a mea culpa. Last summer I attended a dinner, and found myself at a table with a self-important, egotistical, and downright demeaning investment professional. Needless to say we agreed on little. At one point in the evening, this individual explained that Mitt Romney would be the Republican nominee, and would then defeat the socialist incumbent in the fall. I replied by questioning Romney's acceptability to the party base, and suggested that a movement Conservative had a better than even chance of upsetting the forthcoming coronation.

Fast forward six months, and, while I certainly wasn't willing to call the November election, I was fairly confident that Romney had the nomination in hand. All the signs were moving in his favor, and his opponents were self-destructing one by one. So, I made a mistake, and shouldn't have discarded my original opinion quite so quickly. Now, an addendum is in order. I never, be it this past June or three weeks ago, never believed that Rick Santorum had so much as in iota of a chance. Truthfully, I might not even have been aware that he was running last summer.

I still believe that Romney is the most likely nominee, however, all the same, I can't help but wonder if that belief is simply a regurgitation of popular opinion. Santorum is surging and, while such surges have come and gone in the past (see Cain, Herman, Gingrich, Newt, Ginrich, Newt Again, Perry, Rick), and while Michigan is noticeably tightening, we're but a week out from the Arizona and Michigan primaries. If Romney doesn't hold Michigan, then a compelling narrative is established for Super Tuesday a mere week later. I've seen not a word printed on the forthcoming Washington caucus, so can't judge how, or if, that might impact the race.

I'm curious as to what others think of this state of affairs. Can Santorum sustain his surge? Will the all-important South swing to him in force, and would such a swing presage a tsunami...or a contested convention?

On a related topic, I'd like to hear some thoughts on the possible underlying causes of this electoral shift, be it temporary or lasting. My gut tells me that we're looking at a combination of Santorum being the last not-Romney standing, combined with the unusual characteristics of the voting population.

As Timothy Egan of the NYT points out, the primaries (and, though he doesn't explicitly make the distinction, the caucuses especially) haven't exactly inspired the country; turnout has ranged from abysmal to, in Maine, a level so low as to be a statistical rounding error. The turnout has also accenuated the historical problem of primaries being decided by the most fervent, ideologically strident voters, given that they're the ones who get out to vote, creating a Republican electorate this season that is "old, white, (and) uniformly Christiam".

This voting bloc provides one possible explanation for the positions taken by the field; they're not appealing to the nation; they're not even appealing to their party. They're attempting to appeal to their party's crazies or, as they're known on both the left and right the "activists".

So, what's causing this? And, in a related vein, could Santorum actually stand a chance in the general? The easy answer is "no, of course not". The man is a walking stereotype of all of the smug and sanctimonious pricks who know that they are right and that you are not only wrong, but, because you disagree with them, are fundametally evil. His positions on the issues of the day (both this day and those issues issues whose last day of note was in 1912 rather than 2012) are so extreme or bizarre that I have trouble conceiving of a Republican path to anything approaching victory. And yet...party identification has taken an increasing hold over the electorate of both sides. I have to wonder how close the race could actually become.

Obama Derangement Syndrome

It seems there are two prevailing definitions of this term and both are totally opposite one another.  It both describes the lack of critical thinking surrounding Obama (think kool-aid drinkers) of his supporters (it is derived from Bush Derangement Syndrome) and the hyper paranoia of the take 'r' guns-FEMA re-education camps-fascism-not an American citizen-Bush approval opponents of Obama.  

It can't be both!

Or can it?

Just like Herpes and Hepatitis, maybe ODS should have multiple distinctions.  But how to create those distinctions.  Hep uses alpha characters, Herpes uses numeric.  Maybe ODS should use greek?  The only problem is  I don't know greek except for baklava, gyro, and idiot (idiot might be latin).  Hmmm.  Well, since Obama is *from* Chicago, one area of the country where we serve  and pronounce "gyros" as they do in Greece (NO lettuce, tzaziki sauce, tomato, onion and yee-ros), perhaps the ODS that's favorable to Obama should be called ODS-Gamma.  And the since Bush is an idiot, the ODS that's favorable to Bush / "conservatives" should be designated ODS-Iota.

Thoughts?

PPP

The Work World

I'm finally posting about my job.  Here it is.

I hate it.  

Cynical Commentary II

Heh. Funny you should mention Maher. After I posted that piece, I pulled up the previous day's Real Time episode that I'd DVR'd and finally watched it. When Maher made that joke I sat there thinking "Son of a bitch. Next time, you really have ta watch all of the commentary shows before posting on a hot topic. Moron."

Thanks for the positive comments. I have to admit though, reading through it later, I thought the whole thing could have been edited down a whole lot and structured much more tightly. I assure you, the only reason parts of it sounded even halfway decent was due to the fact that this post allowed me to integrate a couple of separate ideas that I've been kicking around for a few years. The immigrant nation vs. ethnic nation and Huntington strands of thought in particular.

Cynical Commentary about Torture Commentary

Well DH, I have to say I agree with all you wrote.  I coulc probably take exception with some of the ticking time bomb scenario stuff, I think it will just take away from my sarcasm.

Did you plagiarize much of that? It read like poetry, or at least, a professional writer. Catchy conclusion and all.

But I particularly enjoyed the rip off of Maher with the "Jack Bauer as defense of reality" comment.

Well said friend.

Torture and the American Identity

Tortue.

It's really a great conversation starter.

I've vacillated on just about every aspect of this issue over the past several years. Is it ever effective? If it is, can it be justified? If/when it's justified, is it then also morally permissible?

I eventually came to the conclusion that, although not being in the industry I could never know for certain, it seemed that enought people believed there to be value to gain from the now euphemistically rephrased "enhanced interrogation techniques" that there were probably times when such action was effective. When that was the case, when lives were on the line, then torturing the one whose knowledge could prevent the coming atrocity was justified. I even came to what I decided was a very mature worldview; that torture was not morally justified, but when it was necessary, men and and women could willingly choose to sacrifice their dignity and morality for the good of the nation, knowing full well the consequences of their actions, and knowing that they should, and would be prosecuted for them. It was all very nice and honorable, with what, in my world view, is the ultimate personal sacrifice thrown in to top everything off. And it was wrong. In every god damned sense, it was wrong.

Over time, I came to revise my belief based on two concurrent but separate tracts of thought. First on the dry and uncontroversial basis of the very effectiveness of physically torturing someone. The more I read, the more I learned, the more I critically thought about the issue, the less compelling the need for torture seemed. As much as I enjoy watching 24 (as does, apparently, Bill Clinton, oddly enough), the series has had one effect on the American political debate that's as unbelievable as it is unjustified. We're now at a point where Republicans try to explain that the Democrats don't understand the real world, and to emphasize their point, they site Jack Bauer. Wha?! When one of the primary pieces of evidence supplied by one side of a debate is a fictional character in a fictional world, I can be pretty confident that something has gone awry in the universe.

Dick Cheney has exemplified this mentality. But the thing is, to get to the point where you have a suspect in custody ready for interrogation, you must already have a very strong handle on the situation. I was never able to articulate this idea very well, but Stratfor put it very effectively earlier this week when they wrote:

"A great deal of tactical information on the individual — what he knows, the organization he works for and that organization’s activities — is all necessary to get to that point. This is rarely the case in either police work or the intelligence community — and if authorities did have that much highly specific intelligence, the time-consuming process of torture is rarely either necessary or an efficient means of gathering further details."

So torture as an effective means of coercion just doesn't seem to pan out. Full stop, right? Wrong. Because the effectiveness is just one aspect of this story, and arguably it's the less important one. Because even if it were justified by the information to be gained from a suspect, the question would still remain: Is this morally right?

The answer shouldn't even be a question. Shephard Smith put voice to what so many people were thinking earlier this week when he exploded on camera in indignation as the two men he was on stage with debated the legality of torture. As he so effectively pointed out, it's not a question of legality. Of Bybee's memos or executive directives. It's a question of who we are. The Right (and I use that term not in its historical context, recent or otherwise, but in the current"Rush Limbaugh-Republicans" sense of the word) claims that, as Americans, we need to fight for American values. This is true, and thirty or forty years ago, is why I would have been a Republican, when the alternative was a wishy-washy cultural relativism. Ronald Reagan, the Right's hero, in championing a treaty banning torture, understood this in a way that is today lost. However, the Right today often seems to be concerned not with defending America the idea, the ideal, but America the place.

Now America is a place; its people and its position in the world has been defined by its geography, but Americans have never been defined by where their fathers and mothers were born and bred. This immigrant society that we have is what sets countries such as the U.S., Canada, Australia, and New Zealand apart from almost every other nation on earth. Now this ideal hasn't always been perfectly followed; in the U.S. alone, there's a long litany of resentment and persecution towards the 'other'. Native American genocide and/or forced relocation, Slavery, Jim Crow, NINA, Yellow Peril, the list could go on for another page and a half. But in the end, America has always (and, as time has gone by, more consistently) come back to the belief that being an American isn't about your ethnicity, your creed, your faith. It's about a mentality. A set of principles. It's about an idea.

Being accepted as an American is, in most places, far easier than becoming an American. That's not an oxymoron. Legally becoming a citizen takes many years, cards of various hues, and mounds of paperwork. Being accepted as an American is fairly simple. In this society, people are accepted as Americans simply by wanting to be an American. Though the government aspires otherwise, that is obviously and manifestly not the case in, say, France, or most of the rest of Europe. This cultural trait is one of the great strengths of our country. Nearly as important, the U.S. has an uncanny ability to take in new peoples, add their culture to the American fabric, and create a new and ever evolving culture for all, one that the immigrant's children have historically readily adopted, even if doing so was more difficult for their parents. America is kinda like a good version of the Borg.

So what is America then? America is its people, and those people are, again, defined by a mentality and set of principles. America is an idea. I accept that this makes America an inherently weaker entity than most other nations on Earth. About five years ago, I picked up Samuel Huntington's (of Clash of Civilization's fame) latest work, Who Are We?, due solely to his previous work. The gist of the book's argument is that America has to reembrace Protestantism, or we're headed down a path towards two nation's, one Hispanic and non-aspirational, and the rest of us. His argument is that America, as a nation based on an idea rather than an ethnic history has an inherent long-term weakness. Now I disagree with his assessment on several fronts, but I concede the central concern of a divide opening between people of different backgrounds. I concede his concern, but I reject his central hypothesis.

America is and can a remain a country that exists based on its ideals, on its promise, and on its purpose. I love America, not because I was born here. I love this country because it is a nation that accepts all comers. Because it is a nation that exists not for the sake of existence, but exists to embody and puruse the ideals on which it was founded, and on which we have been raised. Torture in the name of preserving America is not only unjustified. It's an oxymoron.

Science, Faith, and Intellectual Dishonesty

Eh, sorry for the long delay in posting.

After almost a decade are we actually reaching agreement on the science as a religion question? That is cause for astonishment. I'll agree with you that the titular heads of the two schools of debate are not normally in the same league wrt intellectual honesty. I also recall, to reuse the stem cell example, that the major proponents caveated their arguments. However, they were perfectly happy to allow others to make more exorbitant claims (an argument I advance for the simple reason that the public debate does not and never has been as nuanced as were the proponents of the research in their public statements).

That leads to another line of thought, and one I'd like to get your opinion on. When you were discussing the Mos Def/Christopher Hitchens smackdown, and Ta-Nehisi Coates' assault on the the failure of the 'elder' generations to educate the younger ones and force them to grow intellectually, you also seemed to promoting the utility of using those who agree with you, but for the wrong reasons to advance your own stance.

I'm not sure where you stand on this, but the thing is, once I thought about it, I realized that I agree with both of the assertions I thought you made. In other words, I'm a hypocrite on this issue (though not a delestivus, since I'm acknowledging it :) ). I get intensely agitated when someone makes a statement without backup; the bar mentality that you expect out of undergrads and the uneducated. Into this category I place such pearls of wisdom as "The Republicans just want the oil", "Democrats want to take our guns", "Dick Cheney controlled the White House, because Bush is a moron", and "Of course there was a conspiracy [9-11, Kennedy, whatever]. The [insert favorite group here] was behind it all".

A brief aside is in order here, one which ties together the current discussion as well as the science as a religion tangent. I was recently out in the field with a coworker when she started talking about a test that you can have done for ~$125 that the Discovery Channel has been hawking for several years now. It involves swabbing your mouth to get some genetic samples and then sending them off for testing. The results will then tell you your genetic history.

Allright, cool. Interesting idea. I raised the point though that only a few years ago, there was a mini-controversy when it was revealed that the several companies involved in this business tend to provide different histories for the same genetic sample. In other words, the science isn't complete yet on this one, as we're still developing our collective understanding of humanity's genetic history. When I raised this point, my coworker said, and I swear this is almost verbatim, "Yeah, that's true, but I trust them, and you have to start somewhere." I asked why I should trust the results from her company and not some other company, to which she replied that these guys were professionals. Pressing her further, she explained that she's read up on this topic and has experience that I lack which makes her more trusting of the results. This experience, I shit you not, is a couple of undergrad courses in genetics she took...over 25 years ago. It's equivalent to my asserting a detailed knowledge of Gregor Mendel because I completed a worksheet on the genetic qualities of peas in a High School chemistry class. I about lost it, and actually accused her of treating science as her own religion, as we've been discussing.

The main point of this story is that I agree that we have an obligation to educate those who might agree with us, but for the wrong reason. In fact, I agree that genetic testing can reveal our deepest ancestry. I don't think we can tell with any deep degree of accuracy exactly where we come from yet (nor do I particularly care about the results myself, but that's a different rant), but I've little doubt a consensus will be reached fairly quickly on how to proceed. However, I also follow your other line of argument in my daily life. That people are better off holding the point of view I hold, even if it's for the wrong reasons, than following the alternative.

In other words, like you say, "as long as they're voting the way I want them to", I don't argue that much. I've displayed this tendency in arguments with you in the past. We'll be discussing something, and a third party will agree with some contention I'm making, but for reasons that I don't think are particularly compelling (this has been the case with Q on a couple of occasions). I don't break and say "yeah, you're right, but at the same time you're wrong". No, no I continue to hammer my point home, using the support of the third party to wear down my opponent. It's intellectually dishonest, and something I really need to address in the future.

- DH

P.S. I really wish I could come up with something quantifiable to back up my still gestating assertion that a majority (or at least a plurality) of people in this country treat scientific work with the reverence normally reserved for the supernatural, but I haven't yet managed to do so. If you come across any evidence, either for or against, I'd be very interested in seeing it. I really dislike making unsubstantiated claims based only on my gut, and this one's definitely a doozy.

Are we all really equally responsible for this debt?

One of the complaints about the "out of control" spending is that we're burdening our children.  It's not fair to them.  Ok, I take  that argument.  I agree.  It's not.  As long as we're talking about who it's not fair to, let's talk about those who voted against Bush 2x.  Bush made the current spending completely necessary.  So let's take the US national debt in 2000, $5.6T and subtract it from the national debt in 2008 $10.7T which gives us $5.1T.  And let's saddle only the  Red states with that debt.  Although that's not completely fair.  There were red voters in blues states and vice versa.  But if the children argument (i.e. age the age variable) is really what's most important, let's make an amendment to the tax code.  By age, let's scale the debt responsibility.  It could be done in a way that make's you responsible for your portion of the debt (after confiscating all property from the Bush, Cheney, and most members of Congress's ENTIRE families and subtracting it, probably only a few billion) based on how old you were in the 2 presidential election years.

I didn't want to get real serious about this since I'm proposing this mostly as a joke (although in all honesty I think you'd see a difference in policy and the way people vote if you told them you'd have to pay for how they vote- not necessarily for the better either) so I just found what seemed like reasonable data and used it.  I'm only looking at 18-29 yr olds, 65 and older, and everybody else. 

Every four years, we're given a choice about who to elect for president.  Bush got two terms.  I don't have the data for the national debt in 2004 but I do have it for 2005, $7.9T.   So from 2000-2005 the debt went from $5.6T to $7.9T, a $2.3T increase, and then 3 years later it was $10.7T, and increase of $2.8T.  If we interpolate to 2004 we should get Bush's first term increase of debt = $2.3T(0.8) = $1.84T and Bush's second term increase of debt = $2.8T + (2.3-1.84) = $3.26T.  

There are a variety of ways to do this but I'm running out of time since I have to catch a flight so I'll do it by the good old Republican stand by- tried and true winner take all.  In 2000 and 2004, the 18-29 yr old populace voted against Bush 48-46 and 54-45.  They pay nothing.  The fogies voted for Gore 50-47 but voted for Bush in 2004 52-47. That opens up ANYONE 65 and older to the liability of the $3.26T in debt.  And all the 30-64 yr olds hav eto pick up the remainder. 

What if you say, "I didn't vote.  It's not my fault."  You should have voted.  You should have voted against president numbnuts who caused all this.  

We are responsible for the government we vote in.  DH posted about torture.  We are responsible.  The media is responsible.  We are responsible for ur debt.  Iowans can clamor to repeal corn subsidies.  Oil companies can insist on repealing the tax breaks and loopholes they get.  We can insist the troops be brought home because we can't afford it.  We are responsible.

This exercise brings up a myriad of other options.  What about other variables? Race, black people DID not vote for George W Bush.  What about the red and blue states? What about counties?  What about college education?  

The point is that it's easy to feel frustrated when there is a boob so incompetent in the office of President who is so clearly making wrong decisions.  Decisions that make you want to stand up and say, "give me my money back! I ain't payin' fo' this shit."  This could allow people to put there money where there mouth is.  I'm allowing this to lead into a discussion about paying for government (justice ,liberty, rights etc.)  and that's not the intention.  I'll have to continue the thought in greater detail later.  Until then, think about it.

PPP

First blog post from my iPhone....and I can't write in the text part :(

Science as Religion II

Once again, I'm operating on not enough sleep, am in an earlier time zone, and wasted critical time that could have been devoted to this posting about the computer.  Standard irrational-messy thinking caveats apply.

DH, you framed the Science as Religion discussion much the way I frame the discussion about subscribing to religion being stupid.  Hats off!  "On one side there are smart people who believe in gawd and use religion/spirituality as moral compass so to speak.  And then you have fundamentalists, and they got to go."  And, as you have framed the science as religion discussion I may agree with you....

Wha wha WHAT!?!!?!?!?!!?

Some people put there faith in science the way some people put there faith in relgion but (playing devil's advocate) the difference in degree is staggering.  The people who were drivingthe stem cell truck, as much as I can remember, always caveated with, the discoveries may not happen in this lifetime but if we don't start now it might be two lifetimes and needless millions dead.  Contrasted with a faith healer or people who refuse medical attention and substitute it with prayer.  

I've only ever cared about what people's perceptions of things are in as much as it matters in real outcomes.  As you know, I've never been an Obama sucker because I thought he was the 2nd coming of Christ, or super liberal (which wouldn't be a good thin anyway), or 'not a politican.'  But as long as the masses thought that, who am I to tell them he's not??? Especially when the mass was rooting for the guy I wanted in office.  

The same can be said for science as religion.  I don't know if your assertion about most people treating it like religion is true.  This is a neat new twist you've put on our discussion so I'll have to let it roll around in my brain for while.  But it doesn't matter.  Science ISN'T a religion, no matter how many people treat it that way.  And if they want to do that, I'm not gonna stop them, as long as they're voting the way I want them to.  Sure I'd love it if more people critically analyzed issues before forming concrete opinions. I also wish hot chicks would dig smart guys instead of assholes.  I digress.  Think of a political discussion with two other people and one's a moron.  The three of you have unique views but on any POLAR issue, it must be 2 v 1.  And some issues, you're going to agree with the moron.  And the moron is gonna go unhinged at the other person and you have to chime in and say, "Well......you're right...but not because of what you just said."And then you take 'em to school.  That reminds me of an episode of Real Time from a season or two ago.  Ta-Nehisi Coates at the Atlantic brought this up when talking about how Hitchens raped MosDef on Real Time a couple weeks ago.  

To be clear, I DO NOT advocate taking advantage of people who are too stupid to know any better.  But sometimes it can't be helped.  If anything, Obama toned down the hopeful rhetoric as the campaing progressed, even though that was the thing that made Will.i.am and Scarlett Johansen cream their pants.  

And, let's say people are treating science as a religion...thye're better off than they otherwise would be.  If they were/ would otherwise be making decisions based on a "conversation" they had with gawd, they are most certainly better off making decsions based on reality / evidence.  

Ok, looking back over this, this seems jumbled.  I hould have planned better.  Too late now.  I'm exhausted. I'll probably post tomorrow evening.

Peace

Computer Update

Apologies for not posting in a while.  Work has been keeping me busy.  But I'm on the road half this week so I have no distractions in my otel room.  My options are 1) work 2) post 3) read.  So I decided to post.  

So the graphics card being in the "wrong" slot was not the issue.  I installed service pack 2, which is beta, that's not the issue.  I started running prime95, it ran fine albeit a little hot.  Until I reinstalled the heatsink and now it runs solid. I guess I have to just live with the random crashing.  Although for some odd reason my system stability has risen from 1.xx to 4.xx in the last few days.  Some of that is due to me running the computer and then not doing anything on it. Anyway...

DH, it is not cheaper to build a computer.  I know we thought that back in the day, and maybe it was, but do not fool yourself.  Even if you put together a "reasonably" priced rig that has good specs, you're paying more than Dell might do it for.  What you get is piece of mind.  If you buy a machine from Dell that is going to have some basic gaming specs, they may throw some junk RAM in there.  Or the day may come when you find it necessary to overclock your machine.  The quality of the components will be the difference between overclocking fun and a $1,100 paper weight.  You also know that from the jump, there is no bullshit on your machine because you installed Windows clean.  One of the reason why Dell can build cheaper than you can (despite economies of scale) is becasue software developers pay them to put dumb apps on your machine in hopes that you'll use them and subscribe to shit.  That subsidizes the cost of the machine so even if you were able to get Dell prices on components (and you might sometimes if you buy from newegg.com) they can undercut the that because they got an extra $200 a mahcine for the myriad of shit.exe that's dumped on your machine.  

Peace...

Of Computers and PETA

First off, when I finally have some spare cash and decide to get a new computer, I'm calling you P. All insanity aside, it sounds as if you at least know what you're doing (well, for the most part), and building your own system is just so much cheaper than the alternative. My PC, which is sitting in storage at the moment, is from '03 or '04. Yeah. It's that old.

On another note entirely, I was horrified earlier this week when I discovered that I agreed with PETA on something. The Colbert Report did a piece on the emerging science of growing meat in the laboratory, and spent some time interviewing the head of the organization; you know, the lady who wants her flesh fried in a public place upon her death so that people will realize that human and animal flesh is essentially the same thing, and it's morally wrong to eat either.

PETA is offering $1M to whomever comes up with a viable method of growing meat in the lab. Now I think growing my steak and cheeseburger is a fantastic idea, yet I seem to be pretty much alone in this. Most everyone I've ever discussed the topic with (it's a great conversation starter...) finds the entire concept disgusting. Growing meat seems like a fantastic idea though. We no longer have to waste resources on gargantuan numbers of farm animals, and as an added bonus it may slow the destruction of the Amazon as the need for the multitude of continually migrating ranches would evaporate. In addition, meat has a very large energy content (not to mention protein content), which, as I understand evolutionary biology, is why the smarter animals tend to be the meat eaters. Human evolution sped up once we became omnivores. Meat is therefore a very important food item. It's scarcity in places makes it a luxury though, leading to diminished statures and health. There's a reason politicians from Henry IV to Herbert Hoover promoted the idea of a chicken in every pot as a prime of community development. Growing meat could radically expand the number of people who could enjoy such luxuries.

...Still, now that I learn that I and PETA are in agreement on something, I'm forced to rethink my position. Maybe all those people who I decided Just Didn't Get It have a point? The alternative, that PETA may actually be right about something, is a concept almost to horrible to contemplate.

BHO & Congr. Leadership Parte Tres

It's been a while, so let's see if I can do this without rambling incoherently for two or three pages. Here goes!

On Part the First, P, you're absolutely right; as I recall, you were postulating that President Obama's popularity, in conjunction with his obvious intelligence and (I think) even-handedness would ensure that he would hold the upperhand in the never ending contest between the Executive and Legislative branches. I admit that I hadn't viewed the administration's having the bill wholly crafted by the House in the same light as you P. I can see where you're coming from though, even if my gut tells me that my original interpretation seems more likely. I suspect that's because of the different lenses through which we each view Obama so early in his Presidency, before he's really had a chance to define himself. As an aside, I tend to believe, as you do, that he truly does want Republican support for his measures. My imagined rationale for that urge is however filtered through the same aforementioned lens, so I tend to view that in a more cynical light. Does he want their input, or is he trying to avoid conflict for it's own sake?...Not that that's necessarily a bad thing. After eight years of on-high pronouncements from the White House, I welcome a move in the opposite direction.

Moving on to the second point, the work of Deng Xiaoping should be required study at the undergraduate level for any liberal arts student. I may have issues with some of his political decisions (I hail from a nation that prizes individual liberty and free choice, so I'm naturally going to be condemnatory on issues ranging from Tiananemen to Tibet), but his economic policy directions were foresighted and help lift, in a very real way, hundreds of millions of people out of poverty. But I digress.

President Obama is a pragmatist, he's not a raging lefty and, you're right, he makes me look exciting. He's an incredibly boring 40-something with a beautiful family whose greatest political aspect is that he's got the charisma of Bill Clinton, without the sleaziness...also, it helps that he's never performed an exorcism. I still believe that the existing evidence points to his being too pragmatic. That being said, your defense of his career from the 2004 convention forward during our drink at that restaurant following the Maher/Coulter smackdown was well thought out, and I freely admit that his only real 'sin' since that time has been hubris which, again, is needed in a politician and is after all what's brought us to this (happy) day. I think the greatest threat at this point is that the President begins to believe his supporters' claims that he rose clean and pure from the depths of the political cesspool, held aloft by the seraphim of Hope and Change. He doesn't seem to be falling into that trap though, much to his credit.

On the final point, thanks for your perspective there P. Truly; I appreciate it. On the God front, I've been trying to refine that argument of late, figuring that after nearly a decade, it was getting a bit stale. I readily admit that science, in its pure form, is not a faith. Aristotle, al-Haytham, Bacon, Galileo, and so many others made sure of that over the long and arduous development of the scientific method. However, just as no rational third party observer would equate the religious thought and depth of Thomas Aquinas with that of Joe the Plumber, neither do I think that you can honestly equate the stereotypical faith the majority of the population seems to place in scientific achievements with the steadied rationality of the men and women working to make the discoveries and inventions that add to the collective body of human knowledge.

Two examples to try and better articulate that. The recent stem cell debate has been led in large part by those claiming that the things are likely to be a panacea for all manner of ills, from Alzheimer's to paralysis to retinal degeneration. They're a blank slate onto which people pour their hopes and dreams. Talk to the men and women in the field, and the response is far more measured. They believe in the technology (as do I), but also believe it has firm limits. But that's not what people want to hear. They want to believe that 'scientists' will be able to use this latest alchemical concoction to cure whatever ails or may ail them. You find a similar mentality in the less urgent realm of climate change. Republican or Democrat, both firmly believe that science will magically find a way to solve the issue by devising new economically sound power generation tools; the foolishness over 'clean coal' springs immediately to mind.

Humans crave certainty. Even those who believe in a higher power tend to attribute to modern science abilities it is not likely to possess. In this way, science is treated as a religion, with 'scientists' taking on the role of the High Priests. We ask the priests to solve our problems, and offer up tithings to them as they beseech the Gods. Is this a perfect analogy? No, of course not. Science actually stands a chance of succeeding in solving whatever issue it's attacking, wheras Zeus and Ahura Mazda very rarely bothered to stop the plague or bestow more advanced defensive weaponry on their worshippers. But my contention, poorly worded though it may be at 2:00 in the morning, is that this is how science is treated and viewed by the vast majority of the population. Thoughts?

Trials and Tribulations of Building A Computer

As I was sitting on the beach for 4 months I decided I wanted to play video games.  But I wanted to play them on a computer.  And seeing as my current computer couldn't even play SimCity 3000 anymore, now was the time to build a new one.  Since I built my last computer, discovered my fatal mistake in building it and then realized that I could not undo that mistake, I've been waiting for the day to be able to build another one.  That day was afew weeks ago. 

Spending more than twice as much as I did last time I built my i7 core 3.2 gHZ, Full ATX (4 case fans), 900 W PSU, 12 GB RAM, 1.1TB (2 HDD), nVidia GTX 285 1 GB (BFG) rig.  It's pretty sweet.  But you'd think with my previous experience building my last computer it would have been a cinch.  You'd have been wrong. 

After three minor crises I got the machine running.  (Crisis 1, I bought a non standard heatsink fan and thought I'd bought the wrong size.  After installing the stock one, I found the mounting brackets for my mobo and was able install the sweet ass heatsink.   Crisis 2, I missed the mobo's 2nd 8-pin power plug and couldn't figure out why the thing wouldn't turn on... that lasted for 20 minutes.  Crisis 3, after repeated attempts to install Vista and the machine wouldn't, I was convinced that it was because my BD-ROM wasn't reading the DVD fast enough.  As I disconnected my old 80 GB HD from the IDE connection so I could hook up my CD/DVD drive I bent the pins on the IDE slot o nthe mobo.  It was the mobo's only IDE slot. )

But even after it was running, the first major crisis was apparent.  I couldn't install Vista.  I became convinced that Vista sucked and I needed to get my hands on XP.  I picked up, for an additional $175, one of the last copies of XP in the city of Chicago. It installed on the computer with no problem.  As I installed the drivers for my graphics card, it told me that my graphics card was really meant for Vista, and it wasn't going to work correctly.   It didn't really.  

But the computer was running on XP and I was sated temporarily. Sims2 kept crashing without warning and seriously, its frigging Sims2, my card should be handling its graphics with ease.  I came to find out that XP had a built in RAM limit, it wouldn't recognize more than 4GB.  I pulled out the unecessary RAM.  But now I was pissed, I spent a lot of money on that RAM and I was gonna fucking use it.  I searched for Vista RAM issues.  Vista 64 (the version I had) recognizes unlimited RAM supposedly.  I reinstall the RAM and attempt to reinstall Vista.  Still doesn't work.  Then I find out that Vista won't install with more than 1 GB of RAM installed.  Well that meant I was fucked because I had 6 sticks and they were all 2GB.  I pulled out all but 1 stick and gave it a shot.  SUCCESS! Vista installed.  Now I could use my RAM and my graphics card.

I installed the rest of the RAM, and then Windows wouldn't start. Must be a bad stick of RAM, or a bad DIMM slot.  I pull out all the RAM, use a sharpie to mark them and keep track and then begin testing.  It must be the DIMM6 slot.  For balance I decide to run on 6GB, that's really 2-3x more than anyone really needs.  

But now, when I'm connected to the internet the computer crashes.  ??? I can't get through 10 minutes of hulu.com.  WTF!?!? Finally it becomes too much.  As I'm looking through the documentation that came with the components I see that I may have installed the graphics card in the wrong PCI-E slot.  Yes, my computer is so bad ass, it has TWO PCI-E slots.  I move the card and go to start it up and ......Vista won't start!?!?!? It doesn't recognize the HDD or the BD-ROM.  I must have static fried them when moving the card around.  ???? BUt that doesn't make sense.

AFTER I install a brand new HDD and the mobo still doesn't recognize it, do I realize, that somewhere along the way I unplugged the HDD (by extesnion the BD-ROM as well) from the power supply.  I now have 2 pefectly good 1 TB HDDs.

Today, I was also able to watch 2 hours of hulu with no problems.  We'll see if this is the end of my frustrations.  One can only hope.

BHO and Congr. Leadership II

This may be ugly.  I haven't had enough sleep so I may stumble several times through this response but it's been far too long since I've posted and DH has been very patient.  

I was going to try to address this logically but I just got confused so here goes.

1) I don't recall offhand saying that Obama will rope in the Senate and the House (although I dont' think DH is lying or mistaken, I just mention it because I'm uncertain about the context) but I assume I was talking about his popularity having the propensity (through no extra effort of his own) to pressure other legislators to go along with him.  If that's the case, the stimulus bill was a great example of that.  The rotten republican stump in the house (highly partisan districts that have no chance of coging for Obama, save a few) felt no pressure and wanted to make a "strategic statement."  So they voted against him.  But moderate, blue state Senators, voted with him.  The fact that it was a house bill was not Obama rolling over to Congressional pressure, it was his conscious choice to let them be a part of the solution.  He could have if he wanted to (unless there's something we're missing), driven the bill from the White House but didn't.  Was this a calculation so that he can drive Health Care and entitlements?  Maybe who knows.  But I get the feeling that he actually does want Republican support, he actually does want Congressional involvment, this is not a new Caesar.  

2) Obama is a pragmatist, we're seeing it every day.  Republicans, even Ann Coulter, are discovering it with amazing swiftness.  Obama is NOT a raging liberal trying to foment communsim?  I'm shocked.  And they are.  Although given that lead up I shouldn't quote a communist.  But Obama could very easily be said to fit in the Deng Xiapang box of, "What difference does it make what color the cat is as long as it catches the mice?"  And, he's fairly boring.  He's an eloquent and inspirational version of Bobby Jindal.  I don't know for a fact but DH's assertion that Obama didn't raise a stink in the IL GA is probably right.  He's a pragmatist.  He's more concerned with doing actual work.  Video taped confessions etc.  I don't think he was "building his power base" because he still doesn't have one.  What's his power base?  The American people, but he doesn't have some secret alliance of lawmakers. The establishment was for Clinton.  He has a few friends here and there, and now he has lots of people who want to ride  his c**k because he's president.  People who build grass roots movements don't have power bases, otherwise they wouldn't have built the grassroots effort.  It's really hard to build a grass roots movement.  Anyway, that's a tangent.

3) DH, I don't think you or BHO rollover.  BHO hear's the viewpoints but once he's made his decision, he's not against kneecapping you.  Albeit nicely in a way only BHO can.  Once the stimulus was set Obama basically said, "These guys are douchebags.  they're not even speaking English.  No shit it's a spending bill!" Or ala Bill Maher, "We are ready to lead AGAIN! Since Bush was a major douche and I am not."  

When we have discussions, you concede quite a bit, sometimes too much.  But I've always viewed it as honest, as in, I said something that 1) you hadn't thought of in that way so you'll think it over but concede for now or 2) I actually dropped some enlightneing shit on you, new information or something and it immediately becomes apparent that (at least in the narrow sense I may be framing my argument) I'm right.  But that buys you respect and consideration.  The difference between you and me is that in 1 I usually don't concede but I will say, "Ahhh, I've not heard A before.  Let me get back to you on that."  And we move on.  In 2 I also concede.  But I argue and debate with you effortlessly and without prejudice because I know you're an honest broker.   I admi t when I'm wrong, but I wouldn't say I roll over. And I wouldn't say you do either, especially if we're discussing more philosophical stuff, like the existence of god.  You always like to bring up the science is another religion....blach.

Anyway, that's enough for now.  I should get back to work.  If this was rambling and incoherent, sorry.

Meet The Press and Defense Secretary Gates

At the end of his interview with Defense Secretary Gates, David Gregory asked him a throwaway question that I thought ended up being very revealing. After asking him what the major difference was between working for President Bush and President Obama, the Secretary took a long pause and responded thusly:

"President Obama is somewhat more analytical and he makes sure he hears from everybody in the room on an issue, and if they don't speak up he calls on them.

President Bush was interested in hearing different points of view but didn't go out of his way to make sure everybodt spoke if they hadn't spoken up before."

This response really grabbed my attention, and increased my respect for the President significantly. President Obama follows a style of leadership that I truly believe is essential to bringing out really good ideas and, if my former Kellogg professors who've come from high leadership positions are correct, it's the best way to lead a corporation, and, I should think, a country as well.

Roland Burris and the Chicago Clergy

Once more, Chicago's esteemed men of the cloth make themselves heard:
http://cbs2chicago.com/topstories/Citys.Clergy.Plans.2.946816.html
P, you wrote a fairly scathing piece soon after the election lambasting a number of Chicago's African American clergymen for corruption and racial politics. I really don't see any of this changing in the forseeable future.

These men (and, branching out, women if we include some of the aldermen who have, in so many words, proclaimed that anyone who calls for Burris' impeachment is a racist pig) sincerely believe that a man should be judged not by the content of his character, but by the color of his skin. I truly believe they do. They're an affront not only to Dr. King's signature message, but to one of the core principles of President Obama's campaign. And they're an affront to me.

I wonder, what incites more raw anger and speechifying in me? Venality, dishonor, and an utter lack of humility (as displayed by both Former Governor Blagoevich and Still-Senator Burris), or racist ideology and incitement (as represented by the aforementioned clergy and aldermen who dishonor their positions)? You've known me for years P. Either of these stand out as being especially notable? I ask because I've noticed that, under normal conditions, I'll calmly debate or discuss just about anything. However, whenever someone displaying either of the above-mentioned personality traits comes to the fore in the news cycle, I start seething with an unacceptable anger bordering on rage.

President Obama and the Congressional Leadership

I've been thinking about President Obama's relationship to the House and Senate leadership for the last couple of days, and Triple 'P''s last post brought up an interesting point that I wanted to touch on (and I really need to write a response to P's very detailed posting on the stimulus bill imbroglio from early February).

It was noted that the President's speech earlier this week was a (largely) nonpartisan affair, and P observed that the President's efforts to reach across the aisle, in combination with his general demeanor helps him see just why the Republican's lionize Reagan (brief aside: Reagan is the 'best' Republican president ever? His achievements top those of Lincoln? Really?).

It was that very nonpartisan tack that got my attention. P and I had a debate several months ago on how successful then soon-t0-be President Obama would be in implementing his agenda. No surprise, I was more reticent than he. One of the points P raised at the time was his belief that President Obama would rope the Senate and House to his will, or, more prosaically, that he wouldn't allow them to drive policy. I don't recall if I offered my opinion on that belief or not, but I felt that this was in no way a sure thing.

One of my key concerns over the President, and it's one that I admittedly developed after reading one too many John Kass opinion pieces in the Chicago Tribune, is that the President has long had a key personality characteristic that I've also identified in myself, and have strove over the last few years to begin modulating. That is a desire to see all viewpoints of an issue, and to craft a decision that appeals to everyone. Now that sounds nice, but this characteristic can also be phrased thusly: The tendency to roll over.

As much as I respect and genuinely like him, the President has never been what one might call a profile in courage. While in the Illinois Senate, he very obediently towed the party line (correct me if I'm missing something in his State House experience here P), and certainly never gave Emil Jones any trouble. Now, this can be viewed as biding his time and building his power base; it certainly worked for Al Smith as he worked his way through Tammany Hall around the turn of the last century in a much more corrupt atmosphere (and Smith himself was certainly more than a _bit_ corrupt, unlike the President). Still, absent any evidence to the contrary, I have the unmistakable impression that President Obama isn't able to put his foot down all that often.

This belief has been accenuated by the stimulus bill. P, you noted in the "I'm not in the tank for Obama...." post that this is really a House bill, rather than one from the White House. You also asked why the President doesn't simply "put the screws to his own party", given that he has a mandate why they, contrary to the rhetoric, do not. I'm asking the same question. Months ago we argued over whether President Obama would bring the congressional leadership to heel. Right now it seems that they're driving him. Perhaps this will change as the administration gets its legs under it, but as of the end of February, 2009, it looks to me as though President Obama is continuing in a fine tradition of deferring to others at every vital juncture.

...
...
...

A brief addendum. All that being said, I remain impressed that the administration itself isn't held hostage by the far left. The very fact that the Left is wailing and gnashing their teeth in frustration and contemplating new protests (told ya they'd go off the deep end P; I don't think it matters though, as the President has solid support among the mainstream) gives me pause in my previous analysis. President Obama's cabinet selection was, by and large, top notch, and with the exception of the Treasury department, which is itself currently horribly understaffed through no fault of Secretary Geithner, they're doing what I consider to be a fine job.