While we appreciate debate that takes place in the comments section of this blog, we repeat our request that you please keep your comments clean. Though we will never censor comments based on their ideology or belief, we maintain the right to delete those that are offensive.
Please guys, don't make this a game of seeing who can get to the gutter first. Keep it clean.
13 August 2006
11 August 2006
Saving Lieberman
We awoke this morning, like the rest of you, to news of a terrorist plot that had been stopped by the British with help from US and Pakistani intelligence services. Considering that we return to the states (from Cambridge via London) in just over two weeks, we are somewhat relieved. The Patriot Act, greater collaboration with foreign intelligence services (in this case, Pakistan)--especially the British, and increased attention to our own, averted what could have been a replay of 9/11.
Responses have been typical--if not predictable--from some Democrats and Angry Left bloggers. Democrats have long been the party of minorities, environmentalists, pro-choice advocates, the working class. Since when did it become the party of conspiracy theorists (Michael Moore, etc.)? They march out the tired trope that the threat of terror will help Republicans in the coming election. Ignoring the obvious whacked out conspiracy theory that this threat was somehow "contrived" by Karl Rove and his merry band of spinmeisters, don't they think that maybe, just maybe, the reason they are afraid this will help Republicans is because their party remains "weak" on fighting terror?
Democrat supporters will respond that the idea that they are "weak" on terror is simply a perception and not reality. If it were simply a perception the Angry Left wouldn't have voted for the fool, Ned Lamont, rather than Joe Lieberman. Senator Lieberman has proven himself to be a vocal supporter of the War on Terror, Israel, and the U.S. position in Iraq. Liberal readers of this blog will repeat (time and again, they will repeat) that Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. Fine. Saddam had no direct involvement with 9/11. Few people would have ever made that argument to begin with. Bush certainly didn't. This is simply liberals favorite straw man to burn when complaining about the war. The consensus is--even among most liberal dems--that if we don't finish the job in Iraq, it will turn into post-Soviet Afghanistan. And that's the real worry. That, our friends is the true concern. Not that Iraq will turn into Vietnam.
Despite the wish of a press that came of age following Vietnam and Watergate, Iraq is not Vietnam and Bush is not Nixon. In the Cold War we were fighting a nation-state--the Soviet Union. Our war today is not with any specific country, but with a transnational ideology--what President Bush today referred to today as Islamic fascists. Borders, treaties, diplomacy, the Geneva Convention, the UN--none of these things mean anything to these Muslim radicals. They hate the West (America included) and will ally themselves with whoever or whatever will provide them the means to attack their target. This much is evidenced by Afghan history over the last 20+ years. Sunnis will unite with Shiites will unite with secular terrorists will unite even with the US in order to defeat a common enemy.
Whether you agree with the reasons we (collectively speaking) are in Iraq or not (and we know many of you did--at least, you did when an overwhelming percentage of Congress voted for war, and some 80% of Americans were in favor of the same, according to opinion polls), you must realize that to pull out now would be disastrous. It would result in a few things of which we can be absolutely sure. First, civil war will engulf Iraq. Besides the obvious negatives for the people of Iraq, such an event would create in Iraq a sort of safe-haven for terrorists, a la Afghanistan pre- and during the reign of the Taliban. Call that reason self interest and a philanthropic long view for our emerging allies, the Iraqis. Secondly, and equally as important, it would send the message that we will back down each and every time the going gets tough. It will tell the islamofascists that all they have to do is outwait us (think Lebanon with President Reagan and Somalia with President Clinton). Whatever else Iraq did, it gave teeth to our War on Terror and sent a message to terrorists and terror sponsoring states. Pulling out anytime before the job is done would tell Iran, Syria, and North Korea (are we forgetting anyone?), that we don't really mean what we say. For the carrot and (big) stick diplomacy to work, they must believe that you will actually use the stick.
All of this makes Lieberman's loss to Lamont all the more incomprehensible. The Angry Left and Democrats generally, send the message that not only are they not tough on terror, they are ignorant of the possible ramifications of an early pull-out. So Lieberman supports Israel, so what? So do most Americans. Most Americans recognize the difference between Israel attacking Hezbollah and civilians dying because Hezbollah uses them as shields, and the out and out disregard for human life--civilian or otherwise--Hezbollah shows by shooting rockets into Israeli cities.
Senator Lieberman understands what's at stake in Iraq and the War on Terror. Like most Americans, he may not now like that we are even in Iraq, but he understands what will happen if we cut and run. But we don't mistake his loss for a popular grassroots groundswell of support for immediate withdrawal. And neither should you. As we learned way back in our high school politics class, the only people who vote in primary elections are the extreme fringes of both parties. That a liberal state like Connecticut was able to produce enough people from the Angry Left to vote in Ned "the fool" Lamont shouldn't surpise anybody. It is telling, however, that a state as liberal as Connecticut, could barely scrape up enough left-wingnuts, completely ignorant of reality, to elect someone whose only semi-coherent position seems to be immediate troop retreat from Iraq.
This fringe position attracted a scant majority of people in a primary election in one of the most liberal states in the Union. At best, this news is no news. No news because come November, when closer to 50% of the electorate turns out rather than a mere 10%, Senator Lieberman, running as an Independent, will win going away. And if he doesn't, Democrats will deserve to be labeled "weak on terror," because they will have turned out one of their toughest, Senator Joe Lieberman.
Responses have been typical--if not predictable--from some Democrats and Angry Left bloggers. Democrats have long been the party of minorities, environmentalists, pro-choice advocates, the working class. Since when did it become the party of conspiracy theorists (Michael Moore, etc.)? They march out the tired trope that the threat of terror will help Republicans in the coming election. Ignoring the obvious whacked out conspiracy theory that this threat was somehow "contrived" by Karl Rove and his merry band of spinmeisters, don't they think that maybe, just maybe, the reason they are afraid this will help Republicans is because their party remains "weak" on fighting terror?
Democrat supporters will respond that the idea that they are "weak" on terror is simply a perception and not reality. If it were simply a perception the Angry Left wouldn't have voted for the fool, Ned Lamont, rather than Joe Lieberman. Senator Lieberman has proven himself to be a vocal supporter of the War on Terror, Israel, and the U.S. position in Iraq. Liberal readers of this blog will repeat (time and again, they will repeat) that Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. Fine. Saddam had no direct involvement with 9/11. Few people would have ever made that argument to begin with. Bush certainly didn't. This is simply liberals favorite straw man to burn when complaining about the war. The consensus is--even among most liberal dems--that if we don't finish the job in Iraq, it will turn into post-Soviet Afghanistan. And that's the real worry. That, our friends is the true concern. Not that Iraq will turn into Vietnam.
Despite the wish of a press that came of age following Vietnam and Watergate, Iraq is not Vietnam and Bush is not Nixon. In the Cold War we were fighting a nation-state--the Soviet Union. Our war today is not with any specific country, but with a transnational ideology--what President Bush today referred to today as Islamic fascists. Borders, treaties, diplomacy, the Geneva Convention, the UN--none of these things mean anything to these Muslim radicals. They hate the West (America included) and will ally themselves with whoever or whatever will provide them the means to attack their target. This much is evidenced by Afghan history over the last 20+ years. Sunnis will unite with Shiites will unite with secular terrorists will unite even with the US in order to defeat a common enemy.
Whether you agree with the reasons we (collectively speaking) are in Iraq or not (and we know many of you did--at least, you did when an overwhelming percentage of Congress voted for war, and some 80% of Americans were in favor of the same, according to opinion polls), you must realize that to pull out now would be disastrous. It would result in a few things of which we can be absolutely sure. First, civil war will engulf Iraq. Besides the obvious negatives for the people of Iraq, such an event would create in Iraq a sort of safe-haven for terrorists, a la Afghanistan pre- and during the reign of the Taliban. Call that reason self interest and a philanthropic long view for our emerging allies, the Iraqis. Secondly, and equally as important, it would send the message that we will back down each and every time the going gets tough. It will tell the islamofascists that all they have to do is outwait us (think Lebanon with President Reagan and Somalia with President Clinton). Whatever else Iraq did, it gave teeth to our War on Terror and sent a message to terrorists and terror sponsoring states. Pulling out anytime before the job is done would tell Iran, Syria, and North Korea (are we forgetting anyone?), that we don't really mean what we say. For the carrot and (big) stick diplomacy to work, they must believe that you will actually use the stick.
All of this makes Lieberman's loss to Lamont all the more incomprehensible. The Angry Left and Democrats generally, send the message that not only are they not tough on terror, they are ignorant of the possible ramifications of an early pull-out. So Lieberman supports Israel, so what? So do most Americans. Most Americans recognize the difference between Israel attacking Hezbollah and civilians dying because Hezbollah uses them as shields, and the out and out disregard for human life--civilian or otherwise--Hezbollah shows by shooting rockets into Israeli cities.
Senator Lieberman understands what's at stake in Iraq and the War on Terror. Like most Americans, he may not now like that we are even in Iraq, but he understands what will happen if we cut and run. But we don't mistake his loss for a popular grassroots groundswell of support for immediate withdrawal. And neither should you. As we learned way back in our high school politics class, the only people who vote in primary elections are the extreme fringes of both parties. That a liberal state like Connecticut was able to produce enough people from the Angry Left to vote in Ned "the fool" Lamont shouldn't surpise anybody. It is telling, however, that a state as liberal as Connecticut, could barely scrape up enough left-wingnuts, completely ignorant of reality, to elect someone whose only semi-coherent position seems to be immediate troop retreat from Iraq.
This fringe position attracted a scant majority of people in a primary election in one of the most liberal states in the Union. At best, this news is no news. No news because come November, when closer to 50% of the electorate turns out rather than a mere 10%, Senator Lieberman, running as an Independent, will win going away. And if he doesn't, Democrats will deserve to be labeled "weak on terror," because they will have turned out one of their toughest, Senator Joe Lieberman.
08 August 2006
Robbie Tobeck-Matt Hasselbeck: Funniest 1-2 Punch in the NFL
Of course, that doesn't count Bill Simmons Unintentional Comedy Rating (subscription required).
On a side note, we're looking for a good, catchy name for these Tobeck-Hasselbeck features. With the onset of the NFL season, we've no doubt we'll see more humor from these two. Any suggestions?
We've written in the past about the verbal jousting that goes on primarily between Seattle Seahawks Pro-Bowl Center, Robbie Tobeck and Seattle Seahawks Pro-Bowl Quarterback, Matt Hasselbeck. This one and this one were written in the run-up to last years Super Bowl. Upon review, we still laugh at our own jokes--David Letterman style--six months after writing them.
In the credit where credit is due department, we take our collective hat off to Tacoma News-Tribune blogger/reporter extraordinaire, Mike Sando. We read everything we can about the Seahawks and this guy (Sando), is the authority.
The latest comedic chapter--a piece about mistaken identities--includes these great quotes from Robbie Tobeck and Matt Hasselbeck.
Asked about fan confusion, Robbie Tobeck noted:
Of course, asked which Seahawks personnel he thinks would be easily confused, Matt Hasselbeck takes a jab at Tobeck.
On a side note, we're looking for a good, catchy name for these Tobeck-Hasselbeck features. With the onset of the NFL season, we've no doubt we'll see more humor from these two. Any suggestions?
We've written in the past about the verbal jousting that goes on primarily between Seattle Seahawks Pro-Bowl Center, Robbie Tobeck and Seattle Seahawks Pro-Bowl Quarterback, Matt Hasselbeck. This one and this one were written in the run-up to last years Super Bowl. Upon review, we still laugh at our own jokes--David Letterman style--six months after writing them.
In the credit where credit is due department, we take our collective hat off to Tacoma News-Tribune blogger/reporter extraordinaire, Mike Sando. We read everything we can about the Seahawks and this guy (Sando), is the authority.
The latest comedic chapter--a piece about mistaken identities--includes these great quotes from Robbie Tobeck and Matt Hasselbeck.
Asked about fan confusion, Robbie Tobeck noted:
Click here and judge for yourselves if Tobeck is the lady-killer he claims.“Just the other day some guy says, ‘You’re Grant Wistrom, right?’ ” center Robbie Tobeck said. “And some other guy goes, ‘No, that’s not Wistrom. That’s Steve Hutchinson.’
“It’s funny because the women always seem to know exactly who I am.”
Of course, asked which Seahawks personnel he thinks would be easily confused, Matt Hasselbeck takes a jab at Tobeck.
Considering that Tobeck is one of the oldest players on the team, Hasselbeck's gibe is spot on. Though an injury (hip or otherwise) to Tobeck could prove disastrous for the Seahawks season. Tobeck's response to Hasselbeck is easy. The Seahawks center may be the grandpa of the team, but he still has more hair than Hasselbeck.“Gilby and Tobeck,” quarterback Matt Hasselbeck quipped, comparing his center to 58-year-old assistant coach Keith Gilbertson.
The discerning fan knows Gilbertson is the one who has already undergone hip-replacement surgery. Less-educated fans couldn’t tell Mike Holmgren from Blitz, the team mascot.
05 August 2006
Israel vs. Hezbollah
After a long delay, something.
This post is an extension of our debate with several students here at Cambridge. We've been surprised by how many express anti-Israel sentiment. Considering that many attend school at Cal (Berkeley), it really shouldn't come as a surprise. Especially when we read of things like this (Hat tip: James Taranto & BOTW):
__________
One Cecilia Lucas, a graduate student at UC Berkeley, has penned a "love poem for Hizbullah." We kid you not. Here's a sample:
Ah well, the best way to respond to this sort of thing is with mockery, as blogger "Iowahawk," writing under the nom de plume "Omar Walid Muhammed, Chairman, Hezbollah Poetry Club," devastatingly does, in a poem called "I Love You Too, Cecilia Lucas":
If that doesn't have you rolling on the ground laughing, well, you might be a leftist student at Berkeley.
While reading Friday's Best of the Web (subscription required) we came across one piece that does a great job highlighting the difference between Israel and Hezbollah.
This was written by Naomi Ragan, a novelist whose son is an Israeli soldier. Click to read the full transcript.
While liberal elites and the Democratic party leadership (oxymoron?) continue to give credence to Hezbollah and Hamas, we will continue to wonder, wonder, wonder, why they get so much support from Jewish Americans.
This post is an extension of our debate with several students here at Cambridge. We've been surprised by how many express anti-Israel sentiment. Considering that many attend school at Cal (Berkeley), it really shouldn't come as a surprise. Especially when we read of things like this (Hat tip: James Taranto & BOTW):
__________
One Cecilia Lucas, a graduate student at UC Berkeley, has penned a "love poem for Hizbullah." We kid you not. Here's a sample:
You were born out of death to a life in a cageWe suppose a certain romanticization of nihilistic political violence is a common enough form of adolescent rebellion, though one suspects young Miss Lucas is getting egged on by her professors, many of whom no doubt are liberal baby boomers who never outgrew their own adolescence.
Where bombs are not the only reason people die
Fed by the violence of hunger and homelessness
Raised by colonialism
Your heart and your will still grew strong
You scare me
Not just because they tell me to be scared
Not just because they repeat, repeat, repeat
The story of 1983
Begging me to understand
Americans are worth more than Lebanese
Ah well, the best way to respond to this sort of thing is with mockery, as blogger "Iowahawk," writing under the nom de plume "Omar Walid Muhammed, Chairman, Hezbollah Poetry Club," devastatingly does, in a poem called "I Love You Too, Cecilia Lucas":
You were born in the Valley to a life in a suburban cage__________
Encino, where mean girls and cheerleaders
Drop bombs of hate on the unpopular girls
Shy poetry club chicks like you
With 1480 SATs and early admission to Berkeley
Fed by the violence and lookism of the dance squad
Raised in a four bedroom colonial
They wouldn't let you wear your Che T-shirt to prom
But your heart and your armpit hair still grew proud and strong
You scare me too
Not just because you have that Code Pink Manson girl freak-vibe
Not just because you repeat, repeat, repeat
All those quotes from your dog-eared volumes of
Chomsky
and Zinn
and Edward Said
Begging me to understand
Can't we just hold each other
Instead of talking, talking, talking
About your Masters thesis?
If that doesn't have you rolling on the ground laughing, well, you might be a leftist student at Berkeley.
While reading Friday's Best of the Web (subscription required) we came across one piece that does a great job highlighting the difference between Israel and Hezbollah.
This was written by Naomi Ragan, a novelist whose son is an Israeli soldier. Click to read the full transcript.
My son spoke to his friend yesterday, and this is how he described it: "The village looked empty, and then we heard noises coming from one of the houses, so we opened fire. But when we went inside, we found two women and a child huddled in the corner of the room. We were so relieved we hadn't hurt them. We took up base in one of the empty houses. And then all of a sudden, we came under intense fire. Three rockets were fired at the house we were in. Only one managed to destroy a wall, which fell on one of us, covering him in white dust, but otherwise not hurting him.Further illustrating (literally) the difference between the two are political cartoons found here and here.
"I spent the whole time feeding bullets to my friend who was shooting nonstop. We managed to kill 26 terrorists. Not one of us was hurt. Our commanding officer kept walking around, touching everybody on the shoulder, smiling and encouraging us: 'We're are better than they are. Don't worry.' It calmed us all down. And really, we were much better than them. They are a lousy army. They only win when they hide behind baby carriages."
While liberal elites and the Democratic party leadership (oxymoron?) continue to give credence to Hezbollah and Hamas, we will continue to wonder, wonder, wonder, why they get so much support from Jewish Americans.
18 July 2006
This Week on the Web
Though still unsure as to the exact form this feature will take, we offer here some of our favorite articles and features from the last week or so on the web. Eventually we hope it will break into different topics/posts addressing each one of the subtitular interests identified.
Travel Guide - Don't Leave Home Without It
(Hat tip: Matt Lybbert)
Ever wonder what goes into writing those travel guides you use as you backpack across Europe? Our trip to Costa Rica made us wonder if the guides were truly researched or simply glorified ads with space given to the hotels, restaurants and excursions that paid the most to the guide writers. This article in the NYT answers those questions and provides a very interesting read. Note also the link to the blog authored by a prominent travel guide writer/editor called "Killing Batteries."
Malcolm Gladwell and Ron Popeil
Author of "Blink" and "The Tipping Point" writes about a man Dennis Miller calls the "king BSer emeritus."
"I'll Take Alta And Give You The Bird"
This article discusses upcoming plans to expand Snowbird in Utah's Little Cottonwood Canyon. Also, Alta recently released their season pass prices (hat tip: Matt Lybbert) for the upcoming season.
Man vs. Rainier
Great article about a guy who recently trained for and climbed Mt. Rainier. Mt. Rainier is a great mountain not just because it is in Washington State, but also because its many routes make it a good climb for climbers of different skill levels. Our favorite view of Rainier is from Safeco Field, home of the Mariners, on a clear day.
Personality Profiling
We're told that Boston Celtics GM/President Danny Ainge uses this process to evaluate personnel decisions. Specifically, because Antoine Walker's personlity profile didn't match up, he was traded. We wonder what changed to cause Ainge to bring him back.
Pando
Frustrated by the attachment limits of your email service? Pando (hat tip: Matt Lybbert) allows you to send and receive files of any size, though as it is still in Beta stages, there is a limit of 1 gig. For a review of Pando, read from our favorite, the Wall Street Journal's own, Walt Mossberg (subscription required).
Skype
Right up there with low-rise jeans for girls, this internet invention should be an internet revolution. Features allow you to do more than just place computer to computer calls--and all for around $0.02 per minute. Now you can call cell and land-lines and receive calls from the same. Voicemail means that international travelers don't need to worry about the hassle of cell phones overseas--especially if you are unfortunate enough to be a Verizon customer.
Madden 07
It's our favorite game and the latest iteration will be released in the next month. Featured on the cover of the game is Seattle Seahawk's record breaking RB, Shaun Alexander. Don't worry about the Madden Curse, this guy doesn't believe in superstition. Which is why the New York Times has called him: Shaun Alexander - 'Cerebral Gamer/Player'.
Best Roster Ever!
(includes lots of Seahawks of course)
We were first tipped off to this by Mike Sando, Seahawks blogger for the Tacoma News-Tribune. We forgot about it and then our friend and sometime contributor to this blog, Morgan Habedank, sent us another link. It's especially appealing to die-hard fans who are convinced that the GM of their beloved team is a complete idiot--like the Seattle Sonics' Wally Walker (admittedly not an NFL GM).
Travel Guide - Don't Leave Home Without It
(Hat tip: Matt Lybbert)
Ever wonder what goes into writing those travel guides you use as you backpack across Europe? Our trip to Costa Rica made us wonder if the guides were truly researched or simply glorified ads with space given to the hotels, restaurants and excursions that paid the most to the guide writers. This article in the NYT answers those questions and provides a very interesting read. Note also the link to the blog authored by a prominent travel guide writer/editor called "Killing Batteries."
Malcolm Gladwell and Ron Popeil
Author of "Blink" and "The Tipping Point" writes about a man Dennis Miller calls the "king BSer emeritus."
"I'll Take Alta And Give You The Bird"
This article discusses upcoming plans to expand Snowbird in Utah's Little Cottonwood Canyon. Also, Alta recently released their season pass prices (hat tip: Matt Lybbert) for the upcoming season.
Man vs. Rainier
Great article about a guy who recently trained for and climbed Mt. Rainier. Mt. Rainier is a great mountain not just because it is in Washington State, but also because its many routes make it a good climb for climbers of different skill levels. Our favorite view of Rainier is from Safeco Field, home of the Mariners, on a clear day.
Personality Profiling
We're told that Boston Celtics GM/President Danny Ainge uses this process to evaluate personnel decisions. Specifically, because Antoine Walker's personlity profile didn't match up, he was traded. We wonder what changed to cause Ainge to bring him back.
Pando
Frustrated by the attachment limits of your email service? Pando (hat tip: Matt Lybbert) allows you to send and receive files of any size, though as it is still in Beta stages, there is a limit of 1 gig. For a review of Pando, read from our favorite, the Wall Street Journal's own, Walt Mossberg (subscription required).
Skype
Right up there with low-rise jeans for girls, this internet invention should be an internet revolution. Features allow you to do more than just place computer to computer calls--and all for around $0.02 per minute. Now you can call cell and land-lines and receive calls from the same. Voicemail means that international travelers don't need to worry about the hassle of cell phones overseas--especially if you are unfortunate enough to be a Verizon customer.
Madden 07
It's our favorite game and the latest iteration will be released in the next month. Featured on the cover of the game is Seattle Seahawk's record breaking RB, Shaun Alexander. Don't worry about the Madden Curse, this guy doesn't believe in superstition. Which is why the New York Times has called him: Shaun Alexander - 'Cerebral Gamer/Player'.
Best Roster Ever!
(includes lots of Seahawks of course)
We were first tipped off to this by Mike Sando, Seahawks blogger for the Tacoma News-Tribune. We forgot about it and then our friend and sometime contributor to this blog, Morgan Habedank, sent us another link. It's especially appealing to die-hard fans who are convinced that the GM of their beloved team is a complete idiot--like the Seattle Sonics' Wally Walker (admittedly not an NFL GM).
13 July 2006
The Real 007
This morning we attended a lecture given by Sir Richard Dearlove, current Master of Pembroke College, Cambridge and former head of the British Secret Intelligence Service (SIS). His lecture was free flowing and anecdotal, but several interesting points stood out.
On the intelligence community in general, he said that "it [intelligence services] change to fit the enemy." He applied this specifically to the British and American experience with KGB infiltration during the Cold War. They feared that double agents would gain access to high level information and convey it to their operators in Moscow. He further explained that this fear caused the SIS and the CIA to compartmentalize themselves. That is to say, they established "need to know" protocol that kept secrets separate. In this way, the body (our metaphor, not his) did not consist of legs, arms, hands, and feet with a single head, but that they often operated independently and without access to information held by the other departments.
He believes that it was this "compartmentalization" that stopped the SIS and CIA from discovering 9/11 before it happened. We wonder if he would also blame the same cause for their (the CIA and SIS) collective failure to predict the fall of the Soviet Union, the rise of radical islamic terrorism, or the post-war insurgency.
Regarding the war in Iraq, he failed to understand why the public and media were so intent on casting the blame on the governments and intelligence services of Britain and the US. He argued, quite persuasively, that the Iraqi regime had every opportunity to avoid conflict and yet did nothing. Thus, in his view, the bulk of the blame for the Iraqi war lay with Saddam and Co.
When asked about intelligence leading up to the war in Iraq and the failure to find WMD (at least until a couple of weeks ago, subscription required) he referred to the findings of the Iraqi Survey Group, commonly known as the Duelfer Report. Though they failed to find WMD, the report contains evidence of an expansive WMD program. Furthermore, Mr. Dearlove pointed out that Iraq is a large country and he also noted its proximity to Syria and the Bekaa Valley in Lebanon. Sattelite photos showed abnormal amounts of traffic out of Iraq and into these regions in the days leading up to the invasion of Iraq. Mr. Dearlove believes this increased traffic was WMD in transport.
He insists that debate about pre-war intelligence is still open, despite the desire of politicians to end it. Mr. Dearlove seems to agree with the opinion of Senators Hoekstra and Santorum (cited above) that one of the reasons we don't know about the true findings of the ISG and other reports which show evidence of WMD is because it does not fit what he calls the "orthodoxy of the press." In other words, it doesn't fit the 'approved theme' of mainstream media that "bush lied, people died."
On one point, Mr. Dearlove affirmed, "there can be no equivocation." The intelligence was not a lie. "In fact," he said, "every member of the Iraqi regime believed that they had WMD." His statements would seem to agree with our series on pre-war intelligence (Part I, II, III, IV, V, Conclusion) and like us, disagree with Joe Wilson's assertion that the Bush administration pressured the CIA to produce intel that fit their agenda. In what seemed like a desire to exculpate the CIA and SIS, he suggested that there was "no failing in the intelligence, just a failure in how it was used." Of course, that's a policy decision best left to elected officials.
On the intelligence community in general, he said that "it [intelligence services] change to fit the enemy." He applied this specifically to the British and American experience with KGB infiltration during the Cold War. They feared that double agents would gain access to high level information and convey it to their operators in Moscow. He further explained that this fear caused the SIS and the CIA to compartmentalize themselves. That is to say, they established "need to know" protocol that kept secrets separate. In this way, the body (our metaphor, not his) did not consist of legs, arms, hands, and feet with a single head, but that they often operated independently and without access to information held by the other departments.
He believes that it was this "compartmentalization" that stopped the SIS and CIA from discovering 9/11 before it happened. We wonder if he would also blame the same cause for their (the CIA and SIS) collective failure to predict the fall of the Soviet Union, the rise of radical islamic terrorism, or the post-war insurgency.
Regarding the war in Iraq, he failed to understand why the public and media were so intent on casting the blame on the governments and intelligence services of Britain and the US. He argued, quite persuasively, that the Iraqi regime had every opportunity to avoid conflict and yet did nothing. Thus, in his view, the bulk of the blame for the Iraqi war lay with Saddam and Co.
When asked about intelligence leading up to the war in Iraq and the failure to find WMD (at least until a couple of weeks ago, subscription required) he referred to the findings of the Iraqi Survey Group, commonly known as the Duelfer Report. Though they failed to find WMD, the report contains evidence of an expansive WMD program. Furthermore, Mr. Dearlove pointed out that Iraq is a large country and he also noted its proximity to Syria and the Bekaa Valley in Lebanon. Sattelite photos showed abnormal amounts of traffic out of Iraq and into these regions in the days leading up to the invasion of Iraq. Mr. Dearlove believes this increased traffic was WMD in transport.
He insists that debate about pre-war intelligence is still open, despite the desire of politicians to end it. Mr. Dearlove seems to agree with the opinion of Senators Hoekstra and Santorum (cited above) that one of the reasons we don't know about the true findings of the ISG and other reports which show evidence of WMD is because it does not fit what he calls the "orthodoxy of the press." In other words, it doesn't fit the 'approved theme' of mainstream media that "bush lied, people died."
On one point, Mr. Dearlove affirmed, "there can be no equivocation." The intelligence was not a lie. "In fact," he said, "every member of the Iraqi regime believed that they had WMD." His statements would seem to agree with our series on pre-war intelligence (Part I, II, III, IV, V, Conclusion) and like us, disagree with Joe Wilson's assertion that the Bush administration pressured the CIA to produce intel that fit their agenda. In what seemed like a desire to exculpate the CIA and SIS, he suggested that there was "no failing in the intelligence, just a failure in how it was used." Of course, that's a policy decision best left to elected officials.
03 July 2006
Cambridge and the DB13 Review
Apologies to you, dear reader and especially Morgan Habedank, once again, for the long delay between posts. Picking up and moving to Cambridge for a summer of study kept us from from making our regular posts--to say nothing of the jet-lag.
For your reading pleasure, another review by our well-reviewed guest contributor, Mr. Habedank.
District B-13 Review
The public has spoken regarding Cars. After a solid opening weekend at the box office, attendance fell by 44% even though release was expanded to three additional theaters. A drop of over 40% has historically indicated that a film does not have “legs.” It appears that Cars will ultimately gross roughly the same as the much less heralded and hyped Over the Hedge which was released by DreamWorks Animation a few weeks prior to Cars. This is especially troubling for Pixar due to the huge marketing spend in comparison to that of DreamWorks. Hopefully it will exceed expectations on DVD to make up for not meeting box office expectations.
Last weekend I ventured to the Arc Light in Hollywood to watch District B-13. As a side note, while walking to the theater after purchasing my Cherry Coke I bumped into Bill Maher who was quite affable. We exchanged pleasantries and continued to our respective shows. Now back to the topic at hand.
District B-13 was recommended to me by two of my friends. Their recommendation can best be summed up with the following quote: “Dude, it is the best action movie I have seen in years!” Usually when I hear things like this I dismiss them with out much thought and carry on with my life. Especially when such statements are related to French indie films (District B-13 is distributed by Magnolia). However, both friends were so animated I decided to give it a chance. And let me tell you, I was not disappointed. District B-13 was hands down the best action movie I have seen in years. It may even be the best movie I have seen this year. The action sequences were phenomenal. The stunts were actually performed by the actors themselves who were cast largely for their proficiency in the underground sport of “parkour.” The action sequences coupled with a pounding original techno score and masterful editing combined to keep me literally on the edge of my seat from start to finish.
What truly made this film excellent in my opinion though was the writing. The script was simple and straight forward. There were no holes and no ridiculous “metaphors” were used to bludgeon the viewer with the writer/director’s political opinions. District B-13 is the anti- V for Vendetta. The most refreshing part of the script was the treatment of the two “heroes.” Breaking from the traditional Hollywood anti-hero who is tragically flawed in some way, the heroes were actual heroes who did what they did for the sole reason of wanting to better the world for those around them. Leito fights the drug dealers because he wishes to help his neighbors. Nothing more and nothing less. Damien is a police officer for the sole reason of believing in the law and the ideal that the law espouses. Leito and Damien truly are heroes worthy of the title.
District B-13 is only in limited release. Catch it at your local Cineplex or art-house theatre if you can. Catch it on Netflix in a few months if you must. Either way, you will not be disappointed. District B-13 will capture you both visually and emotionally and leave you breathless and ready to save the world.
PS. Stay for the credits even though they are in French. The song they play is awesome
For your reading pleasure, another review by our well-reviewed guest contributor, Mr. Habedank.
District B-13 Review
The public has spoken regarding Cars. After a solid opening weekend at the box office, attendance fell by 44% even though release was expanded to three additional theaters. A drop of over 40% has historically indicated that a film does not have “legs.” It appears that Cars will ultimately gross roughly the same as the much less heralded and hyped Over the Hedge which was released by DreamWorks Animation a few weeks prior to Cars. This is especially troubling for Pixar due to the huge marketing spend in comparison to that of DreamWorks. Hopefully it will exceed expectations on DVD to make up for not meeting box office expectations.
Last weekend I ventured to the Arc Light in Hollywood to watch District B-13. As a side note, while walking to the theater after purchasing my Cherry Coke I bumped into Bill Maher who was quite affable. We exchanged pleasantries and continued to our respective shows. Now back to the topic at hand.
District B-13 was recommended to me by two of my friends. Their recommendation can best be summed up with the following quote: “Dude, it is the best action movie I have seen in years!” Usually when I hear things like this I dismiss them with out much thought and carry on with my life. Especially when such statements are related to French indie films (District B-13 is distributed by Magnolia). However, both friends were so animated I decided to give it a chance. And let me tell you, I was not disappointed. District B-13 was hands down the best action movie I have seen in years. It may even be the best movie I have seen this year. The action sequences were phenomenal. The stunts were actually performed by the actors themselves who were cast largely for their proficiency in the underground sport of “parkour.” The action sequences coupled with a pounding original techno score and masterful editing combined to keep me literally on the edge of my seat from start to finish.
What truly made this film excellent in my opinion though was the writing. The script was simple and straight forward. There were no holes and no ridiculous “metaphors” were used to bludgeon the viewer with the writer/director’s political opinions. District B-13 is the anti- V for Vendetta. The most refreshing part of the script was the treatment of the two “heroes.” Breaking from the traditional Hollywood anti-hero who is tragically flawed in some way, the heroes were actual heroes who did what they did for the sole reason of wanting to better the world for those around them. Leito fights the drug dealers because he wishes to help his neighbors. Nothing more and nothing less. Damien is a police officer for the sole reason of believing in the law and the ideal that the law espouses. Leito and Damien truly are heroes worthy of the title.
District B-13 is only in limited release. Catch it at your local Cineplex or art-house theatre if you can. Catch it on Netflix in a few months if you must. Either way, you will not be disappointed. District B-13 will capture you both visually and emotionally and leave you breathless and ready to save the world.
PS. Stay for the credits even though they are in French. The song they play is awesome
23 June 2006
The Costs of War: The Haditha Massacre Controversy
By Mark Patterson, Guest Contributor
I am proud to carry a distinction that few Americans ever do. I am a combat veteran. Having served in Iraq during the initial phases of its invasion, I feel I know something about the horrors and costs of war. I have experienced the loss of fellow Marines and soldiers to enemy bullets, as well as to Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder. War is a savage and brutal endeavor; one in which we paradoxically witness the best attributes of humanity such as selflessness, courage and resolve along with the unfortunate manifestation of the potential for barbarism within each of us. I am not proud to be a combat veteran because I have killed the enemy or because I subscribe to some sort of self-satisfying notion of machismo or heroism. I am proud to be a combat veteran because when those first bullets flew by my head, I proved to myself that I am willing to fight and die for an ideal. That ideal is the Constitution of the United States. It is an ideal which all members of the military take an oath to defend against all “enemies foreign and domestic.”
I am also proud to be a combat veteran because I know that the United States Military is the most honorable, noble and professional military in the world. Throughout my entire experience as a United States Marine Infantryman, I was taught to honor principles of just warfare. I learned a warrior’s code that one never intentionally kills or harms noncombatants.
I began following the news of the Haditha Massacre when it was first reported by the Arab and European press. I have continued to read the reports, study the evidence, and examine the fallout of the alleged events of Nov. 19 2005. Although I respect the time honored judicial tradition that the accused Marines are innocent until proven guilty, I believe the facts demonstrate the unfortunate reality that a crime was indeed committed. Whether it was intentional murder, “execution style,” as alleged by Iraqi witnesses and human rights groups, or merely “negligent homicide," the reality is that someone failed to do their duty and they should be punished.
I find the thought that any Marine representing the United States of America could degrade his title, service, and country by murdering innocent people to be morally repugnant, inexcusable and thoroughly depressing. However, we can’t rewrite the past. What happened that day cannot be reversed, but as a country we must ensure that it is not repeated. It is our duty as citizens of this country to hold our servicemen and women to a higher standard then our enemies.
Amidst the politicization of this war by both the Right and the Left I am disappointed to see the events of Haditha being manipulated for political gain. The Left would have us believe that Haditha is merely the tip of the Iceberg, that similar massacres have occurred all over Iraq. Some go so far as to portray American soldiers and Marines as trigger-happy thugs. This is completely untrue. The Right seems content to criticize anyone who even mentions the possibility that the accused Marines are in fact guilty of being, in the words of Sean Hannity, “un-American.” The political polarization in this country is a tragedy in its own right. The controversy surrounding Haditha and the war at large is representative of what I believe is a population of citizens too far removed from the realities of war. No, Mr. Hannity, it is not “un-American” to wonder if our Marines are capable of war crimes and no, Mr. Hannity, having concerns that our military could have committed war crimes does not help terrorists. However, ignoring it and covering it up does.
For the liberal critics who like to spin every event into some sort of “I told you so” moment against the war in Iraq, I would ask, what they have done to constructively support the success of the mission despite criticizing it? Where is their objective analysis of positive progress in Iraq? What is their alternative? Criticism without constructive proposals is not criticism, it is whining.
Finally, I would ask any young man who reads this to search his own heart and ask himself “why aren’t I in the military?” Despite record high enlistment bonuses, incredible benefits and incentives, an ever growing number of young American men are not willing to serve their country. I know that most of the men and women in our armed forces are of superb character. I also know that some are not. Now more than ever, our military needs intelligent, capable, and patriotic men and women in its ranks. If these Marines did indeed commit such a horrible crime, perhaps it would not have occurred if they had better leadership or Marines by their side who exercised moral restraint.
In the end, our military represents our nation in all facets, both the good and the bad. We have to face reality. As citizens we must be willing to hold our armed forces accountable when they let us down. It is our duty as citizens to constantly honor the sacrifice of those who serve in ways that go beyond the ubiquitous yellow-ribbon. There are few things more indicative of a true democracy than an all volunteer military force. Who will join if we cease to respect those willing to serve?
To those afraid to criticize the administration or military, I say that nothing is more patriotic then holding your leaders and military accountable. For those who criticize unfairly or incorrectly I ask, “what have you done to make things better?"
[Editor's Note: Mr. Patterson was in one of the first Marine battalions to enter Baghdad during Operation Iraqi Freedom]
I am proud to carry a distinction that few Americans ever do. I am a combat veteran. Having served in Iraq during the initial phases of its invasion, I feel I know something about the horrors and costs of war. I have experienced the loss of fellow Marines and soldiers to enemy bullets, as well as to Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder. War is a savage and brutal endeavor; one in which we paradoxically witness the best attributes of humanity such as selflessness, courage and resolve along with the unfortunate manifestation of the potential for barbarism within each of us. I am not proud to be a combat veteran because I have killed the enemy or because I subscribe to some sort of self-satisfying notion of machismo or heroism. I am proud to be a combat veteran because when those first bullets flew by my head, I proved to myself that I am willing to fight and die for an ideal. That ideal is the Constitution of the United States. It is an ideal which all members of the military take an oath to defend against all “enemies foreign and domestic.”
I am also proud to be a combat veteran because I know that the United States Military is the most honorable, noble and professional military in the world. Throughout my entire experience as a United States Marine Infantryman, I was taught to honor principles of just warfare. I learned a warrior’s code that one never intentionally kills or harms noncombatants.
I began following the news of the Haditha Massacre when it was first reported by the Arab and European press. I have continued to read the reports, study the evidence, and examine the fallout of the alleged events of Nov. 19 2005. Although I respect the time honored judicial tradition that the accused Marines are innocent until proven guilty, I believe the facts demonstrate the unfortunate reality that a crime was indeed committed. Whether it was intentional murder, “execution style,” as alleged by Iraqi witnesses and human rights groups, or merely “negligent homicide," the reality is that someone failed to do their duty and they should be punished.
I find the thought that any Marine representing the United States of America could degrade his title, service, and country by murdering innocent people to be morally repugnant, inexcusable and thoroughly depressing. However, we can’t rewrite the past. What happened that day cannot be reversed, but as a country we must ensure that it is not repeated. It is our duty as citizens of this country to hold our servicemen and women to a higher standard then our enemies.
Amidst the politicization of this war by both the Right and the Left I am disappointed to see the events of Haditha being manipulated for political gain. The Left would have us believe that Haditha is merely the tip of the Iceberg, that similar massacres have occurred all over Iraq. Some go so far as to portray American soldiers and Marines as trigger-happy thugs. This is completely untrue. The Right seems content to criticize anyone who even mentions the possibility that the accused Marines are in fact guilty of being, in the words of Sean Hannity, “un-American.” The political polarization in this country is a tragedy in its own right. The controversy surrounding Haditha and the war at large is representative of what I believe is a population of citizens too far removed from the realities of war. No, Mr. Hannity, it is not “un-American” to wonder if our Marines are capable of war crimes and no, Mr. Hannity, having concerns that our military could have committed war crimes does not help terrorists. However, ignoring it and covering it up does.
For the liberal critics who like to spin every event into some sort of “I told you so” moment against the war in Iraq, I would ask, what they have done to constructively support the success of the mission despite criticizing it? Where is their objective analysis of positive progress in Iraq? What is their alternative? Criticism without constructive proposals is not criticism, it is whining.
Finally, I would ask any young man who reads this to search his own heart and ask himself “why aren’t I in the military?” Despite record high enlistment bonuses, incredible benefits and incentives, an ever growing number of young American men are not willing to serve their country. I know that most of the men and women in our armed forces are of superb character. I also know that some are not. Now more than ever, our military needs intelligent, capable, and patriotic men and women in its ranks. If these Marines did indeed commit such a horrible crime, perhaps it would not have occurred if they had better leadership or Marines by their side who exercised moral restraint.
In the end, our military represents our nation in all facets, both the good and the bad. We have to face reality. As citizens we must be willing to hold our armed forces accountable when they let us down. It is our duty as citizens to constantly honor the sacrifice of those who serve in ways that go beyond the ubiquitous yellow-ribbon. There are few things more indicative of a true democracy than an all volunteer military force. Who will join if we cease to respect those willing to serve?
To those afraid to criticize the administration or military, I say that nothing is more patriotic then holding your leaders and military accountable. For those who criticize unfairly or incorrectly I ask, “what have you done to make things better?"
[Editor's Note: Mr. Patterson was in one of the first Marine battalions to enter Baghdad during Operation Iraqi Freedom]
21 June 2006
The "Constitutional" Right to Privacy and Gay Marriage
By Carrie Chapman, Legal Expert and Guest Contributor
In light of the recent Senate vote against the amendment banning gay marriage, it may be useful to understand the actions of the legislative branch by examining the line of authority upon which the judicial branch has based its seemingly pro-gay marriage position.
Over the last century the Supreme Court has developed an idea that the Constitution, and more specifically the Bill of Rights, contains by implication a “right to privacy.” This right to privacy precludes the government from infringing upon certain private areas of the lives of its citizens; it was explicitly recognized by the Court in the case Griswold v. Connecticut (1965). Justice Douglas wrote,
The Supreme Court cases leading up to the proclamation of the existence of a constitutional right to privacy may seem harmless enough, and were decisions that most of us would agree are in line with our moral and political understanding. Meyers v. Nebraska (1925) held that parents may decide for themselves if and when their children may learn a foreign language, based upon a fundamental liberty interest individuals have in the family unit. A parent’s right to control the method of their child’s education was recognized by the Supreme Court in Pierce v. Society of Sisters (1925), where the court decided that parents could not be forced to send their children to public schools instead of private schools, and that parents have a fundamental liberty in deciding what happens to their children. Meyer and Pierce are rulings most of us could agree on, but subtly begin the right to privacy argument.
Other cases concerning sex and sexuality provide more solid building blocks for the argument supporting the legalization of gay marriage. In the 1942 case Skinner v. Oklahoma, an Oklahoma law which enforced sterilization of repeat criminal offenders (for any repeat felon, even if the felony was merely robbery) was struck down under the theory that all people have a fundamental right to procreation. Griswold v. Connecticut (1965) tackled laws which prevented open access to contraceptive items and information, with the court striking down those laws on the precedent that people are able to make decisions about their families and procreation (see Skinner, Meyers, and Pierce). In 1973 the infamous Roe v. Wade case legalized abortion, with the Court holding that the woman had a “right to privacy” in her first trimester to abort a child.
Why does this matter? First of all, there is no explicit “right to privacy” delineated in the text of the Constitution. Justice Hugo Black wrote in the Griswold vs. Connecticut opinion, "'Privacy' is a broad, abstract and ambiguous concept." Citizens against gay marriage must push their own definition of privacy; while you may agree that the government should not interfere with the privacy of citizens to engage in interracial marriage, the state DOES have an interest in procreation. Economist Steven Leavitt, who conceives a controversial abortion-crime theory (controversial for those on both sides of the abortion fence) stated that “few people will listen when the subject is abortion,” and I would argue that many of us will not listen when the equally controversial subject of gay marriage and gay rights arises. Listening to the arguments of those who are proponents of gay rights will help us formulate meaningful counter-attacks for the public policy reasoning behind the extension of right to privacy to gay marriage.
The 11th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in 2000 in Williams v. Pryor that the Alabama legislature operated within its rights when it banned sales of “sex toys,” holding that citizens do not necessarily have any right to buy them. The dissents in all of the aforementioned line of right to privacy cases, and the below gay rights cases, provide policy reasons that those against gay marriage should be promoting in their community and to their elected representatives.
Gay Rights and the Law
I have tried to include the most important gay rights legislation that have lead up to the gay marriage debate, including a counter argument in a following parenthetical.
Sodomy statutes
In the 2003 case of Lawrence v. Texas, the US Supreme Court overruled a 1986 case that upheld the conviction of two gay men for violating sodomy laws. As the crime involved consensual conduct in the bedroom of one of the men's homes, the Court in Lawrence held that making private sexual conduct a crime was a violation of due process. (Pro-sodomy statute argument: the state may well express interest in private sexual conduct when that private sexual conduct will result in less children being born to further the interests of the state)
Equal protection
The U.S. Supreme Court struck down a Colorado state constitutional amendment that would preclude all legislation that would prohibit discrimination against persons based on their sexual orientation. The Court said that the state constitutional amendment was motivated by animus to a particular class of people and thus, under equal-protection analysis, the amendment was not rationally related to legitimate state interests. (Pro-amendment argument: the Colorado amendment was intended to prevent homosexuals from getting special treatment under the law simply because of their sexual orientation.)
Marriage
The Supreme Court of Massachusetts in 2003 held in Goodridge v. Department of Public Health that same-sex couples have a right to marry under the state constitution's principles of individual liberty and equality. In 1999, the Supreme Court of Vermont held that same-sex couples do not necessarily have a right to marry, but they do have a right under the state constitution to the same benefits and protections as different-sex couples who marry. In 1993, the Supreme Court of Hawaii held that prohibiting same-sex marriage might be sex discrimination under the state constitution; following that decision Hawaii amended its constitution to allow the legislature "to reserve marriage to opposite-sex couples.” The dissent of the Hawaii case, written by Judge Heen, finds that the purpose of the marriage law is "to promote and protect propagation." Appellate courts in six other states, including Arizona, the District of Columbia, Kentucky, Minnesota, Pennsylvania, and Washington have held that prohibitions of same-sex marriages were constitutional under different principles, including due process and equal protection. In the landmark Massachusetts Goodridge case, the dissent penned by three justices stated that the decision of whether to allow same-sex couples to marry should be made by the legislature, not the courts.
Conclusion
One of my law professors loves to reiterate that “there is no pancake so thin that it does not have two sides.” To understand your opponent’s argument allows you to work on the flaws in your own. So, although I do not support gay marriage, I concede that gay rights proponents have a good argument: laws that infringe upon the private rights of others means a restriction of privacy for all. But, to counter that argument, aren’t ALL laws essentially a restriction of our privacy, of our “right to choose”? And can’t legislation be created that allows the government to only infringe on very specific areas of life? I choose to follow the laws of this country and give up some of my freedom when I drive, by following (or relatively following) the speed limit; I choose to give the freedom to drive at whatever speed I like because it will best benefit myself and society to abide by those rules – there will be less death, and I value my life and the lives of others.
With gay marriage, I choose to limit the definition of marriage to the union of a man and a woman, not because I do not value the right to choose to marry, or the right for men and women of different races to marry, but because I am willing to give up my right to a homosexual marriage because I think a marriage between a man and woman will best benefit society – life is created.
Major public policy decisions – like what to do with criminals or abortion--come down to that: life and death. What we should do about gay marriage should not be simplified to the legal argument that limiting the privacy of one recognizes the privacy of all. The societal and biological implications that allowing gay marriage would have on our society is the debate we should be having and is the debate the silent majority in Congress and the United States at large is too cowardly to engage.
Judge Cordy in the dissent of the Massachusetts Goodridge case makes these arguments succinctly. He argued that the state’s interest in heterosexual marriage are not irrational, noting that marriage has always been understood as the appropriate situation for procreation and child rearing as sexual intercourse between men and women can result in conception; sexual relationships other than heterosexual ones cannot result in procreation. Judge Cordy also noted that marriage has successfully advanced this interest throughout time and the relevant social science research comparing children raised by same-sex couples is small, methodologically flawed, and tentative. Therefore, states may rationally decide that marriage should not be redefined to include same-sex couples.
For further reading on the subject, may I suggest the following law review article citations - I’m happy to access these articles for you and email them to you:
30 Fam. L.Q. 339
64 Alb. L. Rev. 889
19 Berkeley Women's L.J. 19
2 Ave Maria L. Rev. 153
In light of the recent Senate vote against the amendment banning gay marriage, it may be useful to understand the actions of the legislative branch by examining the line of authority upon which the judicial branch has based its seemingly pro-gay marriage position.
Over the last century the Supreme Court has developed an idea that the Constitution, and more specifically the Bill of Rights, contains by implication a “right to privacy.” This right to privacy precludes the government from infringing upon certain private areas of the lives of its citizens; it was explicitly recognized by the Court in the case Griswold v. Connecticut (1965). Justice Douglas wrote,
Previous cases suggest that the specific guarantees in the Bill of Rights have penumbras, formed by emanations from those guarantees that give them substance. Various guarantees create zones of privacy, such as the First Amendment right of association, the Third Amendment prohibition against quartering soldiers in a home, the Fourth Amendment right to be secure in one's person, house, papers, and effects, the Fifth Amendment right to not surrender anything to one's detriment, and the Ninth Amendment right to not deny or disparage any right retained by the people. These cases press for recognition of the penumbral rights of privacy and repose.Douglas argues these amendments preclude the government from entering upon specific areas of the lives of its citizens (home, association, rights retained to the people), creating a “penumbra [i.e. mist] of rights” that has formed the basis for every substantive due process case since. Douglas assumes the Constitution prevents the government from taking certain actions by law to regulate the private lives of citizens. So, when the Supreme Court now makes a decision concerning a citizen’s treatment under the law, they consider the citizens “right to privacy” – that area of an individual’s life which should be free from state regulation.
The Supreme Court cases leading up to the proclamation of the existence of a constitutional right to privacy may seem harmless enough, and were decisions that most of us would agree are in line with our moral and political understanding. Meyers v. Nebraska (1925) held that parents may decide for themselves if and when their children may learn a foreign language, based upon a fundamental liberty interest individuals have in the family unit. A parent’s right to control the method of their child’s education was recognized by the Supreme Court in Pierce v. Society of Sisters (1925), where the court decided that parents could not be forced to send their children to public schools instead of private schools, and that parents have a fundamental liberty in deciding what happens to their children. Meyer and Pierce are rulings most of us could agree on, but subtly begin the right to privacy argument.
Other cases concerning sex and sexuality provide more solid building blocks for the argument supporting the legalization of gay marriage. In the 1942 case Skinner v. Oklahoma, an Oklahoma law which enforced sterilization of repeat criminal offenders (for any repeat felon, even if the felony was merely robbery) was struck down under the theory that all people have a fundamental right to procreation. Griswold v. Connecticut (1965) tackled laws which prevented open access to contraceptive items and information, with the court striking down those laws on the precedent that people are able to make decisions about their families and procreation (see Skinner, Meyers, and Pierce). In 1973 the infamous Roe v. Wade case legalized abortion, with the Court holding that the woman had a “right to privacy” in her first trimester to abort a child.
Why does this matter? First of all, there is no explicit “right to privacy” delineated in the text of the Constitution. Justice Hugo Black wrote in the Griswold vs. Connecticut opinion, "'Privacy' is a broad, abstract and ambiguous concept." Citizens against gay marriage must push their own definition of privacy; while you may agree that the government should not interfere with the privacy of citizens to engage in interracial marriage, the state DOES have an interest in procreation. Economist Steven Leavitt, who conceives a controversial abortion-crime theory (controversial for those on both sides of the abortion fence) stated that “few people will listen when the subject is abortion,” and I would argue that many of us will not listen when the equally controversial subject of gay marriage and gay rights arises. Listening to the arguments of those who are proponents of gay rights will help us formulate meaningful counter-attacks for the public policy reasoning behind the extension of right to privacy to gay marriage.
The 11th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in 2000 in Williams v. Pryor that the Alabama legislature operated within its rights when it banned sales of “sex toys,” holding that citizens do not necessarily have any right to buy them. The dissents in all of the aforementioned line of right to privacy cases, and the below gay rights cases, provide policy reasons that those against gay marriage should be promoting in their community and to their elected representatives.
Gay Rights and the Law
I have tried to include the most important gay rights legislation that have lead up to the gay marriage debate, including a counter argument in a following parenthetical.
Sodomy statutes
In the 2003 case of Lawrence v. Texas, the US Supreme Court overruled a 1986 case that upheld the conviction of two gay men for violating sodomy laws. As the crime involved consensual conduct in the bedroom of one of the men's homes, the Court in Lawrence held that making private sexual conduct a crime was a violation of due process. (Pro-sodomy statute argument: the state may well express interest in private sexual conduct when that private sexual conduct will result in less children being born to further the interests of the state)
Equal protection
The U.S. Supreme Court struck down a Colorado state constitutional amendment that would preclude all legislation that would prohibit discrimination against persons based on their sexual orientation. The Court said that the state constitutional amendment was motivated by animus to a particular class of people and thus, under equal-protection analysis, the amendment was not rationally related to legitimate state interests. (Pro-amendment argument: the Colorado amendment was intended to prevent homosexuals from getting special treatment under the law simply because of their sexual orientation.)
Marriage
The Supreme Court of Massachusetts in 2003 held in Goodridge v. Department of Public Health that same-sex couples have a right to marry under the state constitution's principles of individual liberty and equality. In 1999, the Supreme Court of Vermont held that same-sex couples do not necessarily have a right to marry, but they do have a right under the state constitution to the same benefits and protections as different-sex couples who marry. In 1993, the Supreme Court of Hawaii held that prohibiting same-sex marriage might be sex discrimination under the state constitution; following that decision Hawaii amended its constitution to allow the legislature "to reserve marriage to opposite-sex couples.” The dissent of the Hawaii case, written by Judge Heen, finds that the purpose of the marriage law is "to promote and protect propagation." Appellate courts in six other states, including Arizona, the District of Columbia, Kentucky, Minnesota, Pennsylvania, and Washington have held that prohibitions of same-sex marriages were constitutional under different principles, including due process and equal protection. In the landmark Massachusetts Goodridge case, the dissent penned by three justices stated that the decision of whether to allow same-sex couples to marry should be made by the legislature, not the courts.
Conclusion
One of my law professors loves to reiterate that “there is no pancake so thin that it does not have two sides.” To understand your opponent’s argument allows you to work on the flaws in your own. So, although I do not support gay marriage, I concede that gay rights proponents have a good argument: laws that infringe upon the private rights of others means a restriction of privacy for all. But, to counter that argument, aren’t ALL laws essentially a restriction of our privacy, of our “right to choose”? And can’t legislation be created that allows the government to only infringe on very specific areas of life? I choose to follow the laws of this country and give up some of my freedom when I drive, by following (or relatively following) the speed limit; I choose to give the freedom to drive at whatever speed I like because it will best benefit myself and society to abide by those rules – there will be less death, and I value my life and the lives of others.
With gay marriage, I choose to limit the definition of marriage to the union of a man and a woman, not because I do not value the right to choose to marry, or the right for men and women of different races to marry, but because I am willing to give up my right to a homosexual marriage because I think a marriage between a man and woman will best benefit society – life is created.
Major public policy decisions – like what to do with criminals or abortion--come down to that: life and death. What we should do about gay marriage should not be simplified to the legal argument that limiting the privacy of one recognizes the privacy of all. The societal and biological implications that allowing gay marriage would have on our society is the debate we should be having and is the debate the silent majority in Congress and the United States at large is too cowardly to engage.
Judge Cordy in the dissent of the Massachusetts Goodridge case makes these arguments succinctly. He argued that the state’s interest in heterosexual marriage are not irrational, noting that marriage has always been understood as the appropriate situation for procreation and child rearing as sexual intercourse between men and women can result in conception; sexual relationships other than heterosexual ones cannot result in procreation. Judge Cordy also noted that marriage has successfully advanced this interest throughout time and the relevant social science research comparing children raised by same-sex couples is small, methodologically flawed, and tentative. Therefore, states may rationally decide that marriage should not be redefined to include same-sex couples.
For further reading on the subject, may I suggest the following law review article citations - I’m happy to access these articles for you and email them to you:
30 Fam. L.Q. 339
64 Alb. L. Rev. 889
19 Berkeley Women's L.J. 19
2 Ave Maria L. Rev. 153
20 June 2006
Burn Rubber Not Your Soul
By Morgan Habedank, Guest Contributor
Before broaching the main topic of discussion for today, I feel the need to express my support for the US Soccer Team. The draw with Italy was gritty and showed that they had heart. Something I had seriously questioned after the Czech Republic debacle. I just have one question. How does FIFA allow an official who has been previously suspended for officiating inconsistencies to officiate in the World Cup? Especially when that official was ineligible for the previous World Cup due to the aforementioned suspension. One would assume that FIFA would ensure that officiating would not tarnish their flagship event. If I were running the World Cup it would be a top priority. It appears that I am not alone in this due to the strong statements regarding the poor officiating made by the great Beckenbauer in the German media. Congratulations on the draw and for the record, I am now a fan of Italy. Let’s hope they can destroy the Czech Republic and that the US can take care of business against a very strong Ghana side.
Historically, the CG Animation arena has been dominated by Pixar and DreamWorks Animation. DreamWorks produced the most successful animated title of all time in Shrek (Shrek 2 is number 7 on the list of All-time World Box Office Leaders and Shrek is 48). However, DreamWorks has had a few missteps, the most notable of which is Shark Tale. Pixar on the other hand has yet to have a box office blunder. Many attribute the success of Pixar to their cutting edge technology and visually stunning product. However, I believe that it goes much deeper than that. What made Toy Story memorable? The ground breaking CG? The high profile voices? I would argue that the success of Toy Story was due to the way Woody and Buzz Lightyear came to life. This was due to the quality of the story being told and the excellent character development. Without those elements, Toy Story would just be another Anastasia - visually stunning for its time but ultimately heartless and therefore not memorable.
It was with these high expectations that I went to see the final Pixar offering on opening night. I went in expecting to be stunned visually and sucked in to the story emotionally. However, John Lasseter finally let me down. It appears that Pixar finally fell victim to the X3 trap where studios think that a flawed or weak story can be overcome by star power or special effects. Cars, while visually stunning, completely dropped the ball in the areas of character development and story. Throughout the show I was consistently amazed by what I was seeing yet not once did I feel true emotion. I was never able to identify with any of the shallow and cliché characters. I kept waiting to get “sucked in” and it never happened. I just kept waiting for Michael J. Fox to pop up on screen and demand residuals from Pixar for his Doc Hollywood character. I thought that John Lasseter was bullet proof but it appears that I was mistaken.
So it is with a little trepidation that I await the release of Miami Vice. Michael Mann has yet to disappoint but you never know when you have Colin Farrell in the mix. Hopefully Mann will stay true to his roots and not sacrifice story and character development for explosions and car chases. Hopefully he will follow the JJ Abrams format and produce the next MI3. Hopefully he will suck me in.
Before broaching the main topic of discussion for today, I feel the need to express my support for the US Soccer Team. The draw with Italy was gritty and showed that they had heart. Something I had seriously questioned after the Czech Republic debacle. I just have one question. How does FIFA allow an official who has been previously suspended for officiating inconsistencies to officiate in the World Cup? Especially when that official was ineligible for the previous World Cup due to the aforementioned suspension. One would assume that FIFA would ensure that officiating would not tarnish their flagship event. If I were running the World Cup it would be a top priority. It appears that I am not alone in this due to the strong statements regarding the poor officiating made by the great Beckenbauer in the German media. Congratulations on the draw and for the record, I am now a fan of Italy. Let’s hope they can destroy the Czech Republic and that the US can take care of business against a very strong Ghana side.
Historically, the CG Animation arena has been dominated by Pixar and DreamWorks Animation. DreamWorks produced the most successful animated title of all time in Shrek (Shrek 2 is number 7 on the list of All-time World Box Office Leaders and Shrek is 48). However, DreamWorks has had a few missteps, the most notable of which is Shark Tale. Pixar on the other hand has yet to have a box office blunder. Many attribute the success of Pixar to their cutting edge technology and visually stunning product. However, I believe that it goes much deeper than that. What made Toy Story memorable? The ground breaking CG? The high profile voices? I would argue that the success of Toy Story was due to the way Woody and Buzz Lightyear came to life. This was due to the quality of the story being told and the excellent character development. Without those elements, Toy Story would just be another Anastasia - visually stunning for its time but ultimately heartless and therefore not memorable.
It was with these high expectations that I went to see the final Pixar offering on opening night. I went in expecting to be stunned visually and sucked in to the story emotionally. However, John Lasseter finally let me down. It appears that Pixar finally fell victim to the X3 trap where studios think that a flawed or weak story can be overcome by star power or special effects. Cars, while visually stunning, completely dropped the ball in the areas of character development and story. Throughout the show I was consistently amazed by what I was seeing yet not once did I feel true emotion. I was never able to identify with any of the shallow and cliché characters. I kept waiting to get “sucked in” and it never happened. I just kept waiting for Michael J. Fox to pop up on screen and demand residuals from Pixar for his Doc Hollywood character. I thought that John Lasseter was bullet proof but it appears that I was mistaken.
So it is with a little trepidation that I await the release of Miami Vice. Michael Mann has yet to disappoint but you never know when you have Colin Farrell in the mix. Hopefully Mann will stay true to his roots and not sacrifice story and character development for explosions and car chases. Hopefully he will follow the JJ Abrams format and produce the next MI3. Hopefully he will suck me in.
10 June 2006
Jason Munns: Next Great BYU QB
We first watched Jason Munns play as a Sophomore the Fall of 2004. We recall having a conversation with our brother Matt where we discussed the possibility of having him play for BYU. After returning home from school the following Spring, we remember reading about future recruits and being frustrated by the lack of attention to Washington Preps on Cougarboard, Cougarfan, and Total Blue Sports and wondering why none of them made mention of Munns. So we wrote an email to TBS. Here's the shortened version:
Munns went on to have a great junior year (free subscription required), throwing 26 touchdowns to just 6 interceptions and leading his team, the Southridge Suns to the #1 ranking in Washington 4A--the state's highest classification. We wrote about him and the Suns here and here. After the college season was over and signing day passed, the recruiting for '07 began. Most reports had Jason interested in WSU, UW, or Utah. We didn't really think he had a snowball's chance of choosing BYU. And then Jason attended BYU's Junior Day and the spring scrimmage. According to this article at TBS (again, subscription required) he began to see all that BYU had to offer.
As our friend Morgan and brother Matt often point out, BYU's facilities can match those of any program in the country. Our coaching staff is great, with Brandon Doman particularly effective in recruiting Munns. But the academic and spiritual offerings at BYU are incredible. It helps that Munns had recently taken a visit to WSU at Pullman. We've visited Pullman several times--and hope never to go there again. It is small wonder that WSU is known for its drinking as there is little else to do. With WSU, Pullman and Martin stadium as a foil, BYU, Provo, and Lavell Edwards Stadium must have looked like football heaven (it is, isn't it?). So, to Bill Doba and all the folks at WSU: thanks for the recruiting help.
Almost exactly a year later TBS ran this article about Munns and teammate Travis "Moose" Mattair. It seemed to us that Munns was trying to recruit Moose to play for BYU. After reading his quotes, last Sunday's announcement that he would sign a letter of intent to play for BYU was not a complete shock.
Anybody who reads reports about future BYU recruits also loves to watch their video highlights. As far as I know, no links have been provided to these highlights of Jason Munns and the Southridge Suns (free SportsTri-Cities enrollment/subscription required). Simply click on any game involving Southridge and you will be provided with a list highlights.
We love it when we're right, and it's even better when we can so obviously prove how right we are. And it may only be a recruiting battle, but it sure is nice to beat Utah.
Figuratively drunk, as we are, with this recent good fortune, we feel to make another statement we hope proves as prophetical as the first: Jason Munns will be the next great BYU QB
18 May 2005We don't think we had any idea how prescient that missive would be. Credit TBS for their quick response. Here's Talo Steves' response:
TBS:
I am a BYU student and stalwart fan. Currently attending my high school
alma mater is a QB--JasonMunns--who needs to be brought to the
attention of BYU coaches. The high school he attends (Southridge, in Kennewick WA) is in the highest classification in Washington State and comes from the league
that has won 5 of the last 7 state titles. As a Sophomore (in case you
missed it, AS A SOPHOMORE!) he threw for nearly 2300 yards throwing 31
td's and just 10 interceptions. He had a 55.2 % completion rate and a
passing efficiency of 155. Showing his all around athletic ability he was
selected to the all-area basketball team. Remember the name I mentioned before--Jason Munns. This season he will be a Junior. His numbers are at least as good as the senior QB they recruited from the UT school and this kid is a sophomore. Do a simple google search on him and you will see what I mean--he is the real deal.
Jake Lybbert
27 May 2005TBS then ran this article (subscription required), which as far as we know was the first published (digitally or otherwise) information about Munns as a prep recruit. At the time of the article it seemed Jason was more interested in Utah. And who can blame him? They were just coming off a season in which they went to and won a major bowl and had the #1 overall pick in the NFL draft in Alex Smith. That type of performance is pretty persuasive for potential recruits.
Jake,
I spoke to Jason Munss [sic] yesterday and will be doing an article on him soon. Also the information that you've given me will be sent to BYU coaches as well. Good job on this and please let me know if you hear of any other LDS prospects in the Tri-Cities area in Washington. This could be a very good thing you've done.
--
Talo K Steves
Managing Editor
Totalbluesports.com
Munns went on to have a great junior year (free subscription required), throwing 26 touchdowns to just 6 interceptions and leading his team, the Southridge Suns to the #1 ranking in Washington 4A--the state's highest classification. We wrote about him and the Suns here and here. After the college season was over and signing day passed, the recruiting for '07 began. Most reports had Jason interested in WSU, UW, or Utah. We didn't really think he had a snowball's chance of choosing BYU. And then Jason attended BYU's Junior Day and the spring scrimmage. According to this article at TBS (again, subscription required) he began to see all that BYU had to offer.
As our friend Morgan and brother Matt often point out, BYU's facilities can match those of any program in the country. Our coaching staff is great, with Brandon Doman particularly effective in recruiting Munns. But the academic and spiritual offerings at BYU are incredible. It helps that Munns had recently taken a visit to WSU at Pullman. We've visited Pullman several times--and hope never to go there again. It is small wonder that WSU is known for its drinking as there is little else to do. With WSU, Pullman and Martin stadium as a foil, BYU, Provo, and Lavell Edwards Stadium must have looked like football heaven (it is, isn't it?). So, to Bill Doba and all the folks at WSU: thanks for the recruiting help.
Almost exactly a year later TBS ran this article about Munns and teammate Travis "Moose" Mattair. It seemed to us that Munns was trying to recruit Moose to play for BYU. After reading his quotes, last Sunday's announcement that he would sign a letter of intent to play for BYU was not a complete shock.
Anybody who reads reports about future BYU recruits also loves to watch their video highlights. As far as I know, no links have been provided to these highlights of Jason Munns and the Southridge Suns (free SportsTri-Cities enrollment/subscription required). Simply click on any game involving Southridge and you will be provided with a list highlights.
We love it when we're right, and it's even better when we can so obviously prove how right we are. And it may only be a recruiting battle, but it sure is nice to beat Utah.
Figuratively drunk, as we are, with this recent good fortune, we feel to make another statement we hope proves as prophetical as the first: Jason Munns will be the next great BYU QB
08 June 2006
More on Marriage
Yesterday the U.S. Senate cloture vote (effectively the vote to vote) on the Marriage Protection Amendment failed 49-48. The good news is, this isn't the first time such an amendment has come before the Senate, and it certainly wont be the last.
Critiques of the MPA run the gamut: some are fatuous (the so called "conservative case" for same-sex marriage, a chimera) , others quixotic (all you need is love!), many take a mysogamic tone (for example Judith Stacey, professor of sociology at NYU, who hopes that the understanding of marriage will break down completely), while still others are just flat ignorant (it wont directly affect my marriage!).
The gay lobby then works its puppet-master magic on Ted Kennedy and others, who cast MPA advocates as "bigots, radical, and narrow minded." This, despite the fact that six in 10 Americans oppose gay marriage, and according to the latest Gallup poll, a majority of whom also support a constitutional amendment to protect marriage.
As Dennis Prager explains, the liberal view of Republicans and conservatives holds that they are either "phonies or bad." That they could sincerely oppose redefining "the most important social structure of society...is inconceivable." Those who oppose are labeled bigots. He further explains that the inability of liberals to understand conservatives' views on marriage as anything more than bigotry or pandering is "part of a narcissism that characterizes much of the left." They are narcissistic in that they are unable to see the world through another persons eyes. Perhaps the most offensive example of this narcissistic world-view is liberals application of the word "radical" to religious or social conservatives.
There exists a certain idealistic libertarian strain that insists that the "right" to marriage is ingrained in the Constitution. William F. Buckley Jr. and Sheldon Kinsel point out that this isn't a civil rights issue at all. From Mr. Kinsel,
The ignorant continue to sit on the sideline because they don't think court-imposed same-sex marriage will affect them while others are afraid of imposing their religious or moral values. Fine. Ignore the religious or moral aspect. The social imperative alone is enough to make rejection of same-sex marriage the only rational course.
To understand the impact of same-sex marriage on society we refer you to two important sources. The first is a body of work from a group of scholars associated with the Witherspoon Institute (hat tip: Morgan). Though the temptation to do the 30 minute Google search remains, I suggest taking the time to read the entire work.
It examines various societal threats to marriage and the threat of same-sex marriage in particular. Historians, political scientists, law professors, economists, sociologists, psychiatrists and psychologists, anthropologists, public policy experts--even professors of philosophy!--all sign off on a document that draws on extensive social scientific studies. Refer specifically to Section III, Evidence from the Social and Biological Sciences, heading "Four Threats to Marriage," sub point "Same-Sex Marriage." See also Section IV, Analysis from Political and Moral Philosophy: The Intrinsic Goods of Marriage. The evidence is there.
Among other things, they find that children reared by same-sex parents will have problems with everything from identity, sexuality, and attachments to kin. Same-sex marriage undercuts the idea of procreation being intrinsically connected to marriage and the idea that children need both a mother and father--thus "further weakening the societal norm that men should take responsibility for the children they beget." It also erodes marital norms of sexual fidelity. Their strongest appeal comes in the final section, reproduced here:
There remains a group who call for a sort of same-sex marriage trial to be experimented in several states. The social science referred to by the study above cites only research from the United States and must make assumptions about the probable impact of codified same-sex marriage. "The End of Marriage in Scandinavia" by Stanley Kurtz answers what he calls the "key empirical question" of the gay marriage debate--"will same sex marriage undermine the institution of marriage?" Where the social scientists above had no empirical data from the U.S. on which to test their theories, Mr. Kurtz is able to go to Scandinavia, where same-sex marriages have been the norm since as early as 1989 (Denmark).
Recently, gay marriage advocates Andrew Sullivan (journalist) and William Eskridge Jr. (Yale law professor) reported on an unpublished study by Darren Spedale. Their conclusions based on this study held that the introduction of same-sex marriage in Scandinavia had a positive impact on marriage, reversing the trend toward cohabitation, divorce, and single-parent families. That it was unpublished is significant because it means that the study has not gone through several levels of peer review. Prior to publication in a given discipline's journal, several professors in a that field typically review the study/paper. Once it has been cleared by the reviewers and cleaned of any errors in technique, analysis, grammar, etc. it is then published where its contents are debated for a number of years as the theories and assumptions begin to take shape. Mr. Spedale's study jumped both of those stages and went straight to the "accepted as fact" stage by the mainstream media.
As Mr. Kurtz points out, "the half-page statistical analysis of heterosexual marriage in Darren Spedale's unpublished paper doesn't begin to get at the truth about the decline of marriage in Scandinavia during the nineties." How quickly same-sex marriage advocates will seize on convenient, if spurious research to support their claims.
With marriage so weak in Scandinavia, examination of demographic shifts must focus on the out-of-wedlock birthrate and the family dissolution rate. He explains the reason behind this:
What exactly does this mean for the children, now forced to shoulder the burden of their parents decisions of convenience? A study of all children born in Stockholm in 1953 showed that parental breakup negatively impacted children's mental health. Another study done in 2003 discovered that children in single parent homes in Sweden "have more than double the rates of mortality, severe morbidity, and injury of children in two parent households."
Returning to the link between gay marriage, and the separation between marriage and parenthood, Mr. Kurtz states that,
Henning Bech, one of Scandinavia's most prominent gay thinkers, completely dismisses as "implausible" the idea that gay marriage promotes monogamy as suggested by the aforementioned "conservative case." According to Rune Halvorsen, a Norwegian sociologist, "many of Norway's gays imposed self-censorship during the marriage debate, so as to hide their opposition to marriage itself." The goal for gays in Scandinavia was not marriage but social approval for homosexuality.
The result in Sweden is startling. Swedes marry less and have more children out-of-wedlock than any other industrialized nation.
It should come as no surprise that in America, the younger generation is more likely to favor gay marriage than their parents. This is related to another fact: "less than half of America's twentysomethings consider it wrong to bear children outside marriage." Though cohabitation is increasing in the United States, it has still not reached levels found in Europe. America's situation is similar to Norway before the advent of gay marriage. Religiosity is strong, out of marriage birthrate remains relatively low, while the majority opposes gay marriage. The similarities don't end there.
Typically this blog believes in leaving decisions like these to the states to decide separately, but judicial activism and the empirical effects of state-by-state loosening of divorce laws demands a different course of action. Plus, it's not as though such an amendment would have the same effect on democratically established state law as say, Roe v. Wade. Where Roe v. Wade overturned laws banning or partially banning abortion in a large number of states, such an amendment would only serve to affirm statutes established in 26 states and what citizens of 19 states have enshrined in their state constitutions.
Civil unions are not the great middle ground solution, put forward by "moderates." Scandinavian registered partnerships are exactly similar to Vermont-style civil unions. Mr. Kurtz has clearly shown that the "lesson of the Scandinavian experience is that even de facto same-sex marriage undermines marriage." And this would be the result of civil-unions as the laws and limitations distinguishing them from marriage as such would begin to be repealed.
Mr. Kurtz also speaks to the supposed link between Civil Rights and gay marriage.
Critiques of the MPA run the gamut: some are fatuous (the so called "conservative case" for same-sex marriage, a chimera) , others quixotic (all you need is love!), many take a mysogamic tone (for example Judith Stacey, professor of sociology at NYU, who hopes that the understanding of marriage will break down completely), while still others are just flat ignorant (it wont directly affect my marriage!).
The gay lobby then works its puppet-master magic on Ted Kennedy and others, who cast MPA advocates as "bigots, radical, and narrow minded." This, despite the fact that six in 10 Americans oppose gay marriage, and according to the latest Gallup poll, a majority of whom also support a constitutional amendment to protect marriage.
As Dennis Prager explains, the liberal view of Republicans and conservatives holds that they are either "phonies or bad." That they could sincerely oppose redefining "the most important social structure of society...is inconceivable." Those who oppose are labeled bigots. He further explains that the inability of liberals to understand conservatives' views on marriage as anything more than bigotry or pandering is "part of a narcissism that characterizes much of the left." They are narcissistic in that they are unable to see the world through another persons eyes. Perhaps the most offensive example of this narcissistic world-view is liberals application of the word "radical" to religious or social conservatives.
To describe as "radical" those who wish to preserve the man-woman-based definition of marriage known to every civilization is to stand the word on its head. It is beyond intellectually dishonest--it is mendacity--to describe those who favor preserving the definition of marriage as "radical" rather than to so describe those who wish to change the gender-based definition of marriage for the first time in history. Even if you support same-sex marriage, you should at least have the honesty to admit that it is you who favors something radical.But this is just another way for liberals and same-sex advocates to marginalize the issue and its advocates. It's right up there with "gas prices" as a favored way of "putting things in the proper perspective." Which is what type of perspective exactly? That gas prices are somehow more important than marriage?
There exists a certain idealistic libertarian strain that insists that the "right" to marriage is ingrained in the Constitution. William F. Buckley Jr. and Sheldon Kinsel point out that this isn't a civil rights issue at all. From Mr. Kinsel,
Society is not required to let anyone who wants to marry to do so, particularly if that would be harmful. To protect itself, society must and does impose significant restrictions on marriage, including those having to do with blood relationship and age. If there is any issue of rights at stake, it is only the legitimate right of society to protect a vital social institution. In this light, it is also clear that doing so certainly is not "writing discrimination into the Constitution," as the advocates frequently charge.Additionally, efforts to associate the fight for same sex marriage to the Civil Rights movement has drawn the ire of some members of the gay community, to say nothing of the response from the African American community. The link to the women's suffrage movement is also specious. The monumental gain of that movement was the vote. Gays are allowed to vote, are they not?
The ignorant continue to sit on the sideline because they don't think court-imposed same-sex marriage will affect them while others are afraid of imposing their religious or moral values. Fine. Ignore the religious or moral aspect. The social imperative alone is enough to make rejection of same-sex marriage the only rational course.
To understand the impact of same-sex marriage on society we refer you to two important sources. The first is a body of work from a group of scholars associated with the Witherspoon Institute (hat tip: Morgan). Though the temptation to do the 30 minute Google search remains, I suggest taking the time to read the entire work.
It examines various societal threats to marriage and the threat of same-sex marriage in particular. Historians, political scientists, law professors, economists, sociologists, psychiatrists and psychologists, anthropologists, public policy experts--even professors of philosophy!--all sign off on a document that draws on extensive social scientific studies. Refer specifically to Section III, Evidence from the Social and Biological Sciences, heading "Four Threats to Marriage," sub point "Same-Sex Marriage." See also Section IV, Analysis from Political and Moral Philosophy: The Intrinsic Goods of Marriage. The evidence is there.
Among other things, they find that children reared by same-sex parents will have problems with everything from identity, sexuality, and attachments to kin. Same-sex marriage undercuts the idea of procreation being intrinsically connected to marriage and the idea that children need both a mother and father--thus "further weakening the societal norm that men should take responsibility for the children they beget." It also erodes marital norms of sexual fidelity. Their strongest appeal comes in the final section, reproduced here:
But marriage cannot survive or flourish when the ideal of marriage is eviscerated. Radically different understandings of marriage, when given legal status, threaten to create a culture in which it is no longer possible for men and women to understand the unique goods that marriage embodies: the fidelity between men and women, united as potential mothers and fathers, bound to the children that the marital union might produce.Marriage is essential to society and provides economic utility far better than any second best alternative. According to their research, any breakdown in the familial unit will inevitably lead to increases in all problems associated with the breakdown of the family--well-documented in the families of minorities (father absent), single parent homes, and foster care.
The law has a crucial place in sustaining this deeper understanding of marriage and its myriad human goods. The law is a teacher, instructing the young either that marriage is a reality in which people can choose to participate but whose contours individuals cannot remake at will, or teaching the young that marriage is a mere convention, so malleable that individuals, couples, or groups can choose to make of it whatever suits their desires, interests, or subjective goals of the moment.
The marriage culture cannot flourish in a society whose primary institutions--universities, courts, legislatures, religious institutions--not only fail to defend marriage but actually undermine it both conceptually and in practice. The young will never learn what it means to get married and stay married, to live in fidelity to the spouse they choose and the children they must care for, if the social world in which they come of age treats marriage as fungible or insignificant.
There remains a group who call for a sort of same-sex marriage trial to be experimented in several states. The social science referred to by the study above cites only research from the United States and must make assumptions about the probable impact of codified same-sex marriage. "The End of Marriage in Scandinavia" by Stanley Kurtz answers what he calls the "key empirical question" of the gay marriage debate--"will same sex marriage undermine the institution of marriage?" Where the social scientists above had no empirical data from the U.S. on which to test their theories, Mr. Kurtz is able to go to Scandinavia, where same-sex marriages have been the norm since as early as 1989 (Denmark).
Recently, gay marriage advocates Andrew Sullivan (journalist) and William Eskridge Jr. (Yale law professor) reported on an unpublished study by Darren Spedale. Their conclusions based on this study held that the introduction of same-sex marriage in Scandinavia had a positive impact on marriage, reversing the trend toward cohabitation, divorce, and single-parent families. That it was unpublished is significant because it means that the study has not gone through several levels of peer review. Prior to publication in a given discipline's journal, several professors in a that field typically review the study/paper. Once it has been cleared by the reviewers and cleaned of any errors in technique, analysis, grammar, etc. it is then published where its contents are debated for a number of years as the theories and assumptions begin to take shape. Mr. Spedale's study jumped both of those stages and went straight to the "accepted as fact" stage by the mainstream media.
As Mr. Kurtz points out, "the half-page statistical analysis of heterosexual marriage in Darren Spedale's unpublished paper doesn't begin to get at the truth about the decline of marriage in Scandinavia during the nineties." How quickly same-sex marriage advocates will seize on convenient, if spurious research to support their claims.
With marriage so weak in Scandinavia, examination of demographic shifts must focus on the out-of-wedlock birthrate and the family dissolution rate. He explains the reason behind this:
cohabitating couples with children break up at two to three times the rate of married parents. So rising rates of cohabitation and out-of-wedlock birth stand as proxy for rising rates of family dissolution.During the nineties--the period that same-sex marriage was supposed to have stabilized marriage as an institution--Norway's out-of-wedlock birthrate rose from 39-50 percent, Sweden's from 47 to 55 percent. "As out-of-wedlock childbearing pushes beyond 50 percent, it is reaching the toughest areas of cultural resistance." This has resulted in marriage becoming a minority phenomenon in turn causing it to lose the "critical mass required to have a socially normative force." In sum, marriage in Scandinavia has experienced a deep decline and "children [shoulder] the burden of rising rates of family dissolution." Mr. Kurtz cites gay marriage as the "mainspring" of the decline because of its obvious tendency to separate marriage from parenthood.
What exactly does this mean for the children, now forced to shoulder the burden of their parents decisions of convenience? A study of all children born in Stockholm in 1953 showed that parental breakup negatively impacted children's mental health. Another study done in 2003 discovered that children in single parent homes in Sweden "have more than double the rates of mortality, severe morbidity, and injury of children in two parent households."
Returning to the link between gay marriage, and the separation between marriage and parenthood, Mr. Kurtz states that,
as rising out-of-wedlock birthrates disassociate heterosexual marriage from parenting, gay marriage becomes conceivable. If marriage is only about a relationship between two people, and it is not intrinsically connected to parenthood, why shouldn't same-sex couples be allowed to marry? It follows that once marriage is redefined to accommodate same-sex couples, that change cannot help but lock in and reinforce the very cultural separation between marriage and parenthood that makes gay marriage conceivable to begin with.Once gay marriage was established in the Scandinavian countries, it "symbollically ratified" the passing of the link between marriage and parenthood. Gay marriage became one of the major factors leading to further increases in cohabitation, out-of-wedlock birthrates, and early divorce. The overall symbolic message of gay marriage and civil unions has been that "most any nontraditional family is just fine" and in this way, "individual choice trumps family form."
We see this process at work in the radical separation of marriage and parenthood that swept across Scandinavia in the nineties. If Scandinavian out-of-wedlock birthrates had not already been high in the late eighties, gay marriage would have been far more difficult to imagine. More than a decade into post-gay marriage Scandinavia, out-of-wedlock birthrates have passed 50 percent, and the effective end of marriage as a protective shield for children has become thinkable. Gay marriage hasn't blocked the separation of marriage and parenthood; it has advanced it.
Henning Bech, one of Scandinavia's most prominent gay thinkers, completely dismisses as "implausible" the idea that gay marriage promotes monogamy as suggested by the aforementioned "conservative case." According to Rune Halvorsen, a Norwegian sociologist, "many of Norway's gays imposed self-censorship during the marriage debate, so as to hide their opposition to marriage itself." The goal for gays in Scandinavia was not marriage but social approval for homosexuality.
The result in Sweden is startling. Swedes marry less and have more children out-of-wedlock than any other industrialized nation.
It should come as no surprise that in America, the younger generation is more likely to favor gay marriage than their parents. This is related to another fact: "less than half of America's twentysomethings consider it wrong to bear children outside marriage." Though cohabitation is increasing in the United States, it has still not reached levels found in Europe. America's situation is similar to Norway before the advent of gay marriage. Religiosity is strong, out of marriage birthrate remains relatively low, while the majority opposes gay marriage. The similarities don't end there.
If, as in Norway, gay marriage were imposed here by a socially liberal cultural elite, it would likely speed us on the way toward the classic Nordic pattern of less frequent marriage, more frequent out-of-wedlock birth, and skyrocketing family dissolution.Were this to occur in America, it would result in rising rates of middle class family dissolution, continued separation of marriage from parenthood, and expansion of the American welfare state.
Typically this blog believes in leaving decisions like these to the states to decide separately, but judicial activism and the empirical effects of state-by-state loosening of divorce laws demands a different course of action. Plus, it's not as though such an amendment would have the same effect on democratically established state law as say, Roe v. Wade. Where Roe v. Wade overturned laws banning or partially banning abortion in a large number of states, such an amendment would only serve to affirm statutes established in 26 states and what citizens of 19 states have enshrined in their state constitutions.
Civil unions are not the great middle ground solution, put forward by "moderates." Scandinavian registered partnerships are exactly similar to Vermont-style civil unions. Mr. Kurtz has clearly shown that the "lesson of the Scandinavian experience is that even de facto same-sex marriage undermines marriage." And this would be the result of civil-unions as the laws and limitations distinguishing them from marriage as such would begin to be repealed.
Mr. Kurtz also speaks to the supposed link between Civil Rights and gay marriage.
The Scandinavian example also proves that gay marriage is not interracial marriage in a new guise. The miscegenation analogy was never convincing. There are plenty of reasons to think that, in contrast to race, sexual orientation will have profound effects on marriage. But with Scandinavia, we are well beyond the realm of even educated speculation. The post-gay marriage changes in the Scandinavian family are significant. This is not like the fantasy about interracial birth defects.America cannot afford to experiment with same-sex marriage. What's more, doesn't need to. Scandinavia has already run the test and given us the important data. Same-sex marriage does not encourage marriage, it erodes the family. The breakdown of the family leads to a loss of goods associated with marriage and an increase in all the sorts of problems we read about in the newspaper everyday. Rising crime rates (including violent crime), illiteracy, drug use, increased incidence of high school drop-out, depression--all become more likely for children raised outside of the traditional family.
06 June 2006
In Defense of Marriage
As a professor of philosophy, Jeffrey Nielsen ought to know a straw-man argument when he sees it. What's more, he ought to know better than to use one. Leaders of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints did not "speak out against" homosexual marriage or homosexuality. If anything the teachings of the church speak of loving acceptance and understanding of people who struggle with this tendency. However, this acceptance and understanding does not extend to granting homosexuals the privilege of marriage. In addition, the express purpose of the Constitutional Amendment currently before the U.S. Senate is not to prohibit homosexual marriage, it is to define and protect marriage between husband and wife. Though subtle and seemingly semantic, these are fundamental differences.
Marriage between a man and wife and their family unit is the basic foundation of successful society. To protect such a relationship does not deny rights to which homosexuals are constitutionally entitled--at least not according to our reading of that text--Equal Protection Clause quibbling aside. Nor is there anything in the Lockean Declaration that suggests that "life, liberty, property (pursuit of happiness) necessarily means that all should have the opportunity to marry.
Despite what some tortured couples may say, marriage is a privilege. In liberal-democracies it is the right of the majority to decide how those privleges are disbursed. That is the beauty of the Constitutional amendment process. Furthermore, wanting to protect traditional marriage does not make one a bigot. Calling those who oppose gay marriage bigots is just another logical fallacy Mr. Nielsen may be familiar with--ad homonym.
We love reading the logical fallacy in Op-Ed pieces like the one authored by Mr. Nielsen. Following his moral rationalization of criticizing the church, he launches into a scientific explanation of homosexuality, as though defining it in those terms requires automatic recognition of their "right" to marriage. We do not doubt that gay marriage may be a product of biology. That it may be so does not make it any more "natural" than schizophrenia, congenital heart disease, or depression.
Mr. Nielsen continues by vaguely mentioning and summarily dismissing every argument in defense of traditional marriage. Tradition is bad because historically we descriminated against African Americans and women. Yet marriage is hardly a superstitious tradition. It is the first and foundational relationship of the whole of Judeo-Christian theology. Lest you forget or insist on repeating the tired '60's era mantra that 'one cannot legislate morality,' Western democracy--especially our system of laws--is founded on Judeo-Christian principles. And it doesn't end there. Marriage cuts across culture, religion, and history. Every major religion and successful society was founded on the basic familial unit--mother, father, children. This Amendment no more tells homosexuals they can't be married than nature tells them they can't procreate. The nature and purpose of the family is two-fold: to produce offspring and provide for their care and upbringing. That homosexuals cannot do the former is beyond debate, though the latter is not, despite Mr. Nielsen's protests.
Changes (mutations, really) that alter the very definition of marriage are an attack on the institution itself. Homosexual marriage is not the only assault on marriage, but it is an important battleground. It (marriage) is one of the last few refuges in a society assailed by rampant relativism. Today we are asked to give legal legitimacy to relationships between members of the same sex. Relativism demands that we take the sometimes fallacious threat of a "slippery slope" seriously. Tomorrow, most assuredly, we will be asked to give legitimacy to relationships between minors and adults because it is their "right." They will argue, as they do with homosexual marriage, that some are born with a biological attraction and affection that should not be illegal. They will cite scholarly journals to back up their arguments. This is a development that would be opposed by a vast majority in today's society. We would be willing to bet that homosexual marriage is a development that would have been opposed by a vast majority of society some 30 years ago. The trend is clear.
Mr. Nielsen is clearly ignorant of the relgious underpinnings of our laws and the Constitution. If the law is religiously or otherwise inspired and is passed by a vast majority of the House and Senate and then again by a vast majority of state legislatures, does that make it a "dangerous rejection of our Founding Fathers' wise insight," or simply democracy at work?
Attempts by Mr. Nielsen to distract from the real issue by trying to find hypocrisy in early church teachings about polygamy is also misguided. Polygamy is fundamentally different from homosexual marriage in that it provides for the fulfillment of the basic responsbilities of marriage as outlined above. This is not to be misinterpreted as an endorsement of polygamy, but polygamy does allow for procreation and provides for the care and upbringing of children. Besides, LDS history is hardly the only example of polygamous relations. Polygamy is one of those things that cuts across nearly every culture, religion, and history. Just because the church has it in its historical roots does not preclude its members from opining on the morality or legality of homosexual marriage or keep its leaders from making prophetic pronouncements.
As a history student who has read and studied church history extensively, we absolutely disagree with Mr. Nielsen's statements about the church's supposedly less than candid treatment of its history. Perhaps they are more coddled over there in the philosophy department or (more likely) perhaps Mr. Nielsen was too lazy to do more than the 30 minute Google search he suggests his readers make, either way, the church and BYU have made available more documents relating to the history of the church than any one individual could review in a lifetime. Or maybe he missed renowned Columbia professor Richard Bushman's recent biography of Joseph Smith? Dr. Bushman is no lightweight. We take comfort from the fact that those who know the most about the history of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints are still faithful members--people like recently retired University of Utah history professor, Davis Bitton. The underlying theme these scholars stress is that they don't have a testimony of church history, they have a testimony of the Gospel.
Mr. Nielsen's diatribe is the just the latest in the genre of writing from supposed intellectuals who think they know more than Church leadership or their faithful, 'simpleminded' followers. As our father told us today, having a PhD at the end of your name does not make you intelligent.
Marriage between a man and wife and their family unit is the basic foundation of successful society. To protect such a relationship does not deny rights to which homosexuals are constitutionally entitled--at least not according to our reading of that text--Equal Protection Clause quibbling aside. Nor is there anything in the Lockean Declaration that suggests that "life, liberty, property (pursuit of happiness) necessarily means that all should have the opportunity to marry.
Despite what some tortured couples may say, marriage is a privilege. In liberal-democracies it is the right of the majority to decide how those privleges are disbursed. That is the beauty of the Constitutional amendment process. Furthermore, wanting to protect traditional marriage does not make one a bigot. Calling those who oppose gay marriage bigots is just another logical fallacy Mr. Nielsen may be familiar with--ad homonym.
We love reading the logical fallacy in Op-Ed pieces like the one authored by Mr. Nielsen. Following his moral rationalization of criticizing the church, he launches into a scientific explanation of homosexuality, as though defining it in those terms requires automatic recognition of their "right" to marriage. We do not doubt that gay marriage may be a product of biology. That it may be so does not make it any more "natural" than schizophrenia, congenital heart disease, or depression.
Mr. Nielsen continues by vaguely mentioning and summarily dismissing every argument in defense of traditional marriage. Tradition is bad because historically we descriminated against African Americans and women. Yet marriage is hardly a superstitious tradition. It is the first and foundational relationship of the whole of Judeo-Christian theology. Lest you forget or insist on repeating the tired '60's era mantra that 'one cannot legislate morality,' Western democracy--especially our system of laws--is founded on Judeo-Christian principles. And it doesn't end there. Marriage cuts across culture, religion, and history. Every major religion and successful society was founded on the basic familial unit--mother, father, children. This Amendment no more tells homosexuals they can't be married than nature tells them they can't procreate. The nature and purpose of the family is two-fold: to produce offspring and provide for their care and upbringing. That homosexuals cannot do the former is beyond debate, though the latter is not, despite Mr. Nielsen's protests.
Changes (mutations, really) that alter the very definition of marriage are an attack on the institution itself. Homosexual marriage is not the only assault on marriage, but it is an important battleground. It (marriage) is one of the last few refuges in a society assailed by rampant relativism. Today we are asked to give legal legitimacy to relationships between members of the same sex. Relativism demands that we take the sometimes fallacious threat of a "slippery slope" seriously. Tomorrow, most assuredly, we will be asked to give legitimacy to relationships between minors and adults because it is their "right." They will argue, as they do with homosexual marriage, that some are born with a biological attraction and affection that should not be illegal. They will cite scholarly journals to back up their arguments. This is a development that would be opposed by a vast majority in today's society. We would be willing to bet that homosexual marriage is a development that would have been opposed by a vast majority of society some 30 years ago. The trend is clear.
Mr. Nielsen is clearly ignorant of the relgious underpinnings of our laws and the Constitution. If the law is religiously or otherwise inspired and is passed by a vast majority of the House and Senate and then again by a vast majority of state legislatures, does that make it a "dangerous rejection of our Founding Fathers' wise insight," or simply democracy at work?
Attempts by Mr. Nielsen to distract from the real issue by trying to find hypocrisy in early church teachings about polygamy is also misguided. Polygamy is fundamentally different from homosexual marriage in that it provides for the fulfillment of the basic responsbilities of marriage as outlined above. This is not to be misinterpreted as an endorsement of polygamy, but polygamy does allow for procreation and provides for the care and upbringing of children. Besides, LDS history is hardly the only example of polygamous relations. Polygamy is one of those things that cuts across nearly every culture, religion, and history. Just because the church has it in its historical roots does not preclude its members from opining on the morality or legality of homosexual marriage or keep its leaders from making prophetic pronouncements.
As a history student who has read and studied church history extensively, we absolutely disagree with Mr. Nielsen's statements about the church's supposedly less than candid treatment of its history. Perhaps they are more coddled over there in the philosophy department or (more likely) perhaps Mr. Nielsen was too lazy to do more than the 30 minute Google search he suggests his readers make, either way, the church and BYU have made available more documents relating to the history of the church than any one individual could review in a lifetime. Or maybe he missed renowned Columbia professor Richard Bushman's recent biography of Joseph Smith? Dr. Bushman is no lightweight. We take comfort from the fact that those who know the most about the history of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints are still faithful members--people like recently retired University of Utah history professor, Davis Bitton. The underlying theme these scholars stress is that they don't have a testimony of church history, they have a testimony of the Gospel.
Mr. Nielsen's diatribe is the just the latest in the genre of writing from supposed intellectuals who think they know more than Church leadership or their faithful, 'simpleminded' followers. As our father told us today, having a PhD at the end of your name does not make you intelligent.
12 May 2006
Costa Rica
You will excuse, we hope, yet another long delay between posts. Finals and graduation necessitated the first long break, a two week trip to Costa Rica forces the next.
And, unlike James Taranto with Best of the Web, we aren't part of an institution (The Wall Street Journal) that allows us to send Political Diary to feed your need for an On Life and Lybberty fix.
In other news, we have been accepted onto programmes at Queen Mary and King's College--both part of the University of London system. University College (London) and Birkbeck remain unaccounted for.
While you wait for new installments, check out the archive. It is replete with pedestrian writing and plebian (some are pithy) comments. It may not be the intellectual and observational tour de force you were hoping (expecting?), but it is entertaining.
Read on.
And, unlike James Taranto with Best of the Web, we aren't part of an institution (The Wall Street Journal) that allows us to send Political Diary to feed your need for an On Life and Lybberty fix.
In other news, we have been accepted onto programmes at Queen Mary and King's College--both part of the University of London system. University College (London) and Birkbeck remain unaccounted for.
While you wait for new installments, check out the archive. It is replete with pedestrian writing and plebian (some are pithy) comments. It may not be the intellectual and observational tour de force you were hoping (expecting?), but it is entertaining.
Read on.
09 May 2006
Commencement
Last week we walked at BYU's graduation ceremonies. Though we wont officially graduate till after the completion of course work at the University of Cambridge later this summer, the history and tradition of graduation merits participation. Besides the usual graduation advice, the graduation ceremony harks back to a time when it was more than a changing of the tassel. Even today, instructors at institutions like Oxford and Cambridge wear their doctoral gowns as they teach.
At the Friday Convocation ceremony, retiring history professor, Dr. Frank Fox gave the main address. The following is a selection from that speech:
Skeptics--these are people who question the status quo. When they see a problem, they find a solution. Skeptics are not cynical or pessimistic. They are optimists.
A history degree teaches a good many things. It teaches one to read and write and think. But it does not require a degree in history to recognize and understand one surpassing truth. Optimists and skeptics shape history and make the world better, not cynics and pessimists.
At the Friday Convocation ceremony, retiring history professor, Dr. Frank Fox gave the main address. The following is a selection from that speech:
The unexamined life,” said Socrates, “is not worth living.”Too much of what is presented in class, the news media, film, the books we read, etc., is accepted as fact. Skepticism and examination, critical thought and analysis are of the utmost importance. But they should not be mistaken for cynicism or pessimism. Cynics and pessimists produce nothing. They add nothing to the debate or discussion.
Much of what you have acquired at BYU are the tools of examination. We have taught you how to examine the spatial world, the temporal world, the world of human relations, the world of thought and feeling, the world of ideas. And we have imparted gospel insights for keeping perspectives clear and priorities straight.
Yet it would surprise you to know how rare the examined life still is. Many of your predecessors have gone forth as pilgrims, never really examining anything, simply putting one foot ahead of the other, receiving whatever is offered by friends, by neighbors, by authorities, by the media, by those who are but pilgrims themselves—the blind leading the blind.
A few months ago, you put thousands of hard-earned dollars into a ponzi scheme that confidently promised to earn you 12% per day on your investment. Such are the wages of the unexamined life.
Others fall prey to different scams. Much of the academic world has embraced a view of life that asks only about gender, class or ethnicity—the things that divide us—ignoring the things that unite us, such as our common moral sense. A distinguished professor of bioethics recently stated that he saw nothing wrong with the killing of full term infants and the harvesting of their organs—yet saw plenty wrong with the eating of animals. The unexamined life strikes again!
The examined life literally examines everything. It questions everything—not in the corrosive manner that weakens faith but in the constructive manner that strengthens faith and gives it surer footing.
The examined life favors reality over appearance. Substance over style. Fact over opinion. It prefers universals to the partial, the fleeting, the fashionable—and the relative. It seeks to learn those truths which will in fact make us free.
It asks hard questions—and demands good answers. With the examined life it is never enough to say: “because someone told me so.”
Skeptics--these are people who question the status quo. When they see a problem, they find a solution. Skeptics are not cynical or pessimistic. They are optimists.
A history degree teaches a good many things. It teaches one to read and write and think. But it does not require a degree in history to recognize and understand one surpassing truth. Optimists and skeptics shape history and make the world better, not cynics and pessimists.
14 April 2006
The Puritan Regime
By Matt Berry, Guest Contributor
Last week's Hollywood Reporter contains an almost comical story. Apparently, film industry insiders are blaming the poor box office performance of Basic Instinct 2 on the same people who started Global Warming and planned 9/11:
Observation #1: Who says American culture is "Puritanical"? Have they been confined in the Gulags of Russia since “Leave it to Beaver” went off the air? Have they not watched Fox, CBS, NBC, or ABC every night of the week? We aren’t even talking about cable. Have they not taken up amateur Ornithology and typed woodpecker into a Google search on the Internet before? Or have they not glanced through their little-sister’s Seventeen magazine?
Observation #2: Maybe Hollywood is so screwed up that normal American life does seem Puritanical.
Conclusion: Of the top 25 grossing films of all-time in the domestic U.S. only one is rated R: The Passion of the Christ. The remainder of the list includes puritanically boring films like Star Wars, E.T., Shrek 2, The Lord of the Rings, Spiderman, The Lion King, Finding Nemo, and so on and so forth. Even the recently released C.S Lewis Christian-thriller The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe came in at #23.
Maybe America just doesn’t want to see erotic-thrillers.
While Verhoeven and Meyer and the rest of HollyWeird get their kicks watching Grandma Stone take her clothes off, I will churn some butter, get in my horse and buggy, and go see something a little more puritanical.
Last week's Hollywood Reporter contains an almost comical story. Apparently, film industry insiders are blaming the poor box office performance of Basic Instinct 2 on the same people who started Global Warming and planned 9/11:
Paul Verhoeven, director of the first "Basic Instinct" (which scored $353 million worldwide) as well as "Showgirls,” attributes the erotic-thriller genre's demise to the current American political climate.Of course, Basic Instinct 2 would have done better if it hadn't been "banned." It opened March 31, 2006 nationwide and was shown in close to 2,000 theaters nationwide. How would Verhoeven explain the box-office failure of Showgirls (1995) during the Clinton years?
"Anything that is erotic has been banned in the United States," said the Dutch native. "Look at the people at the top (of the government). We are living under a government that is constantly hammering out Christian values. And Christianity and sex have never been good friends."
Scribe Nicholas Meyer, who was an un-credited writer on 1987's seminal sex-fueled cautionary tale "Fatal Attraction," agrees, noting that the genre's downfall coincides with the ascent of the conservative political movement.OK.
We're in a big puritanical mode," he said. "Now, it's like the McCarthy era, except it's not 'Are you a communist?' but 'Have you ever put sex in a movie?"
Observation #1: Who says American culture is "Puritanical"? Have they been confined in the Gulags of Russia since “Leave it to Beaver” went off the air? Have they not watched Fox, CBS, NBC, or ABC every night of the week? We aren’t even talking about cable. Have they not taken up amateur Ornithology and typed woodpecker into a Google search on the Internet before? Or have they not glanced through their little-sister’s Seventeen magazine?
Observation #2: Maybe Hollywood is so screwed up that normal American life does seem Puritanical.
Conclusion: Of the top 25 grossing films of all-time in the domestic U.S. only one is rated R: The Passion of the Christ. The remainder of the list includes puritanically boring films like Star Wars, E.T., Shrek 2, The Lord of the Rings, Spiderman, The Lion King, Finding Nemo, and so on and so forth. Even the recently released C.S Lewis Christian-thriller The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe came in at #23.
Maybe America just doesn’t want to see erotic-thrillers.
While Verhoeven and Meyer and the rest of HollyWeird get their kicks watching Grandma Stone take her clothes off, I will churn some butter, get in my horse and buggy, and go see something a little more puritanical.
12 April 2006
Global Warming: Blame Bush!
Care to read beyond the headlines and actually get at "the facts?" Those disenchanted with the current administration love to feed their blind hatred with the alarmist headlines of the New York Times, Washington Post, LA Times, ABC, NBC, CBS, PBS and NPR with a little humor added from Jon Stewart, the Colbert Report, The Onion, and Paul Krugman.
We watch, read, and listen to them all. Sometimes we have a difficult time distinguishing between the humor and the headline because of their laughable nature and the shrill tone that dominates liberal media.
Unfortunately for these pessimistic purveyors of doom and destruction, the facts don't bear them out. The frustrating thing about facts--pesky little things--is that they always seem to get in the way of the liberal media-propagandized worldview that holds Bush responsible for everything from Katrina to 9/11. Oh wait, he was responsible for that, wasn't he?
In the 1970s environmentalists predicted a great "die off" of over 65 million Americans due to drought and global cooling. The 1980s and 90s saw them predicting "sahara like" conditions throughout the world. We think that makes the alarmists 0 for 3. If we are to believe "The Day After Tomorrow" then global warming will actually cause global cooling and force us all into Mexico. We're scheduled to be in Cancun in June, hopefully that will be soon enough.
Administration critics declare almost daily that the President is wrong about something. Exactly what that is in specific terms (backed up by evidence) remains to be seen. Simply saying that Bush lied, caused Katrina, induced 9/11, illegally wiretapped, leaked, etc. etc., doesn't make it so. And the OpEd page of the New York Times hardly represents a so-called American consensus about the current state of affairs. The politicians and mainstream media that parrot them present one version of reality. It is hardly the only version or the accurate one.
Here's one example:
The following is a piece by Rirchard Lindzen - Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Atmospheric Science at MIT
__________
Climate of Fear
By RICHARD LINDZEN
There have been repeated claims that this past year's hurricane activity was another sign of human-induced climate change. Everything from the heat wave in Paris to heavy snows in Buffalo has been blamed on people burning gasoline to fuel their cars, and coal and natural gas to heat, cool and electrify their homes. Yet how can a barely discernible, one-degree increase in the recorded global mean temperature since the late 19th century possibly gain public acceptance as the source of recent weather catastrophes? And how can it translate into unlikely claims about future catastrophes?
The answer has much to do with misunderstanding the science of climate, plus a willingness to debase climate science into a triangle of alarmism. Ambiguous scientific statements about climate are hyped by those with a vested interest in alarm, thus raising the political stakes for policy makers who provide funds for more science research to feed more alarm to increase the political stakes. After all, who puts money into science -- whether for AIDS, or space, or climate -- where there is nothing really alarming? Indeed, the success of climate alarmism can be counted in the increased federal spending on climate research from a few hundred million dollars pre-1990 to $1.7 billion today. It can also be seen in heightened spending on solar, wind, hydrogen, ethanol and clean coal technologies, as well as on other energy-investment decisions.
But there is a more sinister side to this feeding frenzy. Scientists who dissent from the alarmism have seen their grant funds disappear, their work derided, and themselves libeled as industry stooges, scientific hacks or worse. Consequently, lies about climate change gain credence even when they fly in the face of the science that supposedly is their basis.
To understand the misconceptions perpetuated about climate science and the climate of intimidation, one needs to grasp some of the complex underlying scientific issues. First, let's start where there is agreement. The public, press and policy makers have been repeatedly told that three claims have widespread scientific support: Global temperature has risen about a degree since the late 19th century; levels of CO2 in the atmosphere have increased by about 30% over the same period; and CO2 should contribute to future warming. These claims are true. However, what the public fails to grasp is that the claims neither constitute support for alarm nor establish man's responsibility for the small amount of warming that has occurred. In fact, those who make the most outlandish claims of alarm are actually demonstrating skepticism of the very science they say supports them. It isn't just that the alarmists are trumpeting model results that we know must be wrong. It is that they are trumpeting catastrophes that couldn't happen even if the models were right as justifying costly policies to try to prevent global warming.
If the models are correct, global warming reduces the temperature differences between the poles and the equator. When you have less difference in temperature, you have less excitation of extratropical storms, not more. And, in fact, model runs support this conclusion. Alarmists have drawn some support for increased claims of tropical storminess from a casual claim by Sir John Houghton of the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) that a warmer world would have more evaporation, with latent heat providing more energy for disturbances. The problem with this is that the ability of evaporation to drive tropical storms relies not only on temperature but humidity as well, and calls for drier, less humid air. Claims for starkly higher temperatures are based upon there being more humidity, not less -- hardly a case for more storminess with global warming.
So how is it that we don't have more scientists speaking up about this junk science? It's my belief that many scientists have been cowed not merely by money but by fear. An example: Earlier this year, Texas Rep. Joe Barton issued letters to paleoclimatologist Michael Mann and some of his co-authors seeking the details behind a taxpayer-funded analysis that claimed the 1990s were likely the warmest decade and 1998 the warmest year in the last millennium. Mr. Barton's concern was based on the fact that the IPCC had singled out Mr. Mann's work as a means to encourage policy makers to take action. And they did so before his work could be replicated and tested -- a task made difficult because Mr. Mann, a key IPCC author, had refused to release the details for analysis. The scientific community's defense of Mr. Mann was, nonetheless, immediate and harsh. The president of the National Academy of Sciences -- as well as the American Meteorological Society and the American Geophysical Union -- formally protested, saying that Rep. Barton's singling out of a scientist's work smacked of intimidation.
All of which starkly contrasts to the silence of the scientific community when anti-alarmists were in the crosshairs of then-Sen. Al Gore. In 1992, he ran two congressional hearings during which he tried to bully dissenting scientists, including myself, into changing our views and supporting his climate alarmism. Nor did the scientific community complain when Mr. Gore, as vice president, tried to enlist Ted Koppel in a witch hunt to discredit anti-alarmist scientists -- a request that Mr. Koppel deemed publicly inappropriate. And they were mum when subsequent articles and books by Ross Gelbspan libelously labeled scientists who differed with Mr. Gore as stooges of the fossil-fuel industry.
Sadly, this is only the tip of a non-melting iceberg. In Europe, Henk Tennekes was dismissed as research director of the Royal Dutch Meteorological Society after questioning the scientific underpinnings of global warming. Aksel Winn-Nielsen, former director of the U.N.'s World Meteorological Organization, was tarred by Bert Bolin, first head of the IPCC, as a tool of the coal industry for questioning climate alarmism. Respected Italian professors Alfonso Sutera and Antonio Speranza disappeared from the debate in 1991, apparently losing climate-research funding for raising questions.
And then there are the peculiar standards in place in scientific journals for articles submitted by those who raise questions about accepted climate wisdom. At Science and Nature, such papers are commonly refused without review as being without interest. However, even when such papers are published, standards shift. When I, with some colleagues at NASA, attempted to determine how clouds behave under varying temperatures, we discovered what we called an "Iris Effect," wherein upper-level cirrus clouds contracted with increased temperature, providing a very strong negative climate feedback sufficient to greatly reduce the response to increasing CO2. Normally, criticism of papers appears in the form of letters to the journal to which the original authors can respond immediately. However, in this case (and others) a flurry of hastily prepared papers appeared, claiming errors in our study, with our responses delayed months and longer. The delay permitted our paper to be commonly referred to as "discredited." Indeed, there is a strange reluctance to actually find out how climate really behaves. In 2003, when the draft of the U.S. National Climate Plan urged a high priority for improving our knowledge of climate sensitivity, the National Research Council instead urged support to look at the impacts of the warming -- not whether it would actually happen.
Alarm rather than genuine scientific curiosity, it appears, is essential to maintaining funding. And only the most senior scientists today can stand up against this alarmist gale, and defy the iron triangle of climate scientists, advocates and policymakers.
We watch, read, and listen to them all. Sometimes we have a difficult time distinguishing between the humor and the headline because of their laughable nature and the shrill tone that dominates liberal media.
Unfortunately for these pessimistic purveyors of doom and destruction, the facts don't bear them out. The frustrating thing about facts--pesky little things--is that they always seem to get in the way of the liberal media-propagandized worldview that holds Bush responsible for everything from Katrina to 9/11. Oh wait, he was responsible for that, wasn't he?
In the 1970s environmentalists predicted a great "die off" of over 65 million Americans due to drought and global cooling. The 1980s and 90s saw them predicting "sahara like" conditions throughout the world. We think that makes the alarmists 0 for 3. If we are to believe "The Day After Tomorrow" then global warming will actually cause global cooling and force us all into Mexico. We're scheduled to be in Cancun in June, hopefully that will be soon enough.
Administration critics declare almost daily that the President is wrong about something. Exactly what that is in specific terms (backed up by evidence) remains to be seen. Simply saying that Bush lied, caused Katrina, induced 9/11, illegally wiretapped, leaked, etc. etc., doesn't make it so. And the OpEd page of the New York Times hardly represents a so-called American consensus about the current state of affairs. The politicians and mainstream media that parrot them present one version of reality. It is hardly the only version or the accurate one.
Here's one example:
The following is a piece by Rirchard Lindzen - Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Atmospheric Science at MIT
__________
Climate of Fear
By RICHARD LINDZEN
There have been repeated claims that this past year's hurricane activity was another sign of human-induced climate change. Everything from the heat wave in Paris to heavy snows in Buffalo has been blamed on people burning gasoline to fuel their cars, and coal and natural gas to heat, cool and electrify their homes. Yet how can a barely discernible, one-degree increase in the recorded global mean temperature since the late 19th century possibly gain public acceptance as the source of recent weather catastrophes? And how can it translate into unlikely claims about future catastrophes?
The answer has much to do with misunderstanding the science of climate, plus a willingness to debase climate science into a triangle of alarmism. Ambiguous scientific statements about climate are hyped by those with a vested interest in alarm, thus raising the political stakes for policy makers who provide funds for more science research to feed more alarm to increase the political stakes. After all, who puts money into science -- whether for AIDS, or space, or climate -- where there is nothing really alarming? Indeed, the success of climate alarmism can be counted in the increased federal spending on climate research from a few hundred million dollars pre-1990 to $1.7 billion today. It can also be seen in heightened spending on solar, wind, hydrogen, ethanol and clean coal technologies, as well as on other energy-investment decisions.
But there is a more sinister side to this feeding frenzy. Scientists who dissent from the alarmism have seen their grant funds disappear, their work derided, and themselves libeled as industry stooges, scientific hacks or worse. Consequently, lies about climate change gain credence even when they fly in the face of the science that supposedly is their basis.
To understand the misconceptions perpetuated about climate science and the climate of intimidation, one needs to grasp some of the complex underlying scientific issues. First, let's start where there is agreement. The public, press and policy makers have been repeatedly told that three claims have widespread scientific support: Global temperature has risen about a degree since the late 19th century; levels of CO2 in the atmosphere have increased by about 30% over the same period; and CO2 should contribute to future warming. These claims are true. However, what the public fails to grasp is that the claims neither constitute support for alarm nor establish man's responsibility for the small amount of warming that has occurred. In fact, those who make the most outlandish claims of alarm are actually demonstrating skepticism of the very science they say supports them. It isn't just that the alarmists are trumpeting model results that we know must be wrong. It is that they are trumpeting catastrophes that couldn't happen even if the models were right as justifying costly policies to try to prevent global warming.
If the models are correct, global warming reduces the temperature differences between the poles and the equator. When you have less difference in temperature, you have less excitation of extratropical storms, not more. And, in fact, model runs support this conclusion. Alarmists have drawn some support for increased claims of tropical storminess from a casual claim by Sir John Houghton of the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) that a warmer world would have more evaporation, with latent heat providing more energy for disturbances. The problem with this is that the ability of evaporation to drive tropical storms relies not only on temperature but humidity as well, and calls for drier, less humid air. Claims for starkly higher temperatures are based upon there being more humidity, not less -- hardly a case for more storminess with global warming.
So how is it that we don't have more scientists speaking up about this junk science? It's my belief that many scientists have been cowed not merely by money but by fear. An example: Earlier this year, Texas Rep. Joe Barton issued letters to paleoclimatologist Michael Mann and some of his co-authors seeking the details behind a taxpayer-funded analysis that claimed the 1990s were likely the warmest decade and 1998 the warmest year in the last millennium. Mr. Barton's concern was based on the fact that the IPCC had singled out Mr. Mann's work as a means to encourage policy makers to take action. And they did so before his work could be replicated and tested -- a task made difficult because Mr. Mann, a key IPCC author, had refused to release the details for analysis. The scientific community's defense of Mr. Mann was, nonetheless, immediate and harsh. The president of the National Academy of Sciences -- as well as the American Meteorological Society and the American Geophysical Union -- formally protested, saying that Rep. Barton's singling out of a scientist's work smacked of intimidation.
All of which starkly contrasts to the silence of the scientific community when anti-alarmists were in the crosshairs of then-Sen. Al Gore. In 1992, he ran two congressional hearings during which he tried to bully dissenting scientists, including myself, into changing our views and supporting his climate alarmism. Nor did the scientific community complain when Mr. Gore, as vice president, tried to enlist Ted Koppel in a witch hunt to discredit anti-alarmist scientists -- a request that Mr. Koppel deemed publicly inappropriate. And they were mum when subsequent articles and books by Ross Gelbspan libelously labeled scientists who differed with Mr. Gore as stooges of the fossil-fuel industry.
Sadly, this is only the tip of a non-melting iceberg. In Europe, Henk Tennekes was dismissed as research director of the Royal Dutch Meteorological Society after questioning the scientific underpinnings of global warming. Aksel Winn-Nielsen, former director of the U.N.'s World Meteorological Organization, was tarred by Bert Bolin, first head of the IPCC, as a tool of the coal industry for questioning climate alarmism. Respected Italian professors Alfonso Sutera and Antonio Speranza disappeared from the debate in 1991, apparently losing climate-research funding for raising questions.
And then there are the peculiar standards in place in scientific journals for articles submitted by those who raise questions about accepted climate wisdom. At Science and Nature, such papers are commonly refused without review as being without interest. However, even when such papers are published, standards shift. When I, with some colleagues at NASA, attempted to determine how clouds behave under varying temperatures, we discovered what we called an "Iris Effect," wherein upper-level cirrus clouds contracted with increased temperature, providing a very strong negative climate feedback sufficient to greatly reduce the response to increasing CO2. Normally, criticism of papers appears in the form of letters to the journal to which the original authors can respond immediately. However, in this case (and others) a flurry of hastily prepared papers appeared, claiming errors in our study, with our responses delayed months and longer. The delay permitted our paper to be commonly referred to as "discredited." Indeed, there is a strange reluctance to actually find out how climate really behaves. In 2003, when the draft of the U.S. National Climate Plan urged a high priority for improving our knowledge of climate sensitivity, the National Research Council instead urged support to look at the impacts of the warming -- not whether it would actually happen.
Alarm rather than genuine scientific curiosity, it appears, is essential to maintaining funding. And only the most senior scientists today can stand up against this alarmist gale, and defy the iron triangle of climate scientists, advocates and policymakers.
03 April 2006
ConSource Connection
We attended the ConSource benefit dinner Friday night. Also in attendance were former Supreme Court Justice, Sandra Day O'Connor (the featured speaker), Senators Hatch and Bennett from Utah, Senator Smith from Oregon, Elder Dallin H. Oaks, and Randy Quarles, Undersecretary of the Treasury. At our table sat members of the Eccles family--generous benefactors of the University of Utah and BYU whose name graces the U of U football stadium. We quickly disclosed that we attended BYU and after some good-natured razzing, enjoyed an evening of friendly conversation.
Senator Hatch introduced Justice O'Connor. Among the many anecdotes, we were interested to learn that before meeting and marrying John O'Connor, the future Justice O'Connor briefly dated a young William Rehnquist.
Justice O'Connor's life serves as a wonderful example to aspiring jurists--male and female. Suggesting that her accomplishments--or those of any woman--are only an example to other women is a shibboleth, limiting the scope of their influence and impact of their achievements. We were struck by the sheer volume of Justice O'Connors accolades. What she has done would be impressive for any person--male or female. She isn't just "good for a girl," she is a powerhouse.
She gave a strong speech in favor of ConSource's effort to "democratize" Constitutional documents by making them available to everyone. Though she just turned seventy-six, her age clearly has not slowed her mind or wit as she delivered one-liners with ease. She spoke at length about Justice Warren Berger. He gave up his post as Chief Justice to lead a commission commemorating the bicentennial of the Constitution. A strict constructionist (other than Roe v. Wade), he argued for the importance of Constitutional structures like separation of powers and checks and balances. His love of the Constitution inspired Justice O'Connor and she in turn argued forcefully for the importance of teaching the American founding in public schools. She suggested, and we agree, that ConSource presents an excellent opportunity to expand national knowledge of the Constitution.
Many criticize Justice O'Connor for her "case by case" approach to Supreme Court rulings. Justice Scalia has been particularly unforgiving in his assesment of her rulings which he characterizes as inconsistent and contradictory. The Wall Street Journal took to calling her a "walking amendment." This is no doubt due, in part, to her "swing vote" status on the Court and her unpredictability in decision. Still others appreciate the individualized way in which she approaches each case. Every case is different, they reason, and therefore requires new interpretations of the law which do not necessarily follow precedent.
Following her address we met Justice O'Connor and thanked her for her rousing speech. She did not have time to field any questions--including ours. There are few times when someone meets or exceeds expectations. This was one of those rare moments. The same was also true of Elder Oaks, whom we had not before met.
Thanks and congratulations to Matt Berry who invited us to this event. Mr. Berry is one of the original Founders of ConSource and plays an important role in its continued success.
Senator Hatch introduced Justice O'Connor. Among the many anecdotes, we were interested to learn that before meeting and marrying John O'Connor, the future Justice O'Connor briefly dated a young William Rehnquist.
Justice O'Connor's life serves as a wonderful example to aspiring jurists--male and female. Suggesting that her accomplishments--or those of any woman--are only an example to other women is a shibboleth, limiting the scope of their influence and impact of their achievements. We were struck by the sheer volume of Justice O'Connors accolades. What she has done would be impressive for any person--male or female. She isn't just "good for a girl," she is a powerhouse.
She gave a strong speech in favor of ConSource's effort to "democratize" Constitutional documents by making them available to everyone. Though she just turned seventy-six, her age clearly has not slowed her mind or wit as she delivered one-liners with ease. She spoke at length about Justice Warren Berger. He gave up his post as Chief Justice to lead a commission commemorating the bicentennial of the Constitution. A strict constructionist (other than Roe v. Wade), he argued for the importance of Constitutional structures like separation of powers and checks and balances. His love of the Constitution inspired Justice O'Connor and she in turn argued forcefully for the importance of teaching the American founding in public schools. She suggested, and we agree, that ConSource presents an excellent opportunity to expand national knowledge of the Constitution.
Many criticize Justice O'Connor for her "case by case" approach to Supreme Court rulings. Justice Scalia has been particularly unforgiving in his assesment of her rulings which he characterizes as inconsistent and contradictory. The Wall Street Journal took to calling her a "walking amendment." This is no doubt due, in part, to her "swing vote" status on the Court and her unpredictability in decision. Still others appreciate the individualized way in which she approaches each case. Every case is different, they reason, and therefore requires new interpretations of the law which do not necessarily follow precedent.
Following her address we met Justice O'Connor and thanked her for her rousing speech. She did not have time to field any questions--including ours. There are few times when someone meets or exceeds expectations. This was one of those rare moments. The same was also true of Elder Oaks, whom we had not before met.
Thanks and congratulations to Matt Berry who invited us to this event. Mr. Berry is one of the original Founders of ConSource and plays an important role in its continued success.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)