Saturday, May 31, 2014
A Perverse Tribute To The Excesses Of the 1980s And American Consumerism
Abandoned shopping malls. Let's hope that some of the materials now rotting away on these sites can be recycled in some productive way, though I'm inclined to doubt it.
Why School Vouchers Are Grossly Overrated
They don't produce the results they supposedly are guaranteed to produce. All they do is provide subsidies to schools that neither need nor deserve them.
Could Medicaid Be A 2014 Election Issue?
Medicine Cooler Than "Star Trek"'s?
It seems that that could be where we're headed. We may not have warp drive or transporters, but we will have this.
Thanks For Putting Your Life on the Line, But We Want to Deport Your Spouse
That about sums up where House Republicans are on the subject of immigration reform. When it comes to the undocumented, there are no mitigating circumstances. Not even putting your life on the line for a country that, "legally," isn't even "yours."
The rule of law is meant to serve the ends of justice, and the ends of justice always include mercy where mercy is deserved, to say nothing of being earned. Dear God(s) in heaven, is there no relief from a GOP that has no priorities but itself?
The rule of law is meant to serve the ends of justice, and the ends of justice always include mercy where mercy is deserved, to say nothing of being earned. Dear God(s) in heaven, is there no relief from a GOP that has no priorities but itself?
And So It Begins
Evacuation due to climate change. Get ready, Florida; you may not be far behind. Ditto for all of us.
Good Luck, Vermont
We desperately need single-payer health insurance, and, if you can lead the way, so much the better.
You'll Never Find A Better Anti-Gay Response Than This Commercial
If you have not already seen this, you owe it to yourself to take a look. And, after that, you owe it to yourself to share it with everyone. Even the anti-gay folks you know. They need to see it the most.
The Opponents Of Wind Power Are Full Of Hot Air
It's already having a beneficial impact. Take a look.
We're A Common-Law Nation--And Liberals Should Take Advantage Of It
As much as I despair over the persistent increase in climate change, and our seeming inability to do anything about it, I was equally overjoyed when I saw this article, about a group of young people operating under the name of Our Children's Trust and suing federal agencies over their failure to address the effects of climate change. They are doing so using a novel theory of law: the "public trust doctrine," a guarantee derived from Roman law that public resources will be safeguarded by government for the benefit of future generations.
Part of the argument being made by the petitioners is that the public trust doctrine is an aspect of sovereignty that is implicit in our Constitution. Given the roots of the doctrine in Roman law, this may be a bit of a stretch. Roman law, or civil law in general--that is, a legal system where statutes and not judicial decisions are the final authority--is not explicitly referenced or incorporated into the Constitution. However, the common law--or "judge-made law," as it is sometimes called--is incorporated into it, explicitly by way of the Seventh Amendment:
In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars,
the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be
otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules
of the common law. (Emphasis added.)
It's always puzzled me how conservatives insist that judges in the United States are meant to enforce the law, and not interpret or create it, when the common-law judicial obligation to do so is enscribed in our most basic legal document. John Marshall, the first Chief Justice of the United States, made that point in his opinion deciding the first major case in constitutional law, Marbury v. Madison:
It is emphatically the province and duty of the Judicial Department to say what the law is.
Those who apply the rule to particular cases must, of necessity, expound and interpret
that rule. If two laws conflict with each other, the Courts must decide on the operation of
each.
So, whether conservatives like it or not, judges due in fact have the power to "make" the law. And, given the way the Supreme Court has operated under John Roberts as Chief Justice, they don't seem to be too terribly upset about. I will leave it to the reader to determine whether this reflects simple hypocrisy, or a long-term strategy on the part of conservatives to deny the advantages of the common-law system to their liberal opponents and, ultimately, appropriate it for themselves.
I will, however, say this much: if it reflects the latter, then liberals should have no hesitation at all to engage in creative litigation, as the petitioners of Our Children's Trust our doing. There is plenty of room for this, and it may be the case that, in an otherwise deadlocked political system, this type of litigation offers our best chance to make real progress on progressive priorities across the board. For my part, I would love to see someone argue before the Supreme Court that the Thirteenth Amendment nullifies the Second Amendment, as the latter was only created to protect the slave patrols. What better way to defeat conservatism than to use its own tortured logic against it?
So, let's get going. To paraphrase JFK, let us not litigate out of fear, but let us never fear to litigate. That's how much of our progress has been achieved. And, today, it may be the best avenue for progress that we have.
Part of the argument being made by the petitioners is that the public trust doctrine is an aspect of sovereignty that is implicit in our Constitution. Given the roots of the doctrine in Roman law, this may be a bit of a stretch. Roman law, or civil law in general--that is, a legal system where statutes and not judicial decisions are the final authority--is not explicitly referenced or incorporated into the Constitution. However, the common law--or "judge-made law," as it is sometimes called--is incorporated into it, explicitly by way of the Seventh Amendment:
In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars,
the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be
otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules
of the common law. (Emphasis added.)
It's always puzzled me how conservatives insist that judges in the United States are meant to enforce the law, and not interpret or create it, when the common-law judicial obligation to do so is enscribed in our most basic legal document. John Marshall, the first Chief Justice of the United States, made that point in his opinion deciding the first major case in constitutional law, Marbury v. Madison:
It is emphatically the province and duty of the Judicial Department to say what the law is.
Those who apply the rule to particular cases must, of necessity, expound and interpret
that rule. If two laws conflict with each other, the Courts must decide on the operation of
each.
So, whether conservatives like it or not, judges due in fact have the power to "make" the law. And, given the way the Supreme Court has operated under John Roberts as Chief Justice, they don't seem to be too terribly upset about. I will leave it to the reader to determine whether this reflects simple hypocrisy, or a long-term strategy on the part of conservatives to deny the advantages of the common-law system to their liberal opponents and, ultimately, appropriate it for themselves.
I will, however, say this much: if it reflects the latter, then liberals should have no hesitation at all to engage in creative litigation, as the petitioners of Our Children's Trust our doing. There is plenty of room for this, and it may be the case that, in an otherwise deadlocked political system, this type of litigation offers our best chance to make real progress on progressive priorities across the board. For my part, I would love to see someone argue before the Supreme Court that the Thirteenth Amendment nullifies the Second Amendment, as the latter was only created to protect the slave patrols. What better way to defeat conservatism than to use its own tortured logic against it?
So, let's get going. To paraphrase JFK, let us not litigate out of fear, but let us never fear to litigate. That's how much of our progress has been achieved. And, today, it may be the best avenue for progress that we have.
Look To Kansas As Well As Connecticut
I have previously written about Connecticut's decision to increase the minimum wage, and how it effectively makes Connecticut, and other states that have taken the same step, laboratories for studying the effects of such increases on personal income, employment and the overall state of local economies. I have not, however, written about states that have gone in a different and somewhat oppositional direction--enacting outsized tax cuts in favor of residents with high incomes. These states have effectively become the ultimate laboratories for supply-side economics, the philosophy based on the idea that wealth is created at the top of the economic pyramid, and then "trickles down" to the rest of us.
Well, how's that working out? If you ask folks in Kansas, one of the most reflexively conservative states in the nation, not particularly well. Tax revenue is falling, public services are shrinking, people with little or no income are becoming increasingly desperate--and, alas, the promised economic growth is not happening. Wealth is not trickling down in Kansas. In all probability, it's flowing out of the state and even out of the country, to the real beneficiaries of low rates to those at the top--overseas tax shelters.
This, of course, happened at the federal level in the 1980s, when Reagan and his congressional cronies did exactly the same thing. But they were able to sell their snake-oil in part by assuring people that state governments would benefit from all of the extra revenue that would magically spring from those tax cuts, and that local officials, closer to the problems of the people, would use that money far more wisely that Washington-based bureaucrats could or would.
We have, sadly, seen what supply-side economics have done on a national level. Thanks to the unquestioned acceptance of this wretched philosophy by all Republicans and far too many Democrats, we are no longer the envy of the world--in fact, we are not even remotely close. We are outranked by countries with less national wealth than ours--but who spend that wealth on all of the people, and not a fraction of them. The Kansas "experiment," to put it politely, demonstrates the full extent of that disaster when the philosophy that makes it possible is carried all the way down the ladder of federalism. With no level of government to cushion the blows of everyday life, we become a society that is punching itself to death.
If Kansas can find a way to learn from this, and take corrective action--i.e., electing local officials who care more about the citizens of the state then they do about their campaign contributors--it just might be a sign that their is hope for the rest of the nation. It just might be the end to our long, national nightmare of trickle-down terror. It just might prove Winston Churchill right when he said "You can always count on the Americans to do the right thing--after they have tried everything else."
Kansas' track record in elections doesn't inspire a lot of confidence, but it hasn't stopped me from hoping for the best. And even if the worst is what we get instead, locally and as a nation, we will have sadly earned the destruction we have brought on ourselves.
Well, how's that working out? If you ask folks in Kansas, one of the most reflexively conservative states in the nation, not particularly well. Tax revenue is falling, public services are shrinking, people with little or no income are becoming increasingly desperate--and, alas, the promised economic growth is not happening. Wealth is not trickling down in Kansas. In all probability, it's flowing out of the state and even out of the country, to the real beneficiaries of low rates to those at the top--overseas tax shelters.
This, of course, happened at the federal level in the 1980s, when Reagan and his congressional cronies did exactly the same thing. But they were able to sell their snake-oil in part by assuring people that state governments would benefit from all of the extra revenue that would magically spring from those tax cuts, and that local officials, closer to the problems of the people, would use that money far more wisely that Washington-based bureaucrats could or would.
We have, sadly, seen what supply-side economics have done on a national level. Thanks to the unquestioned acceptance of this wretched philosophy by all Republicans and far too many Democrats, we are no longer the envy of the world--in fact, we are not even remotely close. We are outranked by countries with less national wealth than ours--but who spend that wealth on all of the people, and not a fraction of them. The Kansas "experiment," to put it politely, demonstrates the full extent of that disaster when the philosophy that makes it possible is carried all the way down the ladder of federalism. With no level of government to cushion the blows of everyday life, we become a society that is punching itself to death.
If Kansas can find a way to learn from this, and take corrective action--i.e., electing local officials who care more about the citizens of the state then they do about their campaign contributors--it just might be a sign that their is hope for the rest of the nation. It just might be the end to our long, national nightmare of trickle-down terror. It just might prove Winston Churchill right when he said "You can always count on the Americans to do the right thing--after they have tried everything else."
Kansas' track record in elections doesn't inspire a lot of confidence, but it hasn't stopped me from hoping for the best. And even if the worst is what we get instead, locally and as a nation, we will have sadly earned the destruction we have brought on ourselves.
I Miss Being A Born-Again Christian Too--But Here's How To Deal With It
Like Jessica Misener, the author of this BuzzFeed article, I used to be a born-again Christian. And, at times, I miss certain aspects of it greatly--in particular, the friendships I cultivated during that time. Unlike Ms. Misener, I stuck with it for twice as long as she did--twelve years, to be precise, from the ages of 18 to 30. But, like her, I abandoned it when I reached a point at which my mind could no longer accept much of the dogma I had been fed during that period, frequently on the most dubious of Biblical grounds. Like her, I came to understand that true power comes from knowledge--and that knowledge, and the spirit of inquiry that supports its acquisition, are not things to be avoided and feared, but should be wholeheartedly embraced and enjoyed on a lifelong basis.
But I can relate very powerfully to the void she feels about having lost the sense of mission and purpose that being an evangelical gave to her. Let me offer her, and others in her position, a few words of helpful advice, based on my own experience in walking away from God--and, later on, walking back toward Him, Her, It or Them again.
From the moment of my own conversion experience as a college freshman, which was an outcropping of my involvement with a January-term Bible study in my dorm, it was drummed into my head that any thoughts I had for my own interests and intentions were not God's will, but came either from my own sinful nature or the Devil. This led me down a path in which I would often act against my own best interests, both in career choices and in dating, because I was absolutely convinced that, if I wanted something, that "something" could not possibly be God's will for me.
Oddly enough, the negative effects of this didn't deter me. My evangelical friends would simply remind me that, like the great spiritual figures of Scripture, I was no doubt being prepared for some great destiny. And they would volunteer to pray for me. Not help me, mind you, when I needed a job or a companion. Just pray for me. Because prayer "works wonders." To say nothing of the fact that it's easier and more convenient that actually providing help.
All this led me to a professional and personal dead end a few months after my 30th birthday. It was Christmas, and I was about to be fired from a dead-end job. I had no family of my own, no career prospects, the contempt of my parents, not even a church that really made me feel welcome. I was in complete despair, until I realized I had a choice. Instead of defying my instincts and desires, I could find a way to trust them, and act upon them. If my life was destined to be a failure, then at the very least it would be a failure on my own terms--not on the terms of a God who had seemingly deserted me.
That was slightly more than 27 years ago. Since then, I became a lawyer, passed the bar in three jurisdictions, got married, became a stepfather (and, now, a stepgrandfather), build a career in State government and helped found a law firm with my wife, who fulfilled a lifelong dream by going to law school at night during the early years of our marriage. Along the way, I learned the best way to deal with one's desires and goals--which is not to destroy them, but to express them in ways that benefit others around you. Self-interest and altruism are not mutually exclusive; they can work hand-in-hand, and are at their best when they do so. I've made mistakes in the process, but I've learned from them. And, in the process, I've found the faith to pray again. My prayers now are more contemplative, less dogmatic, and balance personal concerns with the concerns of the world around me.
Ultimately, that is the best advice I can give to you, Ms. Misener, and those in your position. Live your life. Do what interests you without fear or shame, so long as you don't hurt others. Look for ways to find the intersection of your needs and interests, and those of others. If you do those things, you'll find that void you feel will get filled up very quickly. And, along the way, I hope you'll discover as I have that the best way to hold on to God's hand is with a looser grip.
But I can relate very powerfully to the void she feels about having lost the sense of mission and purpose that being an evangelical gave to her. Let me offer her, and others in her position, a few words of helpful advice, based on my own experience in walking away from God--and, later on, walking back toward Him, Her, It or Them again.
From the moment of my own conversion experience as a college freshman, which was an outcropping of my involvement with a January-term Bible study in my dorm, it was drummed into my head that any thoughts I had for my own interests and intentions were not God's will, but came either from my own sinful nature or the Devil. This led me down a path in which I would often act against my own best interests, both in career choices and in dating, because I was absolutely convinced that, if I wanted something, that "something" could not possibly be God's will for me.
Oddly enough, the negative effects of this didn't deter me. My evangelical friends would simply remind me that, like the great spiritual figures of Scripture, I was no doubt being prepared for some great destiny. And they would volunteer to pray for me. Not help me, mind you, when I needed a job or a companion. Just pray for me. Because prayer "works wonders." To say nothing of the fact that it's easier and more convenient that actually providing help.
All this led me to a professional and personal dead end a few months after my 30th birthday. It was Christmas, and I was about to be fired from a dead-end job. I had no family of my own, no career prospects, the contempt of my parents, not even a church that really made me feel welcome. I was in complete despair, until I realized I had a choice. Instead of defying my instincts and desires, I could find a way to trust them, and act upon them. If my life was destined to be a failure, then at the very least it would be a failure on my own terms--not on the terms of a God who had seemingly deserted me.
That was slightly more than 27 years ago. Since then, I became a lawyer, passed the bar in three jurisdictions, got married, became a stepfather (and, now, a stepgrandfather), build a career in State government and helped found a law firm with my wife, who fulfilled a lifelong dream by going to law school at night during the early years of our marriage. Along the way, I learned the best way to deal with one's desires and goals--which is not to destroy them, but to express them in ways that benefit others around you. Self-interest and altruism are not mutually exclusive; they can work hand-in-hand, and are at their best when they do so. I've made mistakes in the process, but I've learned from them. And, in the process, I've found the faith to pray again. My prayers now are more contemplative, less dogmatic, and balance personal concerns with the concerns of the world around me.
Ultimately, that is the best advice I can give to you, Ms. Misener, and those in your position. Live your life. Do what interests you without fear or shame, so long as you don't hurt others. Look for ways to find the intersection of your needs and interests, and those of others. If you do those things, you'll find that void you feel will get filled up very quickly. And, along the way, I hope you'll discover as I have that the best way to hold on to God's hand is with a looser grip.
Reparations: An Alternative To Affirmative Action?
For over a decade, I've listened to and discussed the case for and against reparations as a means of addressing the long-term effects of the injustices dealt to African Americans. I've never had a problem with the basis for the argument in favor of reparations--that African Americans, due to slavery, segregation and pervasive bigotry, were cheated out of the full economic benefits of their work and sacrifices. But the logistical problems of implementing such a problem are enormous, and seem at first glance unsolvable. There are two basic questions: who gets the reparations, and how much should we pay?
The first question generates its own difficult questions. Do we make payments to individuals, or families? Do we investigate family histories, to determine whether some have suffered more than others? Do we have a cut-off point for determining when the effects of racism have ended? And, if we do, what should that cut-off point be? The decision in Brown vs. Board of Education? The enactment of the Civil Rights Act? The election of President Obama?
And the same applies to the question of "how much." If we measure the answer in dollars, and allow for the potential of interest and other effects of investment--capital gains, new discoveries, advancements in productivity and so on--it's clear that the cost is enormous, no matter how you try to calculate it. This, of course, brings to mind the problem of damages in our common-law system of redressing injuries. We can never restore the status quo ante in most cases, so we attempt to come up with a sum that reflects as best we can our outrage at the injury, in addition to helping the injured make the most of their altered lives.
In short, reparations may be a solution, but far from an easy one. This recent Slate.com article does a excellent job of supporting the case for making reparations, and summing up the difficulties in doing so. More importantly, it suggest that overcoming those difficulties may not be impossible. There may, in fact, be forms of reparations that are not strictly monetary, such as greater enforcement of existing laws, or ending programs such as the so-called "war on drugs" that are inherently discriminatory in effect. As for monetary reparations, they could be broken down to address different effects of racism--from housing vouchers to investment programs designed to generate income for reparations.
Maybe reparations can be a way of getting past the debate about affirmative action programs, and the question of whether such programs operate mechanically to aid individuals who don't need it, while blocking the progress of those who do. However well designed and well intended such programs were, it is clear that they no longer have the political support (or, at least, tolerance) they once received. It is also no less clear that the racism affirmative action was designed to address still exists.
But what is equally clear, as the Slate author points out, is that we need a path to a national reckoning with the original sin of slavery, the sin that is baked into our national birth certificate, the Declaration of Independence. We need to formally acknowledge the wrong that has been done, and find a way to pay for it. This is where Chief Justice John Roberts is grievously wrong. The way to end discrimination on the basis of race is not simply to end it. It is to acknowledge how it was created, and the fact that it must-and will--be paid for by those who have benefited from it.
The first question generates its own difficult questions. Do we make payments to individuals, or families? Do we investigate family histories, to determine whether some have suffered more than others? Do we have a cut-off point for determining when the effects of racism have ended? And, if we do, what should that cut-off point be? The decision in Brown vs. Board of Education? The enactment of the Civil Rights Act? The election of President Obama?
And the same applies to the question of "how much." If we measure the answer in dollars, and allow for the potential of interest and other effects of investment--capital gains, new discoveries, advancements in productivity and so on--it's clear that the cost is enormous, no matter how you try to calculate it. This, of course, brings to mind the problem of damages in our common-law system of redressing injuries. We can never restore the status quo ante in most cases, so we attempt to come up with a sum that reflects as best we can our outrage at the injury, in addition to helping the injured make the most of their altered lives.
In short, reparations may be a solution, but far from an easy one. This recent Slate.com article does a excellent job of supporting the case for making reparations, and summing up the difficulties in doing so. More importantly, it suggest that overcoming those difficulties may not be impossible. There may, in fact, be forms of reparations that are not strictly monetary, such as greater enforcement of existing laws, or ending programs such as the so-called "war on drugs" that are inherently discriminatory in effect. As for monetary reparations, they could be broken down to address different effects of racism--from housing vouchers to investment programs designed to generate income for reparations.
Maybe reparations can be a way of getting past the debate about affirmative action programs, and the question of whether such programs operate mechanically to aid individuals who don't need it, while blocking the progress of those who do. However well designed and well intended such programs were, it is clear that they no longer have the political support (or, at least, tolerance) they once received. It is also no less clear that the racism affirmative action was designed to address still exists.
But what is equally clear, as the Slate author points out, is that we need a path to a national reckoning with the original sin of slavery, the sin that is baked into our national birth certificate, the Declaration of Independence. We need to formally acknowledge the wrong that has been done, and find a way to pay for it. This is where Chief Justice John Roberts is grievously wrong. The way to end discrimination on the basis of race is not simply to end it. It is to acknowledge how it was created, and the fact that it must-and will--be paid for by those who have benefited from it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)