Threading the Needle

The "C" Word

2006-01-04T03:27:00.000-07:00

Words are funny things. In the most simple sense, they exist to convey explicit meaning. A word has a specific definition, articulated in any number of dictionaries, and its use is intended to express this specific idea. In fact, these dictionaries could, in theory, serve as translation devices, converting seemingly random phonetic combinations into comprehensible meaning.

But, language is not so simple, for there exists an additional layer of connotational meaning in each word we utter. There may be a simple explicit meaning for a word in a given context, but that word may also carry a judgment or moral evaluation along with it. If we fail to recognize the existence of this connotational meaning, an important component of communication is lost.

Additionally, especially once we enter into the world of rhetoric, this implicit connotational meaning often overshadows the explicit message of the speaker in question. True, this is typically the sign of someone who either has a poor grasp of the language or is intent upon deceiving his audience (or both). But despite how poorly this phenomenon reflects upon those who employ it, language and its use cannot be understood without paying respect to this technique.

To demonstrate this phenomenon in action, I give you this post by a gentleman by the name of MacRanger.

MacRanger is upset by Representative John Murtha's recent statement that he would neither join today's military nor encourage others to do so. Now, I completely understand MacRanger's anger here -- Murtha's hawkish credentials make his criticisms particularly stinging to those who would make apologies for this ridiculous endeavor in Iraq. Were I bent that way, I too would be looking for a method to devalue his message. But, since I have a relatively strong grasp of the English language, I doubt I would follow MacRanger's lead.

Murtha needs to shut his chickensh_t pie-hole. Other's might not want to say that, but this ex-military career man will. There are two ways to undermine our military. 1) Give up secrets, 2) Give in to cowardess [sic].

[…]

…Your're not the only one whose served and said "War is hell". You pathetic coward.

He then goes on to approvingly quote an extremely disturbing memo by General Patton -- wherein he demands that soldiers who are suffering from trauma disorders be denied psychological intervention -- to underline his central theme: John Murtha is a coward.

Really?

Well, let me ask this question. Had John Murtha instead demanded that we stay the course or, better yet, increase the intensity of our aggression, would that make him courageous? Does MacRanger consider his support for the Iraq War a mark of bravery? In fact, is any statement -- pro or con -- made 10,000 miles from the frontline indicative of anything with respect to bravery or cowardice?

Of course not. And I'm willing to bet that MacRanger understands this (although, I'm more than willing to be proven wrong on this assertion). However, "coward" and "cowardice" are words heavy with negative connotational meaning. It might not be accurate in this context, but it does serve the purpose of tarring Murtha on the cheap. Why waste the effort of explaining why Murtha's position is wrong when one can simply call him names?

Since I don't expect an answer from MacRanger, I'll offer one: we're not in grade school anymore. When I want to insult someone, I'll use words that accurately describe his behavior and why his behavior is wrong. It just seems like the grown-up thing to do. In this way I feel that I respect both myself and my audience.

But, this grown-up stuff isn't for everyone. It's still a free country, after all. So, if this is your level of dialogue MacRanger, knock yourself out. And when you're ready to sit at the grown-up table with the rest of us, we'll all be waiting.

Hiatus

2005-09-06T00:10:00.000-06:00

As many of you have surely noticed, things have been pretty slow around here of late. There are a lot of reasons for this (school, work, etc.). However, I'm sure that if I were properly motivated, these obstacles could be overcome -- or at least managed better than they have been recently. This leads me to the somewhat uncomfortable realization that I'm not sufficiently motivated to run this project the way that it should be run. Over the last month, I've been able to post a few articles. But, clearly, both quantity and quality have been suffering. I've tried to work through it, to see if just grinding through an uninspired period would lead to greener pastures. Unfortunately, that doesn't seem to have worked.

Therefore, I've decided to take a little break.

I've been quite proud of a lot of the work that I've done here and over at TIA. As I've thought about it, I've realized that I need some time away from this if I'm going to maintain the standards I've set for myself. It will allow me to read some new ideas, develop new insights, and simply re-energize my passion for this work. The only way I can do that is to stop until I'm ready to begin again. I'll know when that happens.

So -- that's it for now. But, don't worry. Like the great gropinator -- I'll be back.

Conversion Disorder

2005-08-25T00:15:00.000-06:00

What can one say about The Volokh Conspiracy? On the one hand, their contributors are intelligent, intellectually honest, and generally civil. This is no mean feat given that the right-leaning end of the blogosphere is currently being overrun by dishonest idiots who also happen to be complete jackasses.

On the other hand, they have flaws -- the most serious of which is that they have a tendency to argue from an ivory tower (much like that stereotypical Manhattan liberal I keep hearing about). I first took serious notice of this back during the debate over bankruptcy reform, when Todd Zywicki casually questioned whether or not death should count as a serious medical problem. It's a classic case of being unable to see the forest for the trees -- the argument is solid as far as it goes, but the larger context renders it nonsensical. That's a problem.

Well, they're at it again and this time it's Eugene.

Gays and Lesbians Trying to Convert Others to Homosexual Behavior: I've seen lots of assertions that it's a "myth" that gays and lesbians try to recruit others into homosexuality…Yet it seems to me that this assertion of "myth" is likely itself something of a myth, or at least quite incomplete.

Now we all know what he's talking about here. It's a fairly stock piece of conservative Christian propaganda that there exists a homosexual cabal, ensconced in Hollywood and in our colleges and universities, that is actively attempting to lure otherwise God-fearing heterosexuals into the exciting, yet sinful, world of man-on-man/woman-on-one fluid exchange. I've always found this to be a rather amusing argument because of what it implies about those making it. I don't believe it because I know I'm not vulnerable to persuasion in this arena. To be blunt: I don't like dick -- and no amount of fancy talk is going to convince me otherwise. The fact that some people believe in conversion theory implies that they sense a certain -- shall we say -- personal malleability on this issue within themselves. How else could they be so certain that conversion risks exist?

However, that's not where Eugene is going.

The gay rights movement has aimed — in my view, on balance quite laudably — to make homosexuals feel more comfortable with their homosexuality, and to help people who are attracted to the same sex be more willing to act on that attraction. But it follows that the movement also necessarily, and I suspect intentionally, also helps people who are attracted to both sexes be more willing to explore the homosexual facet of that attraction. It thus increases the likelihood that the bisexually-attracted people who would otherwise engage in purely heterosexual relationships (because of fear of social stigma, or because of their own disapproval of their homosexual attraction) will instead be also willing to engage in some homosexual relationships.

If I'm right, the movement thus is trying to convert those who have a bisexual orientation but act purely heterosexually — or would act purely heterosexually, if we're talking about people who haven't started having sex yet — into also experimenting with homosexuality. This doesn't mean that most gays and lesbians are trying to do this to particular people up close and personal; there are obvious costs to that, such as the risk of rebuff if you get the other person's interest wrong, or the risk of quick abandonment if the other person is interested in experimenting but then concludes the experiment has been a failure from his or her point of view, so many gays and lesbians might well prefer partners who have a more definite homosexual preference. But there are many actions that might go into this sort of "conversion" (if only a conversion into a mix of homosexual/heterosexual behavior, and a conversion that in many cases will end up proving to be only temporary): Providing oneself for the actual sexual behavior is one, but so is public action to destigmatize homosexual behavior, or to provide positive homosexual or bisexual role models, something that for perfectly understandable reasons many gays and lesbians are indeed trying to do.

In other words, by creating an environment where the stigma against homosexuality is less severe, homosexual activists are "converting" non-practicing homosexuals and hetero-only bisexuals into practicing versions of same.

Now, I don't know about you, but that's not exactly what I would call conversion. In my mind (and in the mind of the conversion theorists), conversion means straights being drawn to the dark side and exploding as flaming queers, not the release of latent/closet tendencies that have been bubbling beneath the surface the whole time. When people talk about the "myth" of recruitment, they're talking about the former phenomenon, not the latter.

So -- it seems like the "myth" is a myth after all, and Eugene's argument is no more than a strawman. Sure, it might be interesting to examine how the softening of social stigma leads to an increased expression of homosexual behavior. And it might be technically accurate (as Eugene argues later in his post) to refer to it as conversion. But using that terminology in a public sphere, knowing the connotations it has in that context, is -- well -- clueless.

Fortunately, Orin Kerr pushed back on Eugene fairly hard (you can follow the entire discussion here), thus saving The Conspiracy's position on the blog roll for another day. But, I'm warning you guys. You do this 12 or 13 more times and you're cut.

Seriously.

Redirect

2005-08-23T00:56:00.000-06:00

Nope -- nothing here today.

However, my doppelgänger has once again appeared at TIA. Head on over.

The Black Hat

2005-08-15T12:35:00.000-06:00

Like many of you, I have been watching the Cindy Sheehan story evolve with a strange mixture of sadness, hope, and revulsion. Like so much of what passes for political discourse these days, this event plays out as a spectacular piece of calculated theater. But unlike our traditional diet of sound and fury, the emotions that drive Cindy Sheehan's display are not drawn from theory or generated from method. No matter what else you might say about Sheehan the activist or Sheehan the political figure, she is Sheehan: mother of a dead son. Everything else is drawn from that cruel reality. And everyone knows that.

So, in the moments where I am able to successfully repress the rage I feel as the soulless war apologists do everything in their power to obscure this woman's clear and simple message, I'm struck by how foolish the conservative reaction to this protest has been. In a certain sense, their reaction has been just another rendition of the old standby: attack the messenger. But by playing hardball with the mother of a soldier who died for the cause they support, it's nearly impossible to get away without looking like a total asshole. That might work when targeting a former ambassador, a presidential candidate and war hero, or a former counterterrorism adviser -- all of who have made a living, to varying degrees, in the rough and tumble world of professional politics. Not so with Cindy Sheehan. When they go after her this way, they voluntarily wear black hats.

I suppose that it's possible that this has simply become a reflex or that they simply don't know any better. But, I think it's a little more complicated than that. I think that Cindy Sheehan is extremely dangerous to the conservative case for war and I think that, consciously or unconsciously, they know it.

Last week, while justifying his use of the term chickenhawk, Publius had the following to say:

But even putting the whole chickenhawk point aside, you can tell from the actions of both the administration and the nation that people’s hearts are not in this war. Again, not from their words, but from their actions and. For example, the draft is not even whispered by an elected official in Washington (well, ok, 99.9% of elected officials). That’s an extremely telling action. If people really – really – believed in this war, they would be willing to accept a draft. But it’s worse than that. The American public won’t accept – indeed, are not asked to accept – even the tiniest sacrifice for the war effort. No new taxes to fund armor. No new taxes on gasoline to limit dependence. The President won’t even press people to sign up for the military (one sentence in passing, last I checked). And we are all familiar with the recruiting shortfalls.

This points to one of the most disturbing aspects of this conflict -- for most people, this war doesn't really exist. We see the news reports and we hear about the costs in terms of dollars and coalition lives, but all of that is an abstraction. Although there clearly will be a price to pay for this excursion somewhere down the road, there is nothing that is immediately tangible to it.

This fact has been critical to the marketing of the war. True, many of those who initially supported the war did so because of the threatened cross-section of Islamic terrorism and Iraqi nuclear weapons. However, an important corollary was the belief that we could easily achieve our goals and that the costs would be minimal. Now that the primary justifications for our invasion have evaporated, and weaker justifications have been promoted to replace them, it becomes even more important that the perceived cost of the conflict be low. Since the perceived benefit of the conflict has been reduced, our cost threshold has been similarly lowered.

But, as Publius pointed out, we really haven't been asked to pay anything. It's been a free ride. As long as you aren't directly connected to the military or living in Iraq, your metaphorical wallet has been safe.

However -- what happens when those who have actually been footing the bill start to complain?

This is the threat that Cindy Sheehan represents. She and many others like her have been paying the costs for the rest of us. First she paid by having her leave her side to enter the conflict. Then she paid by losing him forever. And when she does her cost-benefit analysis, it doesn't add up. It isn't even close.

Thus far, the families of those who have died or been injured in Iraq have quietly endured the burden we have placed upon them. They have chosen to believe that the cause has been just and their sacrifice noble. Some surely believe this. Others cling to it, the cognitive dissonance of meaningless death and dismemberment too overwhelming to face directly. Still others question the costs outright, but do so silently, afraid to speak out alone.

Sometimes, though, all it takes is for one person to speak out. When they do, others of like mind begin to crystallize around them. If that were to occur to any significant degree, the illusion of a cost free conflict would be broken. The sheer duration and the abstract tallies of combat losses have already begun to erode this myth. An army of Cindy Sheehans would demolish it completely. And though they might stoop to slime a single mother standing alone, they could not hope to turn the tide against a movement built around her. It would be the end of the war, pure and simple.

It is better to wear a black hat and hopefully nip this movement in the bud. Discredit her, label her a traitor, imply that she is dishonoring her son, and hope that this dissuades other mothers from asking why their sons and daughters had to die, whether this conflict is worth the cost they are paying. Before it's too late.

I've got to admit -- the war apologists find himself in a bad spot. Given that they can't address the argument on its face, they have no choice but to slay the messenger before her message reaches too many ears. It's ugly and they know it. Yet, above all else, the conservative justification for war must be preserved. If it means wearing an ugly stain on their conscience, so be it. All other priorities have been rescinded.

So, while it may be painful to watch this disgusting display, we can take heart in knowing that the uglier the response, the closer to the end we are. And given how ugly things have become, I think it's safe to say that there is at least one movement that is truly in its last throes.

Thinking Outside the Box

2005-08-09T15:39:00.000-06:00

I have to get one of these for my car.

I'm all for teaching DUH
in America's schools!

Excuses, Excuses

2005-08-08T04:14:00.000-06:00

Yes -- things sure have been slow of late. For that, I apologize. Doing this right takes time, and I haven't quite worked all the kinks out of my new schedule yet. It's frustrating, but the real world still has to come first.

At any rate, I've opted in general to be silent rather than post crap. If you ever got to see the stuff that doesn't make the cut, you would wholeheartedly endorse my decision. Trust me.

For now, check out my newest post hosted at TIA. I know -- it isn't Friday. But, sometimes things just work out this way. Deal with it.

Hopefully, I'll make strides in ordering my life, which will allow me to be a little bit more consistent. Until then, I appreciate your patience.

-- TTN

Update: Part II of the post alluded to above is now ready for your perusal at TIA. Don't miss it.

Intelligent Designer-in-Chief

2005-08-03T01:56:00.000-06:00

I don't have a lot to say this evening, but I can't let this go by without comment.

President Bush said Monday he believes schools should discuss “intelligent design” alongside evolution when teaching students about the creation of life…

“I think that part of education is to expose people to different schools of thought,” Bush said. “You’re asking me whether or not people ought to be exposed to different ideas, the answer is yes.”

As usual, Bush is parsing words. He avoids revealing his own opinion with regard to intelligent design, while cloaking his support for its inclusion by claiming that he merely endorses exposing children to "different ideas."

Oh really?

Let's all remember that this is the man who sold us the GWOT as a struggle between good and evil, tyranny and freedom, black and white. Could there be ideas -- different ideas -- that are driving violent Islamic extremism? Clearly, Bush would say no. In fact, he and his surrogates have consistently ridiculed anyone who has even intimated such a possibility.

So, Bush isn't so much an advocate of the "marketplace of ideas" as he is an intellectual mercenary, employing whatever argument that he feels will move his position forward. As things currently stand, he can't come right out and endorse creationism over -- or to the exclusion of -- evolution, since such a stand would be far too controversial, even amongst some of his most loyal supporters. Therefore, he says what he can to ensure that intelligent design has a seat at the table.

Were the shoe on the other foot, would he be so generous? If creationism dominated public school science classes, would there then be support for "different ideas" emanating from the White House? Need I answer.

Here it is: Bush is correct when he says that there is right and wrong in this world. He just hasn't figured out where this binary perspective should be applied. So far, this application is driven by expediency. But, the fact is that he doesn't get to choose where this calculus works. Some things are just wrong.

Today, Bush is on that list.

Guilty!

2005-07-29T02:15:00.000-06:00

Certainly those of you who have been paying attention have noticed the evolution of the conservative position on Karl Rove of late. If not, you might want to peruse Kevin Drum's recent summary on the subject (bonus: it is a wonderful, and somewhat uncharacteristic, rant that is as funny as it is informative). As you do so, make sure you pay special attention to the following details:

During the past month, however, the growing evidence that someone in the White House really did expose Plame has caused more than a bit of panic — and a change of heart…Since then, the proposition that it wasn't a big deal even if the White House did out Plame, has become a routine talking point.

This point is hammered home even further later in the post, this time while discussing Senator Pat Roberts' upcoming hearings.

Senator Pat Roberts, the Republican chairman of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, announced that he "intends to preside over hearings on the intelligence community's use of covert protections for CIA agents and others involved in secret activities."

Let that sink in. Does it sound like Roberts is concerned about CIA agents being exposed in the press? Of course not. Instead, Roberts is preemptively defending Rove by implying that perhaps the real problem is that the CIA overuses clandestine cover for its agents.

Of course, this is all an absolute outrage, a hypocrisy of staggering proportions. But before we are driven to pull out our hair in frustration, we should step back and calmly reflect on the meaning of these current events.

Karl Rove is guilty!

Now, I'm generally the last person to jump to conclusions regarding the guilt or innocence of criminal defendants. Moreover, I generally believe that, once someone becomes a suspect, their behavior is a particularly poor barometer of their criminal culpability. Regardless of guilt or innocence, everyone becomes a tad cantankerous once they are the focus of a criminal probe.

In this case, though, I'm going to make an exception. You see, Karl Rove is no ordinary defendant. Unlike you or I, there's no chance that Rove is going to be accidentally railroaded by an overzealous prosecutor. He is, after all, the second most powerful man on earth (right after Dick Cheney) and one doesn't hunt game of this magnitude unless you have the goods or you are intent on professional suicide.

At this point, pretty much everyone has reached the same conclusion. Patrick Fitzgerald clearly has something and, from the information that has percolated into the public consciousness, it's pretty clear what it is. If factual innocence was a viable defense in this instance, you can be sure that it would be used. The fact that the "it wasn't that bad" defense has suddenly taken center stage tells you all you need to know.

Of course, some might argue that I'm jumping to conclusions here. To them, I say consider the following: would you believe a murder suspect who claimed innocence -- but added that if you found him guilty, you should consider the slaying an act of self-defense. In other words, I didn't do it -- but if I did, I had a good reason.

Not terribly convincing, wouldn't you say?

This isn't to say that Karl Rove is going to jail. Obviously, there's a lot that can still happen to avert that glorious end. As always with these jokers, I pray for the best, yet brace for the worst.

But the overriding factual issue at hand can be put to bed. The jury is in on Karl Rove.

Sorry -- I'm Not Here Right Now...

2005-07-22T16:21:00.000-06:00

You will, once again, find a brand spanking new TTN post over at TIA.

Thanks for stopping by. Please come again.

Every Blog Has Its Day

2005-07-22T13:17:00.000-06:00

You can learn a lot of funny things from your referrer logs. Case in point: it seems that a number of my recent visitors have been led here by performing Google searches for the terms "threading the needle day." And, if you follow the link, you'll discover that ~~Sunday~~ Monday, July 25, is in fact National Threading the Needle Day. How about that?

What is National Threading the Needle Day? In truth, I have no idea. However, if you chose to celebrate the existence of my blog, I promise to back you up.

Gifts are likely appropriate. Or money. Your choice -- but keep the value under 10 grand so I don't have to report it to the IRS.

The Weakly Standard

2005-07-21T03:01:00.000-06:00

Okay -- let's talk about Karl Rove.

One of the things that has gotten everyone in a tizzy over the last couple of days is Bush's new standard for Rove's termination -- specifically:

If someone committed a crime, they will no longer work in my administration.

This is, of course, quite different from his former assertions, that anyone involved in the leak would be terminated. So, on one level, I'm happy to see that this departure has not gone unnoticed.

However, on another level, I'm not sure that I would spend too much time harping on this issue. I say this for a couple of reasons.

First, while this allows us to score a few cheap political points against Bush, it is extremely unlikely to amount to anything. Bush certainly isn't going to be shamed into honoring his original position and few converts will be acquired in the process of highlighting his hypocrisy. This is no more than a Democratic "feel-good" moment. And while it feels good, I think we would all be better served with something a little more lasting.

Second, is far from clear to me whether or not Rove's removal benefits Democrats at this point. Usually when a presidential appointee steps down for the mere appearance of impropriety, the real motivator for it is practical and not ethical. It is done to avoid tarnishing the administration at large and, in so, derailing the agenda. In this case, the smart play was clearly for Bush to can Rove once it became clear that he was involved. Of course, Bush is far too stubborn for that -- and this time it works to our advantage. The longer he sits on this rotten egg, the more thoroughly its stink permeates through the entire administration. They will have to spend more time playing defense and will have less energy left to push through controversial policy initiatives. Ultimately, it means the administration will be weaker. So, it isn't how I would play it, but if George wants to tie his presidency to a sinking anchor, far be it from me to stand in his way.

Lastly, the "commission of a crime" standard has been, I feel, incorrectly portrayed as a difficult threshold to achieve. Now, if Bush had set the standard at "conviction of a crime", or even at "indictment", I would agree. But, he did no such thing.

You see, as we all recall from civics class, a criminal conviction requires proof "beyond a shadow of a doubt." This high burden of proof exists because we want to be certain that no questions of guilt exist before we allow the state to deprive an individual of liberty or property. However, from a practical standpoint, this means that "not guilty" verdicts are not interchangeable with factual innocence. Without a doubt, many who receive a "not guilty" verdict have actually committed the crime in question, but the state was unable to demonstrate that fact to the level of certainty required by law. To a lesser degree, the same thing is true with respect to indictments. While it is said that a prosecutor could indict a ham sandwich, in the real world prosecutors rarely seek indictments unless they strongly believe that they will eventually be able to achieve a conviction. The absurdly high conviction rates of most prosecutors demonstrate how accurately they are able to gauge the strength of their cases.

On the other hand, factual guilt is an entirely different question -- a point raised by "law and order" pundits every time a supposedly guilty man goes free. And, unless Bush revises his position further, that's the standard currently on the table. Therefore, if Fitzgerald decides against seeking an indictment, but presents ample evidence that the crime likely took place, that should be enough to require Rove's termination.

Of course, Bush will, in the end, likely attempt to claim that a non-indictment is akin to exoneration. But, depending on the character of Fitzgerald's final report, that may be a tough sell. This will be especially true if Rove continues to stink up the joint for the next couple of months. After weeks of headlines and damaging leaks, anything less than a mea culpa from the special prosecutor will send Karl to the bench. And that would be fine with me.

So, for now, let's just let them all twist in the wind. They have more than enough rope to hang themselves and I wouldn't want to do anything to slow them down.

"Frack" You

2005-07-19T02:58:00.000-06:00

Now that things have finally settled down here in my life, it's time to get back to our regular diet of Bush-bashing. Frankly, with all that has been going on a late, it's been torture to remain mute.

However, I don't want to jump on the Rove thing right away. That's some serious heavy lifting. Instead, I'm going to warm up on lighter fare so I don't pull something. I'm not 18 anymore, you know.

On that note, let's talk about Battlestar Galactica.

I'm not the crazy sci-fi geek that I was as a youth, but I still have some passion left for the genre (as evidenced by this post). So, when I started hearing that the new Battlestar Galactica was really worth checking out, I immediately... Well, I immediately thought that the people telling me this had gone batshit insane. Because, as much of a sci-fi geek as I was, I can remember the original series and -- let's be honest here – it blew.

But, as the retooled version headed into its second season, people began buzzing about it once more. And some of those buzzing seem to be pretty on the ball in other respects. So, I figured "what the heck?" I have a TiVo and a bong -- how bad could it be?

Verdict: not that bad. Of course, I have no idea about the storyline or characters at this point, so it's hard to know how believable the plot actually is. But the production value is much higher than expected and the grittiness of the battle scenes made them delightfully intense. All in all, it was good enough to merit a Season Pass nomination for the time being.

However, there is one little thing.

Clearly, part of the creators' goal was to create a very brutal, raw, and real universe. And these creators knew that, in the real world, when people are faced with intense, life and death situations, they tend to say "fuck" an awful lot.

Unfortunately, you can't say that on basic cable. You can say a lot of other words, but admittedly nothing quite does it like "fuck". It's just one of those words.

This has been a dilemma for TV screenwriters since time immemorial (or since the FCC started laying down heavy fines for broadcast transgressions). Usually, the dialogue is modified in order to avoid the f-bomb. This leads to a lot of "I don't give a damn” (as opposed to "I don't give a fuck”) and "screw you" (as opposed to "fuck you"). It's a little silly, but at least it's English.

The creators of Battlestar Galactica, however, have decided that this isn't good enough and have, instead, created a new word for us.

Frack.

This word has been globally pasted into the script in every instance where a "fuck" would normally be. In fact, I suspect that the writers simply write what they want, and then do a search and replace for every instance of "fuck." I don't know if that's how they do it, but there's no practical reason why such a strategy wouldn't work. The two words are interchangeable in every respect, with nary a grammatical or idiomatic deviation to be found. Just whenever you would expect a "fuck", you have a "frack" instead.

Two observations.

First -- to the creators. This is incredibly distracting. One of the burdens of science fiction is that there is a fairly high burden of disbelief that the story must attain for it to be enjoyable. The stories take place in strange worlds, with aliens and space travel and all sorts of other things that we never experience in real life. The viewer must be able to lose himself in the story so that these issues of believability never have an opportunity to bubble to the surface, breaking the spell. However, every time I hear an utterance of "frack", I can't help but think about the FCC -- something I'm pretty sure doesn't exist in the Battlestar Galactica universe. Maybe I'll get over this -- but, then again, maybe not. We'll see.

Second -- to the censors. Is this really what you intended? Is preventing the use of the word "fuck" really about offensive phonetics? Is the problem of that word -- whatever that problem is -- really alleviated by this strategy? Is it really OK to express everything that you would otherwise expressed with the use of the word "fuck" as long as you don't say "fuck"?

You can get back to me on that.

Anyway -- this isn't a deal killer -- yet. But, if I'm still cracking a smile every time I hear that silly word three episodes from now, I'm pulling the plug. I'll let you know.

Reports of My Death...

2005-07-10T12:08:00.000-06:00

Lest you are under the impression that my work has again come to a crashing halt, please take a moment to visit my every-other-Friday-home-away-from-home, Total Information Awareness, which is hosting my most recent effort.

Look for more to show up here later in the week.

The Sharks and the Insurgency

2005-07-05T00:53:00.000-06:00

And so, sharks are in the news again these days. It seems hard to believe that the media has worked itself up into a frenzy over this subject, given what happened the last time "death from the deep" was dominating the headlines. But, to a certain degree, I understand.

You see, I have a somewhat long-standing fascination with sharks myself. I saw Jaws 2 at the tender age of 10 or so and have been an avid shark-o-phile ever since. I've probably read about a hundred books on the subject and have been known to schedule vacations around the Discovery Channel's Shark Week. In fact, "cage diving with great white sharks" is prominently featured on my short list of things to do before I die -- right above climbing Kilimanjaro, if memory serves.

At any rate, this is just a long way of saying that I'm familiar with the subject. And it is this familiarity allows me to confidently state that the recent hysteria over these attacks in Florida is exactly that -- hysteria. The threat of shark attack has not increased recently. The odds are now what they have always been: indescribable low. So, you can relax. The water is actually quite safe.

Of course, you'd never know that given the way the media is reacting. Frankly, it's understandable that people are beginning to get the impression that the water is churning with bloodthirsty sharks who crave human flesh. With every attack gobbling copious amounts each news cycle, who could blame the casual observer from arriving at this erroneous conclusion. The reality is that the overwhelming majority of beachgoers enjoy their coastal adventures completely free of any threat of predation. If only our anti-shark media could set aside its bias long enough to give a full and accurate report of all beachfront activities, then we would have a much clearer understanding of the shark situation.

Notice anything funny there at the end of that last paragraph? Yep -- I sort of drifted off into the standard apologist complaint regarding the media coverage of Iraq. It is simply the claim that the popular impression of a given situation is driven not by reality, but by the imagery generated by mainstream media. You may feel that you know the truth, but all you know is what you have been told.

On a certain level, this is a good point to make. It is undeniably true that we are at the mercy of those who provide us our information. If we did not witness an event ourselves, we must trust those who have. Perhaps more importantly, we must trust them to appropriately contextualize that event so that we know what it means. Given our dependence on our proxy witnesses, it is certainly possible to be misled.

That in mind, let's take a look at these two situations. Is contextualization problematic in each of them?

As it turns out, there is a very important distinction to keep in mind between these two situations: the violence at the beach is random while the violence in Iraq is not. The attacking sharks were not involved in a large scale conspiracy, colluding with others in order to achieve some sort of collective goal. These attacks do not represent any sort of general animosity between sharks and humans. Given that these attacks were most likely driven by mistaken identity or a confused territorial response, they do not even represent a manifestation of the natural food chain. They were, like so many natural events, triggered by chance and, in so, signify nothing.

On the other hand, the Iraqi insurgents are trying to kill coalition and Iraqi security forces. These attacks might be random in the sense that the perpetrators have little concern for the specific identity of their victims. But, they are committed with the intent to achieve a political end. Therefore, these events have meaning beyond the numbers involved. Even if they are few and far between, as long as they have a destabilizing effect on the political situation in Iraq, they matter.

So, this isn't a matter of the media ignoring the improving condition of the Iraqi schools in favor of antiwar propaganda. This is about reporting on events that dramatically affect the political stability of the region. It's not about violence per se, it's about what that violence means. That's the context and that's what's important.

I certainly would never argue that the media shies away from sensationalism. As they say, in local news, if it bleeds, it leads. To a certain extent, this is true at the higher end of the media food chain as well. And we are seeing this phenomenon in play with the Florida shark attacks and the missing white woman of the week. But the coverage from Iraq is a different animal and we shouldn't let the distinction be blurred.

Blood in the water is not the same thing as blood in the sand.

Phew -- Made It!

2005-06-28T01:15:00.000-06:00

Looks like I've successfully pulled off this relocation. I am here, as is my wife, my two dogs, and nearly all of my earthly possessions. So, that's a start anyway.

Unfortunately, there's still a lot to do. As such, I will be resuming my work here, but the pace is going to be fairly slow for a little while longer. So it goes.

At any rate, you can expect something of substance to show up here by the weekend. I know -- it must be difficult to contain your excitement. All I can say is: suck it up! It'll be worth it.

Trust me.

Update: Did I say new post by the weekend? I meant by Monday. Sorry for the confusion.

The Immediate Future

2005-06-10T11:22:00.000-06:00

I'm guest blogging again over at TIA today, so today's work product will be found there.

On another note, I'm moving in a few short days. That means I'm going to be without a reliable Internet connection for a couple of weeks at least. Obviously, that's going to make it difficult to keep this project running at its current pace. So, don't be surprised if things get slow for a while.

But, along with this move, a number of other things are going to change in my life. I'll be starting a job relatively soon and then starting graduate school starting in the fall. At this point, I'm not completely certain how all this is going to affect my work here. However, there is no question that it will be affected somehow. My hope is that I will be able to keep this going in some capacity, but right now it's just wait and see.

Once I get settled in my new home, I'll be able to figure a few of these things out. Once I do, I'll be sure to share that with you.

Unfortunately, one of the realities of running a small traffic blog is that service interruptions have a tendency to be fatal. With the number of blogs out there producing high-quality material on a daily basis, not many of us are going to hover around one that has gone silent. That's just life.

That said, I hope that you will check back in a few weeks to see what has become of me. I've had a lot of fun doing this and a big part of the enjoyment is knowing that there are people out there reading what I have to say. That's been incredibly flattering and I hope that it will continue in the future.

Until then, enjoy yourselves and stay out of trouble. I'll see you all soon.

Lessons from the Arena, Part II

2005-06-09T00:23:00.000-06:00

I'd like to spend today expanding upon a point I raised over at TIA last week. In that post, I lamented the liberal tendency to get distracted by the moral character of the opposition, while ignoring the systemic nature of their nefarious activity.

But, too often, I think, the accusations [of wrongdoing] revolve around the bad character of the involved actors. Karl Rove is accused of playing dirty (and he does). Katherine Harris illegitimately ended the Florida recounts (agreed). The Swift Boat Veterans were a bunch of stinking liars (testify, my brother!). I could go on (and on, and on...).

However, there comes a point in time went you actually want to do something about it. Demonizing the opposition may serve to solidify your coalition, but it persuades few new voters to take your side -- even when the accusations are undeniably true. It just doesn't work that way.

Rove may be an unscrupulous character, but he is so only because of the nature of the game. If the game were different, he would be different or he would be replaced by someone who was. It's that simple.

So, to my eyes, the applied solutions should be systemic ones. If we don't like the way the game is being played, we need to change the environment in which the game occurs. Simple.

But this does require abandoning certain fantasies of retribution, something many liberals seem unable to accept. And, in truth, who amongst us hasn't let a smile creep across their face as they imagined an indictment with Karl Rove's name on it? Be that as it may, it's never going to happen and we had better spend our energy elsewhere. Still, some can't let go.

Why is that?

I believe this stems from a somewhat naïve understanding of what rules, in practice, really are. Many of us can recall our days on the playground where we concocted byzantine regulations to govern that day's diversion. Similarly, we can recall the outrage we felt when someone chose to go outside the rules. We understood the order and fairness that these rules brought to our games and condemned those who devalued these social amenities with their lawlessness.

Most of us internalized these lessons and continue to apply them in our daily lives. We happily exist in a heavily regulated environment with laws, social etiquette, ethical guidelines, and tradition defining the limits of our behavior. We may not always be able to comply completely with the rules as we understand them, but we try the best we can and accept the repercussions for failure. On a certain level, we understand that it's best for all of us if rules are followed.

But, what are these rules?

Let's talk about the NBA again. In my last post on this topic, I acknowledged that "cheating" is rampant in professional basketball. Also, there is a considerable amount of play that many would consider to be unethical or, at bare minimum, a demonstration of poor sportsmanship. Whether we are talking about an elbow thrown when the ref isn't looking or a hard foul landed to prevent an easy layup, there is a fair amount of on-court behavior that is explicitly or implicitly prohibited by the rulebook. It rarely gets completely out of hand or interferes with legal gameplay enough to upset the ultimate outcome. But, it certainly gives people ammunition for their complaints.

There is, though, an old saying that I think is apropos to this situation: if a tree falls in the forest and no one was there to hear it, does it make a sound? Or, if you throw an elbow and the ref doesn't see it, is it still a foul? Of course, there are a lot of philosophical approaches to answering such a question, but in the real world there is only one answer: no.

There are the rules that exist in the rulebook and there are the infractions that the refs are actually able to call. Of these two, only the second set matters. You might get a bad reputation if you habitually attempt to evade the rulebook rules, which might lead to a heavier focus on your conduct. However, this doesn't change my contention in the slightest. It doesn't matter what you do on the court -- if the ref doesn't call it, it's legal.

A friend of mine who had just completed a contract law class shocked me one day with a declaration that contracts don't really exist. He went on to explain that contracts are only binding if (a) both parties perceive the benefits of compliance, or (b) a practical enforcement mechanism exists. For example, if a small technology company contracts with a powerful multinational corporation, the details of the contract are whatever the multinational says they are regardless of what is written on paper. If the multinational decides to default on its obligations, it will unless there is a realistic threat that their contractual partner will be able to enforce the contract through litigation. Since economic realities usually foreclose this possibility, the contract is binding only as far as the multinational allows it to be. The contract might exist in a theoretical universe, but it fails to materialize in the real world.

This is something that we all have to come to grips with. People are only bound by the letter of the law, not the spirit. Moreover, people are only bound by the laws that are likely to be enforced. If you can break the law without being noticed, your activity was, in effect, legal.

Was the election stolen in 2000? Were laws broken in Ohio this last year? From a theoretical perspective, the answer is probably yes. But, from a practical standpoint, the answer is no. Or, perhaps more accurately, it doesn't matter because if laws were broken, they were broken in such a way that the refs aren't going to call it. And if the refs can't or won't call a foul, there's no point wasting energy complaining about it.

Actually, I'm being a little bit glib here. Of course complaining helps. It's commonly referred to as "working the refs" and the right has been applying this principle to the media for the last 30 years. But the point is that it only gets you so far. If you want real change you have to focus on system dynamics.

And this doesn't just mean enacting new laws. You have to make sure that a practical enforcement mechanism exists, otherwise the law is hollow

What you don't want to do is to spend time hoping that those who have misbehaved will receive their comeuppance. They threw elbows and got away with it. The play is over and we need to be present for the next one. If we don't like playing games with thrown elbows, we need to create a system that is capable of effectively policing that behavior. Right now, throwing elbows is effectively legal. So, we can throw our own elbows or we can change the rules so they can't be thrown so easily in the future.

However, complaints do nothing more than highlight our regulatory naïveté. The other side has figured out which rules matter. We need to do the same.

One Toke over the Line

2005-06-07T14:57:00.000-06:00

Well, thanks to a 6-3 decision handed down on Monday, the Justice Department has once again managed to put the fear of God into the hearts of AIDS and cancer patients all across that decadent land known as California. I can't wait to see the press photos at their next bust. It's almost hard to believe that they would fight for the opportunity to have such a horrible public relations disaster. But, what do I know?

As I've thought about this case today, I find that I keep coming back to the idea that drugs make people crazy. You don't even have to take them; just injecting the subject into the discussion is enough to drive otherwise rational people into intellectual knots. It never ceases to amaze me, and this case is no exception.

The argument put forth by the respondents (i.e. the potheads) was simple enough. The federal Controlled Substances Act is limited by the Commerce Clause to regulating interstate economic activity. Since the respondents consumed their own product, there was no economic transaction. And since the activity occurred in their living room, it was all intrastate. I mean, to rule against this position you'd have to be willing to assert that this activity would substantially affect the national cannabis market.

Unfortunately, that is exactly what seems to have occurred. By relying on a precedent set in Wickard v. Filburn, the court ruled that Congress has the ability to regulate noncommercial intrastate activity because such activity "has a substantial effect on supply and demand in the national market." Moreover, the standard for such an assertion is rather low. The government doesn't have to prove that the existence of medical marijuana would affect the national market, it merely has to demonstrate that "a 'rational basis' exists for so concluding."

For the government, this low standard of proof is awfully fortuitous, as the evidence for said market impact is rather scarce, to say the least. Justice O'Connor seized on this point in her dissent:

There is simply no evidence that homegrown medicinal marijuana users constitute, in the aggregate, a sizable enough class to have a discernable, let alone substantial, impact on the national illicit drug market–or otherwise to threaten the CSA regime.

…

The Government has not overcome empirical doubt that the number of Californians engaged in personal cultivation, possession, and use of medical marijuana, or the amount of marijuana they produce, is enough to threaten the federal regime.

So, without actual evidence, we're down to the so-called "rational basis" for the market effect conclusions. But, in truth, how rational is this conclusion? It appears to be justified largely by an Econ 101 understanding of supply and demand laws. Medical marijuana patients, with access to legal domestic supplies, would drop out of the national market. With fewer consumers for illegal product, prices would drop as demand declined. Since these lower prices would make it easier for marijuana consumers to acquire their product, this market effect would undercut the intent of the Controlled Substances Act. It's an explanation good enough to satisfy any first-year Econ student.

Of course, some people move beyond Econ 101 and discover that real markets are a good deal more complicated than those described in first-year textbooks. In particular, illicit markets endure specialized costs not present in legitimate economies. Mark Kleiman explains this for us.

In the case of marijuana and other illicit drugs, the dominant cost facing any producer is the cost imposed by law enforcement (employees and principals alike need to be compensated for their risks of arrest and imprisonment) and the cost of evading law enforcement.

Roughly speaking, the enforcement risk faced by the average drug transaction depends on the ratio of the volume in that market to the enforcement effort devoted to suppressing it. If there's one dealer on a street corner and one cop patrolling it, the dealer is much more likely to get busted than if the same cop confronts 100 dealers. That "safety in numbers" principle is why prey animals herd.

So if we take some of the demand out of the illicit marijuana market in a way producers in that market can predict, they will likely reduce the amount they produce. If we leave the enforcement effort constant, each remaining kilogram of pot faces more law enforcement. Thus we would expect the price of illicit pot to rise…as a result of removing medical demand from the market.

It seems to me that there is as much of a "rational basis" for concluding that medical marijuana will drive the price of illicit marijuana up as there is for concluding that it will drive it down. Of course, the truth is that the marijuana market is so complex that it is impossible to rationally conclude anything at all with respect to prices. Therefore, this isn't really about rationality at all -- it's about convenience.

Take a look at these comments from Ann Althouse posted over at SCOTUSblog.

Justice Stevens wrote what I thought the Court would have to say: if noncommercial, homegrown marijuana were seen as beyond the Commerce Power for medicinal users, it is also beyond the Commerce Power for recreational users. The theory is the same, that noncommercial user-producers can’t be included in the Wickard-style analysis.

This is, without a doubt, a problem with ruling in favor of the respondents. If all it takes to evade federal drug prosecution is that you produce and consume all of your own product without ever crossing state lines, you've created a loophole to be seized upon by every pothead in the land. Better to whip up some supply and demand justification than to face the consequence of a more honest ruling.

But, I'm no longer surprised by the contortions that prohibition advocates will perform in order to maintain the status quo. The case for medical marijuana couldn't be clearer. Despite the current scheduling of marijuana within the Controlled Substances Act, there is an enormous amount of clinical data demonstrating the medicinal effects of cannabis. The government, if it were so inclined, could easily develop a system in order to manage distribution and prevent diversion into the illegal market.

But doing so would undermine the central message of prohibition: drugs are bad. They realize (rightly so) that once the absolutism of this message is pierced in any way, the questions will begin to fly fast and furious. If marijuana can be used as medicine, is recreational use really that harmful? If not, is it really worth the societal costs preventing it? What if we began to see marijuana use as separate from other types of drug use? Would the levels of use in these remaining drug classes be high enough to justify the crisis rhetoric consistently emanating from the ONDCP? If not, how would the DEA budget be affected?

From a strictly legal perspective, this decision was hardly surprising. It appears to be well justified by existing case law and judicial analysis. But, this decision, like many before it, is based upon irrational justifications for the government's regulatory goals. The central premise, that it is in the interest of society to regulate recreational drug consumption, is never challenged. In fact, the government will go to almost any length in order to avoid answering that very question. Every discussion begins by accepting the truth of that claim.

However, that claim is undeniably false. There are few things in this world that I'm prepared to declare with absolute certainty. This is one of them. Too many are blinded by the hype and hysteria surrounding drug use to see the reality. But, there is no question that we pay a high price for this course of action. Hopefully, that will one day become clear.

Until then, let's hope we don't see too many glaucoma patients in handcuffs.

Update: Naturally, Publius has a take on this case that's worth reading. In short, he believes the case to be correctly decided, in that the court properly held that the Legislature should be the final arbiter of the Commerce Clause. I'm not sure that I agree, given that appropriate application requires that there be a "rational basis" for concluding that the national market is affected by medicinal marijuana. Somebody has to make that evaluation and Congress clearly isn't up to the task.

On the other hand, the judiciary doesn't seem to fare much better on this front. So, perhaps it doesn't matter at all.

To Compare or Not to Compare -- That Is the Question

2005-06-03T12:05:00.000-06:00

Irene Khan of Amnesty International managed to cause a bit of a stir recently during the speech that she gave introducing AI's 2005 annual report. While summarizing the document's findings, she spent a moment discussing the United States' contribution to the universe of human rights abuses. As she did so, she made the following statement.

Guantanamo has become the gulag our times, entrenching the notion that people can be detained without any recourse to the law. [Emphasis added]

Predictably, the White House has retreated into denial mode. Scott McClellan responded by claiming that the report is "ridiculous and unsupported by the facts." Bush called the allegations "absurd." Why am I not surprised?

As this has been going on, another discussion has been brewing, centering on AI's use of the term "gulag." At Legal Fiction we have Publius arguing:

Ok - after giving it some thought, I must concede that the use of "gulag" is inappropriate…

The main difference is that the Soviets tortured and killed millions, while we torture and kill hundreds or perhaps thousands. Now, if you were a Kantian, that might not make a difference, morally speaking. But I'm not a Kantian, and I think that numbers matter. Killing millions is exponentially more heinous than killing hundreds - and that makes it different in kind.

In a similar vein, we have Eric Martin's $0.02.

…Amnesty International made a strategic blunder by evoking the Soviet-run network of prisons ranging throughout the "gulag" archipelago to describe the detention facility at Guantanamo. Yes, there are certain similarities in the sense that both are extra-judicial prison systems. There is at least the specter of indefinite detention without due process at Guantanamo (though the Supreme Court will eventually intercede to halt this in my opinion) and thus far Guantanamo, and other facilities, have been the sites of incidents of violence, torture and homicide delivered at the hands of US officials. But the difference in the magnitude of horrors at the Soviet helmed gulags (millions killed, millions more suffered heinous conditions and abuse that exceed most of the more damning reports from Guantanamo) makes the comparison so strained as to render it devoid of meaning - or so wanting in clarifications of nuance that it becomes an unwieldy analogy that requires extensive unpacking every time it is trotted out.

And, for flavor, here's Andrew Sullivan.

Some of the rhetoric in Amnesty International's report on U.S. detainment policies is indeed excessive. It is simply wrong on every level to equate the United States' policy of detention, abuse, torture and rendition of terror suspects with the Soviet Union's vast domestic prison system, designed to perpetuate an evil totalitarianism.

So, I think it's safe to say that AI isn't getting a pass on this language. But, I've got to admit, I'm starting to believe that this is all getting blown out of proportion. Was this comment really so great a sin?

As I see it, there are really two questions. First, was this a "strategic blunder"? Have they hurt their cause by using such inflammatory language? Second, is use of such inflammatory language inherently wrong?

Looking at our first question, I'm under the impression that the positive/negative outcome of the statement has been a wash. Using the term "gulag" certainly leaves AI open to accusations of hyperbole, which has allowed administration officials to once again shift focus away from their conduct and on to the conduct of the investigating agency. On the other hand, as Eric Martin says

…Amnesty did end up drawing the media's attention to a report on conditions at Guantanamo that would have otherwise gone unnoticed and ignored in favor of the ongoing Jackson trial, a runaway bride, and/or the child abduction/amber alert du jour.

Moreover, I doubt very much whether the "gulag" comment really played a decisive role in determining the administration's response. If they hadn't seized on this language (and assuming that the report would still have been news without it), they would have seized on some other aspect of the report in order to discredit it. This way, at least, the report is being mentioned during primetime news broadcasts. And this time, according to David Schraub, the administration hasn't been fully in control of the spin.

This is one of the few times that the Bush administration has really let a negative story about itself spin out of its control. I mean, you have Bush, Cheney, and Rumsfeld dragged into this, and I have to think their comments have given the story a renewed life it would not otherwise have. Furthermore, I don't think they are coming out the better in these exchanges--they sound bitter and in denial.

So, on the one hand AI opened itself up to the administration's preferred plan of attack, but it was merely a variation of the attack that would have been used anyway. On the other hand, people are actually talking about the report, no mean feat. Bonus points are added when Bush & Co. sound like they are "bitter and in denial." Could AI have achieved these positive goals without the negatives? Perhaps. But, I hardly think that the answer is clear. There may have been an opportunity cost for their use of this rhetoric, but I'm not willing to say that it was a net negative.

Then we get to the question of the appropriateness of the term. For me, this gets into the larger question of when, if ever, is it appropriate to make comparisons to some of the darker moments in human history. Are analogies built upon these events ever illuminating enough to warrant their use?

Obviously, the Soviet gulags and our system of extrajudicial detention differ greatly in many respects, especially with respect to magnitude. Over the years, millions were tortured and killed in the Soviet system, while most estimates place the toll for our system in the hundreds. Similarly, the extremes of the Soviet system undoubtedly make Guantánamo Bay look tame in comparison. Therefore, claiming that these two systems are indistinguishable from each other would be an excusably reckless and dishonest.

However, that isn't what Amnesty International did. They referred to Guantánamo as "the gulag of our times," which I understand as meaning "similar to," not "exactly like." And, you've got to admit, there are similarities. We have cast a wide net, ensnaring many who are guilty of nothing and who pose no threat. We hold these detainees incommunicado without due process. We engage in abusive interrogation techniques of dubious value, many of which directly violate both international and domestic law. In fact, the main distinction between our detention system and the Soviet gulags is one of degree. In most other respects, the comparison is a fair one.

Some might argue that the magnitude issue renders the comparison meaningless. Here, I couldn't disagree more. In fact, I would argue that it is important to make exactly these types of comparisons. Let's remember that the Soviet gulags didn't torture and kill a million people during their first week of operation. It took decades for them to accomplish this feat. Their crime was a product of both the system AND time. It therefore follows that any similarly constructed system could produce a similar result if it were allowed to persist over an equivalent period. Once you have all of the ingredients, all you have to do is wait.

And that's the point of making the comparison. It lets people know both the company we are keeping and the possible results of maintaining that affiliation. The hope is that people, once they realize the potential outcome, will demand that we change course long before the magnitude of our sins equal those of the Soviet Union, or of Nazi Germany, or of whomever we are being compared to. If someone had shamed these governments by comparing their actions to those of another ancestral perpetrator of evil, perhaps their atrocities would have been averted. Who knows?

There are, of course, lots of inappropriate comparisons being made these days. I'm not going to stand here and defend all of them. Each one has to be examined in context. What matters isn't the comparison itself, but the aspect being compared and whether or not that aspect is truly probative. Adolf Hitler and Martin Luther King Jr. were both powerful public speakers, however a comparison between the two would be greatly misleading. Their differences overwhelm their similarities, making the comparison useless.

But, there are definitely times when such comparisons have value. It can give you an idea about where you're headed and give you an opportunity to decide whether that's really where you want to go. It can serve as a wake-up call allowing you to avert disaster. Even if there is some blowback from your rhetoric, it can be worth it.

On balance, that's where I see Amnesty International's comment falling. It identifies accurate similarities between detention systems while foreshadowing the possible outcome of persisting along this path. It has both practical and rhetorical value. As such, I don't have a problem with it. I wouldn't overdo it, but an occasional reminder of our historical bedfellows goes a long way in informing the debate. When done in moderation, we should welcome it.

How to Blog

2005-06-02T20:44:00.000-06:00

If you're thinking of joining the exciting world of blogging, you might want to read this so you know what you're getting into.

(via IsThatLegal?)

Still Unpacking

2005-06-02T16:12:00.000-06:00

Metaphorically speaking. Anyway, I'm not going to be putting anything substantial up today. Of course, if you missed my guest appearance over at TIA, now would be a great time to check it out (here, here, and here). Enjoy!

On Tour

2005-05-25T01:31:00.000-06:00

Things are going to be slow here until next Thursday. However, this time I rationalize my absence not with real-world distraction or my inclinations toward sloth. In fact, it is quite the opposite.

For the next week, I will be guest-blogging (along with Jonnybutter of Crush All Boxes) over at Total Information Awareness while Eric Martin is emptying his pockets in Las Vegas. It will take all of my energy to avoid driving away Eric's audience -- thus The Needle will go silent in the meantime.

Anyway, please feel free to join me at this home away from home. It's always great to see friendly faces during the away games.

Qualified Qualifiers

2005-05-25T01:15:00.000-06:00

(I began this post pre-compromise. The existence of the compromise may make my specific observation moot (then again, maybe not). However, in the end, I felt the observation retained enough value to merit publication. So, while this might no longer be insight from the cutting edge of the news cycle, it will hopefully provide you with a chuckle. Here's hoping.)

Over the last decade or so, I've noticed an amusing trend in the way that the news from sporting events is being reported. You see, sports broadcasters and reporters face a unique problem. Despite the fact that there are an enormous number of sporting events each year, most of what occurs within these events is perfectly ordinary.

Now, I'm not trying to say that sports are boring. In fact, nothing could be further from the truth. My wife, who is graciously enduring my NBA playoff obsession, could testify to this fact.

However, as exciting as these events may be, almost everything we witness has been seen before. Home runs, touchdowns, and blocked shots are all everyday occurrences. Each event has individual beauty, but they all mean pretty much the same thing. The same is true when you examine athletic performance in a more holistic fashion. It may be a big deal when a basketball player scores 40 points in a game, but how many times did that happen in the last season alone? And, there are many times when nothing truly special happens at all. Everyone might turn in a solid performance without any individual standouts.

So, if there's nothing special about an event to highlight, and it's your job to discuss the highlights of the game, you've got a problem.

Traditionally, this is where statistics come to the rescue. If you can somehow numerically demonstrate that something special or unique occurred during a game, you suddenly have something to talk about. Unfortunately, there are limits to the strategy because there is always a finite number of statistical categories to monitor. It is quite easy to exhaust these possibilities without discovering anything worthy of mention. Once you've done that, you're stuck.

Unless… you start adding qualifiers.

It works like this. Let's say you have a pitcher who strikes out 10 batters on a certain day. That's certainly a good showing, but it's hardly unheard of. However, if it turns out that this pitcher is a rookie and that he turned in this performance in his first start in the majors, you suddenly have something to talk about: "Bob Jones is only the eighth player in major-league history to strike out 10 or more batters in his first major-league start."

Of course, like many rhetorical tools, this device can be used for both good and evil. Certain qualifiers, like those in the above example, serve to highlight meaningful, yet hidden, achievement. That isn't always the case, like in this example:

"Bob Jones is the first player in major-league history to strike out 10 or more batters in his first major-league start on a Tuesday while facing a team based south of the Mason-Dixon line."

By adding these additional qualifiers, you can now label this event as unique. But, as this example demonstrates, unique doesn't equal meaningful. The qualifiers have to matter.

If you're wondering why I'm bringing this up, observe the following statement made by Sean Hannity on Hannity & Colmes recently.

And let me repeat for our audience, and nobody can contradict this: This is the first time in 214 years, the first time that judicial nominees who would otherwise, if given an up-or-down vote would be approved, are being denied an up-or-down vote. It has never happened before ever.

So, yeah -- there have been filibusters, and filibusters of judicial nominees, and nominees that never made it out of committee, and nominees that were "blue-slipped", and nominees that never even got committee hearings. But, the current situation, as qualified, is unique -- and therefore wrong.

To be honest, when you qualify something that much, I don't even know what the issue is anymore. Except that you're pissed-off about the current state of affairs. That part is crystal clear -- I just don't care.

To repeat: unique doesn't equal meaningful. It doesn't matter whether it happens on ESPN or FOX News. It might give you something to talk about, but it guarantees no gravitas. You have to provide that on your own.

...But I Love the Internet

2005-05-19T22:59:00.000-06:00

Enjoy.

P.S. Personal best (so far): 322.9.

I Hate George Lucas

2005-05-19T17:27:00.000-06:00

By the time this post has been injected into the blogosphere, many of you will already have plunked down your hard-earned cash in order to witness George Lucas's latest cinematic atrocity. I'm sure that I won't be far behind you. Despite my certainty that this film will once again redefine the maximum possible disparity between resource expenditure and product quality, I know that I will be unable to resist its siren call. Besides which, since it is sure to gross approximately $100 billion over the course of its existence, denying George Lucas my measly 10 bucks wouldn't affect him in the slightest. As much as I would like to hurt this man in some way, my hands are tied.

You see, like the title of this post says, I hate George Lucas. I realize that "hate" is strong language to employ and that it might shock some of you to see it in this context. But, as I search my soul with an open mind and an honest heart, I must admit that it is true. There are few in this world who can draw such emotion from me. I reserve it for the worst of the worst. George -- you win the prize.

Now, I don't hate him for assaulting us with The Phantom Menace and Attack of the Clones. Sure, they didn't endear him to me in any way. In fact, it's fair to say that these films were crushing disappointments. They looked pretty (for the most part) and each provided an exhilarating light saber battle for our amusement. Yet, they lacked plot, meaningful characters, believable dialogue, and -- worst of all -- the slightest hint of excitement. Rather gaping omissions, if you ask me.

But, I don't hate him for it. Lots of people produce great work early in their careers, only to stumble later. Paul McCartney was fantastic as a Beatle, but a chump as a Wing. Stephen King is rightly considered a legend of the horror genre, despite the fact that I quite regularly wipe my ass with the pages from Tommyknockers. Even Francis Ford Coppola, after giving us The Godfather, The Godfather: Part II, and Apocalypse Now, left us with Dracula and The Godfather: Part III. The presence of sin doesn't erase all acts of virtue. I may be disappointed by their fall from grace, but I won't condemn them for it.

No, my distaste with George Lucas is driven by something altogether different.

As most of you know, the recent Star Wars abominations were preceded by a re-release of the original trilogy (identified as the Special Edition). But, this re-release wasn't simply a crisp new print of the original films. Instead, George Lucas decided to produce new edits of the original films. Some of the changes were mere touch ups, erasing flaws introduced by the special effects of the era (no complaints here). Others allowed him to add scenes that had been cut from the original due to certain technical infeasibilities. He also chose to add in a fair amount of background to certain scenes, inserting alien creatures that had been unrenderable without CGI.

Some of these changes were OK, but most of them were not. In fact, most of them were laughable. But, again, I don't hate him for it.

This is why I hate him. There it is a very important scene in the original Star Wars with Han Solo and the bounty hunter Greedo. Apparently, Hans Solo owed money to the intergalactic gangster known as Jaba the Hut and Greedo had been hired to bring him in. During the scene in question, Greedo finally catches up with Han Solo. Because he's a rather unscrupulous character, Greedo makes it clear that he can be bought off. Han Solo pretends to negotiate for a few moments, but once Greedo lets his guard down, Han shoots him dead -- in cold blood.

From this scene we learn a lot about who Han Solo is. He is a ruthless mercenary with a checkered past, willing to kill those who would stand in his way. He is out for himself and no one else. This is important because, at the end of the film, after abandoning Luke and Leia to attack the Death Star alone, he returns at a crucial moment to assist in its destruction. Thus, Han is transformed from selfish rogue to selfless hero. How about that? Actual character development.

Unfortunately, this isn't how the scene plays out in the Special Edition release. I'll let the Star Wars databank speak for itself.

Greedo was an overzealous bounty hunter hired by Jabba the Hutt to collect on Han Solo. Greedo challenged Solo in the Mos Eisley Cantina. At blaster point, the Rodian demanded Solo pay his debt to Jabba. Solo claimed he didn't have the money with him. Greedo had lost his patience, and opened fire. His shot missed; it was the last mistake Greedo would make. Solo opened fire with his powerful blaster pistol, ripping through the cantina table and the Rodian's chest.

That's right. In the Special Edition release of Star Wars, the version that truly represents George Lucas's vision, Greedo shoots first! Suddenly, Han's preemptive murder becomes an act of self-defense. So, while he may be a little rough around the edges, he's basically a nice guy who wouldn't hurt anyone (who wasn't a bloodthirsty killer attempting to vaporize him -- and could you blame him?).

This isn't just cleanup work. This isn't background enhancement. This is a dramatic modification of character that affects the entire rest of the movie. Han's selfish protestations that ensue no longer ring as true. His insistence upon payment for rescuing the princess are out of sync with the character now being drawn. And, worst of all, his act of redemption during the final moments of battle no longer signify an ethical rebirth. Instead, we're left wondering why it took so long.

Moreover, it erases one of the few thematic ambiguities of the entire series: that not everyone is purely good or evil. Some exist in the space in between, to be potentially drawn to one side or the other as they are influenced by those around them. Han didn't start off good -- he became good, won over by the nobility of his peers. That's a message worth learning.

But, George Lucas doesn't care. I have heard that he now believes that Han's cold-blooded murderer of his pursuer is too dark an event to be witnessed by children. Apparently, he was uncomfortable with children idolizing someone so distasteful. Thus, he "cleaned it up." Now, we can all watch the film without these troubling complexities. Wonderful.

So, that's my problem with the man. Sure, he hates actors, dialogue, and plot. He is completely subservient to the cross-marketing aspects of his production. He has completely lost touch with his creative roots. But, I could forgive all that if he could maintain an iota of respect for the characters that he once brought to life. However, those characters are as capriciously mutable as the background scenery, to be pasteurized in service of his arrogant impression of his audience. Star Wars was never Shakespeare, but within it there were moments that lifted it above typical sci-fi schlock. No longer. This mutation (and many others) demonstrate that he is no longer interested in producing anything but bubblegum cinematic drivel. So strong is this drive that he is willing to literally undo the past. That, I cannot forgive.

That's my case. George -- if you're out there -- you suck. You mercilessly eviscerated a great character and spat upon all those who loved him. For that, I grant no quarter. I promise that for as long as I live, I will revile you, body and soul.

Forever. Get used to it.

'tis the Season

2005-05-19T00:16:00.000-06:00

I can't say that I'm too happy about this.

However, my wife took the same test, producing the following result.

So, I can't complain.

P.S. Eat your heart out, Mr. Pharyngula.

Going Nuclear

2005-05-18T02:31:00.000-06:00

According to current reporting, the opening salvo in Bill Frist's attempt to eliminate the filibuster will be fired this morning. At this point, it remains unclear how this particular gambit will play out. However, whatever the result, it might be useful for us to all understand what is actually occurring. Unfortunately, the avalanche of rhetoric that we have all endured has done little to clarify the issues. I offer this post in a modest attempt to rectify this situation.

The first question worth investigating is how did we get here in the first place? While the claim that the judicial filibuster is unprecedented is, to say the least, overblown, the situation we currently face is undeniably unique. The sheer number of judicial candidates who are being held up by the threat of filibuster clearly indicates that something unusual is unfolding. What's going on?

Well, way back in November, Kevin Drum provided us with a little recent history. At one point, not long ago, controversial nominations rarely made it to the floor. Why?

For decades, the rule was this: if both senators from a judge's home state objected to (or "blue slipped") a nominee, he was out.

But then, the Republicans took control of the Senate. Once that happened, these rules began to change.

In 1998, for no special reason, Orrin Hatch decided that only one senator needed to object to a nomination. This made it easier for Republicans to obstruct Bill Clinton's nominees.

In 2001, when one of their own became president, Hatch suddenly reversed course and decided that it should take two objections after all. That made it harder for Democrats to obstruct George Bush's nominees.

In early 2003, Hatch went even further: senatorial objections were merely advisory, he said. Even if both senators objected to a nomination, it would still go to the floor for a vote.

A few weeks later, yet another barrier was torn down: Hatch did away with a longtime rule that said at least one member of the minority had to agree in order to end discussion about a nomination and move it out of committee.

In light of these changes, it is hardly surprising that Democrats are wielding the threat of filibuster so freely. At this point, it is the only remaining check on majority power available to them. So, it isn't that Democrats have become petty and anti-democratic. It is simply that the rules of the game have changed.

Another criticism that has been leveled against the judicial filibuster is that it is an abdication of the Senate's constitutional obligation to "advise and consent." This argument is typically coupled with the claim that the filibuster creates a supermajority requirement for judicial confirmation -- a requirement absent from the Constitution. According to those who would make this argument, the Constitution requires an up or down vote on all judicial nominees, to be decided by a simple majority.

However, according to Publius at Legal Fiction, this isn't quite right. While commenting on the Justice Sunday event from a few weeks ago, he noted the following:

Though it seems reasonable, this constitutional argument won’t work. The Constitution does say “advise and consent,” the but it never defines “consent.” What is or isn’t “consent” is determined by internal Senate rules. In other words, the Senate gets to decide how it approves of everything from legislation to treaties to nominees.

If you’ll remember, the GOP once pushed for supermajority approval to raise taxes. Even if that’s unwise policy, it is perfectly constitutional. The Senate gets to make its own rules. Currently, the Senate rules (agreed upon ex ante by a supermajority) contemplate filibusters, and the Senate therefore does not “consent” as a body if a filibuster is successful. It’s part of the rules and it’s perfectly constitutional. The Justice Sunday speakers were wrong to equate “consent” with an up-or-down vote – an up-or-down majority is merely one of many possible ways to consent.

So, while it is amusing to see strict constructionists read meaning into our founding document, such an interpretation is pure fabrication. Quite a tasty piece of irony, if you ask me.

The next point I will raise has to do with how the rule is actually being changed. Traditionally, amending Senate rules requires a two thirds majority -- 67 votes. Of course, if Republicans can't get 60 votes to close floor debate on a judicial nomination, they obviously aren't going to be able to get 67 votes to change the rule. So, how exactly are they going to change this rule? For this, we turn to Mark Kleiman.

But it seems to me that the "nuclear option" question isn't really about the filibuster, or about judicial filibusters, at all. It's about cheating. The Senate, acting under Constitutional authority, has created rules for itself. Those rules include a provision that changing the rules requires a two-thirds majority. (Requiring a super-majority for rules changes seems to me sound, since otherwise there would be in effect no rules at all that a temporary majority had to respect.)

The "nuclear option" involves the Vice-President, acting as the President of the Senate, making a clearly false decision about what the current rules are…

What is actually going to happen is that Frist is going make a motion to the effect that the filibuster is "out of order." Then, in spite of the fact that the filibuster is clearly permitted by Senate rules, Cheney will agree. Therefore, it isn't that the rule will be changed -- it's that it will be willfully ignored. So much for the rule of law.

Finally, I think that is important to note that, so far, no filibuster has actually occurred. That might seem strange to say, given all the discussion that we have had of late. But, it is in fact true. A filibuster, a real filibuster, occurs when, and only when, a senator or a group of senators takes the floor and holds it indefinitely. What we have seen thus far is merely the threat of a filibuster. The difference between a filibuster and the threat of one is enormous because a real filibuster requires a tremendous amount of commitment. Holding the floor requires that you ignore all other priorities. No other Senate business is conducted. Travel plans and fund-raising efforts must be tabled. It frequently isn't even possible to sleep in one's own bed. Therefore, the filibuster isn't just a count of 40 votes; it is a measure of the degree of opposition. You don't just raise your hand and get it done. You have to really want it.

If you want to beat a filibuster, the same rules apply. You have to work, struggle, and endure. The thing is, though, you have the numbers. If both sides are equally committed, no filibuster can hold. The majority will eventually win. It might be hard, but it can be done.

And, for me, that's really the bottom line here. All the talk about the unprecedented nature of the judicial filibuster or the so-called constitutional requirement for an up-or-down vote is just smoke and mirrors. The truth is that the Republican majority wants to install controversial nominations over the objection of a dedicated minority, and they want it to be easy. At the beginning of this post we saw how the rules governing judicial nomination have been changed in order to facilitate confirmation. Removing the filibuster is simply the next step on this path. Republicans want what they want and, by God, they're going to get it.

Reasonable people can and do disagree about the filibuster from a policy perspective. That's an interesting discussion. If the debate was turning on that issue, I wouldn't have a problem with it. But, let's face facts. This is nothing more than an attempt to tilt the scales even further in the direction of the current Republican majority. In the process, long-standing tradition and the integrity of Senate rules are being assaulted. Say what you will about the filibuster; ends do not justify means. The "nuclear option" is a crime committed in broad daylight. Don't let anyone tell you different.

The Myth of Merit

2005-05-17T01:21:00.000-06:00

What would Monday [ed.: OK -- I guess it's Tuesday now. Sue me.] be without a little David Brooks bashing? Well, no Monday at all!

Onward…

According to the Pew study, 76 percent of poor Republicans believe most people can get ahead with hard work. Only 14 percent of poor Democrats believe that. Poor Republicans haven't made it yet, but they embrace what they take to be the Republican economic vision - that it is in their power to do so. Poor Democrats are more likely to believe they are in the grip of forces beyond their control.

The G.O.P. succeeds because it is seen as the party of optimistic individualism.

Is it just me, or has someone just hit David with the nonsequitur-stick? Honestly, if I hadn't seen these two paragraphs one right after the other with my own eyes, I would have sworn that they had been taken out of context. Don't get me wrong -- a portion of Republican success can be attributed to their ability to market themselves as optimistic individualists. But, let's not kid ourselves. Their ability to exploit fear, xenophobia, and religious intolerance has been at least as important, if not more so.

However, this overreaching claim aside, David is within spitting distance of an important insight. The study that he uses to buttress his "optimistic individualism" assertion is, in fact, identifying a significant distinction between liberal and conservative worldviews. In short, conservatives believe that upward mobility is primarily driven by merit, while liberals do not.

The importance of this distinction cannot be overstated, as it influences an individual's perception of nearly every policy initiative. George Bush's call for an "ownership society" would fail to resonate with his supporters if they did not first believe that the rewards of ownership would be distributed fairly. Progressive tax policy is resisted by those who see it as punishment for the hard-working and industrious and a payoff to slackers. And, of course, affirmative action is seen as the ultimate insult, as it reshuffles opportunity against supposedly objective measures of performance. In each of these issues, and many others, it is the perceived rejection of merit-based advancement that fuels conservative ire.

The interesting thing about this phenomenon is how it seemingly manifests at all levels of economic experience. It's easy to see why the wealthy and successful buy into this theory; for them, it is merely the expression of the gospel of wealth. But for those who have failed to achieve economic success, it would appear to be a rather devastating personal indictment. If you have failed to rise up in a true meritocracy, what does that say about you?

I suspect that there are a few factors that support lower class enthusiasm for the American meritocracy. First among these is its promise of economic mobility. As Brooks would say, it is an ideology of hope -- and here he is half right. But, there is a missing half that is just as important: control. No one is comfortable with the idea that they are completely at the mercy of their environment. Every single day we blithely ignore the role that chance plays in our lives. Despite the fact that tragedy strikes someone every day, we are surprised when we are the victim. Randomness is simply too disconcerting to be constantly connected with it; it must be suppressed for us to function in our daily lives. Abandoning the notion of merit-based advancement is an acceptance of the reality of chaos. Many would prefer to accept responsibility for their failure to achieve than acknowledge that there is nothing that they can do to guarantee success.

Once an individual is completely entrenched in his belief that he controls his destiny, his hopes for success are further buoyed by the self-serving bias we all exhibit.

The self-serving bias, for example, dictates that we tend to see ourselves in a more positive light than others see us: national surveys show that most business people believe they are more moral than other business people. In one College Entrance Examination Board survey of 829,000 high school seniors, 0 percent rated themselves below average in “ability to get along with others,” while 60 percent put themselves in the top 10 percent. This is also called the “ Lake Wobegon effect,” after the mythical town where everyone is above average. Lake Wobegon exists in the spiritual realm as well. According to a 1997 U.S. News and World Report study on who Americans believe are most likely to go to heaven, for example, 60 percent chose Princess Diana, 65 percent thought Michael Jordan, 79 percent selected Mother Teresa, and, at 87 percent, the person most likely to go to heaven was the survey taker!

Belief in control doesn't lead to hope unless we believe that we are capable of exerting that control in a way that will lead to positive results. For better or worse, we tend to have an extremely optimistic opinion of our own capacity. Therefore, it is the confluence of these two factors, the desire for control and our self-serving bias, that leads many to accept merit as an explanation for one's station in life -- even when it reflects poorly on the individual. The alternative, acceptance of randomness and objective self-evaluation, is a pill too bitter for many to swallow.

To circle back, Brooks is close to the truth. The concept of merit is attractive because it offers hope to many who would otherwise be left despondent by their economic standing. Unfortunately, the hope it provides has little rational basis. Marx called religion the opiate of the masses, but he might as well have said the same thing about the myth of meritocracy. As long as the myth is in place, few will be motivated to agitate against the current system. If all that stands between me and fantastical wealth is some hard work, why rock the boat?

Democrats agonize over this population of poor Republicans who seemingly vote against their own economic best interests. Many point to the social/cultural issues as the key to this voting bloc. Of course, I agree -- but, I do not believe that these issues are limited to items like gay-marriage and Hollywood smut. The myth of meritocracy lives in this realm as well. However, unlike the traditional issues of the culture war, disabusing voters of this myth would not require that we abandon our core values. Quite the opposite. And it doesn't require that they give up hope. It merely means that hope lies in a different direction. We just have to lead them there.

Collective Conservation

2005-05-13T13:37:00.000-06:00

As natural resources go, there's nothing quite like petroleum. The largest reserves are situated in some of the most politically unstable regions on earth. Its extraction and transport involve significant environmental risks that periodically result in catastrophe. Once it reaches the market, its consumption plays a substantial role in urban air pollution and anthropogenic climate change. On the other hand, it is one of the most useful substances known to mankind. It is, by a wide margin, the world's most important source of energy (accounting for 37.9% of the total in 2002) and is an indispensable component in literally thousands of products we all use on a daily basis. Modern society, as currently constructed, simply could not exist without it. But, on the other other hand, it is nonrenewable. Sooner or later, it will run out.

In the face of this impending crisis, two schools of thought have emerged. The first largely acknowledges the truthfulness of the claims I have just made and argues for conservation. The second, however, tends to deny the urgency of the problem. The environmental claims, they say, are overblown. They acknowledge that the increasing global demand for petroleum is beginning to stress our production capacity, but argue that the remedy lies in increased exploration and production. Our problems would be solved if we could only bring more oil to the market.

This is, in my opinion, nothing more than denial. And, apparently, they are aware of this fact on some level. This is why discussion of conservation frequently devolves into attempts to indict the messenger. The line of attack generally follows a predictable arc: those advocating conservation are limousine liberals who shuttle themselves across the country in Hummers and private jets -- who are they to tell us to conserve? A great example of this phenomenon occurred during Sean Hannity's radio interview of Robert Kennedy Jr. last August. Rather than argue the case on its merits, Sean repeatedly attempted to extract a promise from Kennedy to refrain from future private jet travel. Of course, this is nothing but simple misdirection. Still, as a rhetorical device, it can be quite effective. Therefore, it's important to understand exactly how empty this claim is.

First, let's put aside the demographic issue. The claim that conservationists spend a disproportionately excessive amount of their time on Lear jets fails the laugh test. To my knowledge, no one has attempted to produce any numbers to justify this assertion. Until they do, it isn't even worth consideration.

The real issue is whether or not conservationists are being hypocritical by demanding a top-down solution if they are unwilling to independently reduce their own consumption. On the surface, this might appear to be true. But, a closer examination reveals the fallacy of that argument.

A short while ago, in the context of a different discussion, I briefly addressed the phenomenon known as the collective action problem.

The basic idea is that rational entities acting independently cannot address collective issues. For example, if all farmers in a town allow their cattle to graze all in the town commons, the land will soon be overgrazed and useless to everyone. However, they cannot choose to independently limit their grazing because others would simply take advantage of the situation by allowing their cattle to graze further. In such a situation, those acting on behalf of the group are punished while those acting on their own interests are rewarded.

Conservation is a classic example of this problem. You and I might believe the benefits of reducing our petroleum consumption outweigh the costs. However, if we choose to lead by example, we pay a price for doing so. Oil consumption is directly related to the ability to generate and acquire wealth. Therefore, our voluntary act of conservation will be paid for with a reduction in our net worth.

But, that is not all. Because we are using less oil, demand for petroleum will drop, leading to a price reduction (see supply and demand). Suddenly, those who have chosen not to conserve will be rewarded by these cost reductions. Some will simply choose to pocket the savings. Others will respond by increasing their consumption (and, in the process, undoing a portion of our hard work). Either way, the result will be an increase in wealth for non-conservers.

In short, independent conservation impoverishes those who comply and enriches those who do not. Therefore, due to the correlation between wealth and power in our society, those who admonish the advocates of conservation to take the first step are, in truth, advising these advocates to reduce their political and social influence. That isn't exactly what you would call a good deal.

No, the only way for the costs of conservation to be distributed fairly is through top-down regulation. Regardless of the method employed, it must be applied across-the-board -- no exceptions. Anything less creates incentives for noncompliance, making such a system unworkable in the long run.

Now, I have no doubt that Sean Hannity would love to see conservation advocates voluntarily reduce their influence within society. I'm sure that he could care less as to whether or not such independent conservation led to a significant decrease in petroleum consumption. But, these advocates should make it clear that this is what is being asked of them. They should not be taken in by his rhetorical machinations, nor should they allow him to portray them as hypocrites. They are simply seeking an equitable distribution of the costs of conservation. Could anything be more reasonable?

In the end, we are going to face the consequences of a waning petroleum supply. We will not escape the environmental impacts resulting from the exploitation of this resource. This transition will not be easy and will inevitably change the world we live in, perhaps dramatically. Therefore, as we approach our day of reckoning, it is important that we proceed with our eyes open. This is serious business and if we allow ourselves to be distracted by dishonest charlatans, we divert precious resources that would otherwise be devoted to achieving an equitable resolution. Those who deny, distort, and dissemble should be exposed for what they are -- and then, if possible, ignored.

There is too much work to do.

I Don't Believe It, but...

2005-05-12T00:27:00.000-06:00

... the new Skeptics' Circle is up over at Pharyngula. Chock-full of nay-saying goodness.

Looks Like I'm All Right After All

2005-05-12T00:02:00.000-06:00

Due to a rather poor showing during a previous evaluation, I offer the following in hopes of achieving some semblance of redemption.

(World's Smallest Political Quiz via Respectful Insolence)

A Little Inside (Blog-)Baseball

2005-05-11T00:56:00.000-06:00

As regular readers are surely aware, I posted an entry titled What Am I, a Fucking Idiot? a few days ago and I now have a moderately amusing tale to relate. So, sit back and enjoy.

But first, for those of you who are not intimately familiar with the lives of your average smalltime blogger, a little background.

Those of us subsisting at the absolute bottom of the blogospheric food chain are, to put it bluntly, obsessed with generating traffic. Nothing dulls enthusiasm for this process more than realizing you are speaking to an empty room. Therefore, all of us down here are endlessly developing strategies to increase our exposure. Sometimes this involves badgering the a-list crowd with pleas for attention, but this rarely pays off (and frankly comes off as whiny and desperate). Other times, we submit our work to blog carnivals, or even host carnivals ourselves. If we leave comments on other sites, we make sure that our blog's web address is accessible. And, finally, when we post something inspired by the work of a fellow blogger, we always leave a trackback.

Of course, there would be no science to this process if we couldn't somehow evaluate the success of these various techniques. Enter the referral log. With this handy tool, we can discover how many of the visitors made their way to our sites. So, if someone follows a link, a Google search, a comment posted elsewhere, or a trackback to my front door, I will usually know about it.

Anyway, back to the story.

The post in question was somewhat of an anomaly for me. The tone of my work is generally intellectual and measured, as opposed to angry and ranty (not that I have anything against emotive writing -- I just don't usually do it). However, I was pissed-off that day and it came out in the post. Nowhere was this clearer than in the post's title. I mean, What Am I, a Fucking Idiot? isn't exactly playing it close to the vest.

After I published in the post, I faced a minor dilemma. As you may have noticed, I referenced a number of other blogs in the text of the post. Usually, this is when I start planting trackbacks in the hopes of luring a few unsuspecting readers my way. But, in this instance, I hesitated. As many of you know, these planted trackbacks would have the title of my post available for all to see. Thus, I would be essentially pasting a curse word on someone else's real estate. On a certain level, this really shouldn't be a big deal. This is, after all, the Internet. But, on the other hand, there it is etiquette involved (ill defined as it is) and, since these other bloggers are all people that I respect and admire, I didn't want to offend anyone.

Of course, my bloodlust for traffic quickly overwhelmed any emergent sense of decorum within me. Besides, in show business, there is no such thing as bad publicity.

OK, here's the funny part. None of the bloggers in question flinched as they became complicit in my slouch toward Gomorrah (or, perhaps more accurately, none of them noticed). So, I just relaxed and waited to see who would be drawn in.

Now, I've left trackbacks before and I know what to usually expect. At best, you generate a handful of new visitors (and by handful, I mean about five). Sometimes, you don't get any visitors at all. This time -- well, I did better. I won't overstate the case here and I will remind you that this is all relative to my traditionally low numbers. But, I will say this. These trackbacks generated a substantial traffic increase for me. In fact, with the exception of a couple of days buoyed by carnival submissions, it was the highest one-day total -- ever!

Conclusion: you are all a bunch of sick fucks. Sure, I spend hours and hours weaving together intricate and rational arguments, suffering to divine and develop insightful new perspectives -- all to fall on deaf ears. I break out the potty-mouth and you can't get enough. No wonder this country's going to hell.

The question now is, do I ignore this data point and soldier on as if it never occurred, or do I start pandering to the evidently lowbrow taste of the unwashed masses? Do I maintain my standards, or do I go all Married with Children on your asses? I haven't decided yet. But, if you come back next week and this site has lost its PG-13 rating, you have no one to blame but yourselves.

Bastards.

Battling Confirmation

2005-05-10T00:54:00.000-06:00

About a week ago I promised that I would spend a little time talking about confirmation bias. Today, I shall demonstrate that I am a man of my word.

First, though, I'd like you to take a look at this post over at A Gentleman's C (if you haven't already). The part I especially like is the discussion of the Wason four-card task.

In this task, people are shown a deck of cards. Each card has a letter printed on one side and a numeral on the other. The task is to decide whether rule like "If a card has a vowel on one side, the number on the other side is even," is true. Four cards are dealt such that one consonant, one vowel, one even number and one odd number are showing. The person trying to test the rule is allowed to turn over two cards.

If you follow the link, there is a nice graphic to help you visualize the situation. But, for those of you too lazy to click the mouse button (what the hell is wrong with you anyway?), let's imagine that the four cards you see are "E", "K", "4", and "7". Now, before reading on, decide which two cards you would turn over in order to determine whether or not the "vowel on one side means even number on the other" rule is true.

Let me guess. You chose "E" and "4". Well, that's wrong. Here's why:

The first choice is correct, and consistent with the logical rule modus ponens, or "mode of affirmation." The second choice is incorrect, and represents the logical error of "affirming the consequent." Why is choosing the 4 an error? It is because the rule says nothing about what should be on the back of consonants, so either a vowel or a consonant could appear on the back of the even number and the rule could still be true. The card that should be selected is the odd number, because if a vowel appears on the back then the rule is disconfirmed. This represents the use of the rule modus tollens, or "mode of disconfirmation."

So, what, you ask, is the point of this little exercise? Two things. First, it's a great demonstration of confirmation bias. The selection of the "4" over the "7" perfectly illustrates the tendency to design tests that confirm pre-existing assumptions. Second, because almost everyone gets this test wrong, it helps to dispel the myth that confirmation bias is a problem of the slow-witted, and that the "intelligent" among us can easily avoid it. You can't -- no one can. And that is why it is an important phenomenon to be aware of.

I cannot think of a single example where an individual would bother testing a hypothesis without first forming an opinion as to its truthfulness. The fact that we care enough to test it means that we care about the outcome. This isn't a flaw; it is merely a function of human motivations. But, the fact that we care about the outcome means that we will have a tendency to skew results in a favorable direction. This tendency is damned hard to avoid.

The scientific community generally understands this dynamic and has developed systems to counteract it. When designing experiments to test a given hypothesis, it is not uncommon to consult with those who dispute the theory in question in order to ensure the possibility of disconfirmation. Peer review and experimental repetition also guard against the scientist's tendency to see the data that he wants to see. And, of course, a battery of statistical tools has evolved in order to objectively identify the significance of experimental results.

Other communities, being less familiar with the phenomenon, have been less successful in addressing it. Law enforcement, for example, is a particularly egregious offender. Typically, investigations begin with objective assessments of the emerging evidence. However, once a theory begins to coalesce, the pursuit of conviction frequently overwhelms any aspirations of impartiality. Similarly, crime labs are rarely independent agencies and regularly perceive themselves to be an additional tool of the prosecution. It is not uncommon for testing to be conducted by those fully aware of the DA's desired outcome. Few within this system are deliberately attempting to subvert justice. Yet, as it is currently constructed, such subversions are more common than anyone in the system is willing to admit.

But, it is unfair to single out law enforcement for its tendency to succumb to confirmation bias when it is so rampant in any pursuit of truth. Journalists, pundits, and bloggers regularly cherry-pick from the available data in order to tell the story as they see it. Advocates of various policy initiatives support their positions by presenting only the evidence that reflects favorably on their cause. And could we complete this discussion without at least tangentially referring to this administration's preinvasion assessment of the Iraqi WMD threat? The list is endless.

Sometimes these misrepresentations are deliberate, no question. However, I suspect that they usually are not. They might fail to perform the due diligence required to avoid these mistakes, but this failure is driven by ignorance and a desire for expediency, rather than malice. For the most part, these people aren't evil -- they are simply human. And that is why the fix must be systemic.

Why does confirmation bias occur? There isn't a definitive answer, but theories exist. Some suggest that negative processing is inherently more difficult than positive processing, and that we tend to select the path of least resistance. Disconfirmation requires a restructuring of our intellectual framework in order to accommodate observed data, while confirmation allows for easy assimilation. In other words, it's easier to believe what you already believe.

Regardless of its origins, it is an unavoidable component of human investigations. Awareness of the phenomenon is helpful, but is not enough to eradicate it completely. The only escape is systemic -- as demonstrated by much (but not all) of the scientific community. Anything less is lip service.

So, as you meander about the blogosphere, keep this principle in mind. We're all advocates of one sort or another. We (usually) aspire for truth -- but we are, in the end, only human. Anyone motivated enough to work in this medium has a stake in his conclusions. Some of us will successfully temper our bias and many others will not. In light of this fact, every reader would be well served by a healthy smattering of skepticism -- regardless of who they are reading.

Even if they are reading me.

What Am I, a Fucking Idiot?

2005-05-09T00:06:00.000-06:00

The blogosphere, it seems, is already filled to capacity with the reaction to the latest effluvia from David Brooks and John Tierney. Publius, Kevin Drum, Brad DeLong (twice), and Barbara O'Brien have all appropriated their pound of flesh from this dynamic duo. So, I have little to add.

But, I will add this.

Brooks says the following:

[Bush is] asking middle- and upper-class folks to accept benefit cuts so there will be money for the people who are really facing poverty…

Now, Tierney's money quote:

…Bush offered a progressive compromise last week to Democrats: protect the poor while moderating the growth of benefits for higher-income workers.

Now, everyone remembers what Bush's "plan" actually is, right? It's to cut benefits for everyone making more than $20,000 per year. So, on what planet is $20k "middle class"? Are you kidding me?

There are occasions when you can pardon a columnist for presenting a subjective interpretation that fails to comport with your understanding of the facts. There are times when someone get a little carried away with the fiery rhetoric and slightly blurs reality. This isn't one of those times. Annual income of $20k is poverty -- dirt-eating poverty. Suggesting anything else doesn't just put the truth at arms length, it relocates it into the next county.

So, what you have here is either a couple of idiots or a couple of liars. I'm willing to listen to arguments for either conclusion, but I find it hard to believe that Tierney and Brooks are incapable of understanding what's actually being discussed. They are simply too intelligent in too many other contexts for me to buy the "idiot" explanation. Which, of course, leaves only one other option.

That said, I've got to say, what must these two think of their audience to believe that they could get away with such a blatant and obvious falsehood? Sure, the majority of the population isn't up to speed on the details of the Social Security debate. And surely they could expect no challenge from those predisposed to endorse any policy proposal that slithers out of the White House.

But, that leaves the rest of us -- what I would call a significant minority. Before our eyes, a presentation like this isn't just dishonest, it's insulting. I don't know about you, but I'm actually offended. I mean, did David and John really think that we wouldn't figure this out?

Anyway, I know David is always handing out free advice to the Democrats, so I thought I would return the favor. The next time you want to serve me a shit-sandwich, at least put a little salt on it.

Update: Krugman seems to be pissed off as well.

Why Government

2005-05-06T18:22:00.000-06:00

Nearly every modern political debate, when boiled down to its essence, is an attempt to define the proper role of government in a given situation. Be it Schiavo, Social Security, or steroids, on some level the participants are advancing their own personal theory regarding the appropriateness of governmental intervention. In a sense, all such questions can be reduced to a simple inquiry: What should government be doing?

In service of their respective conclusions, participants in this discussion reach out in every direction. They will alternatively quote Enlightenment philosophers and religious doctrine. Some will attempt to tease meaning out of the Constitution, while others search for the truth in the writings of Ayn Rand. Of course, there is much to learn from those who came before us and such investigations can be quite enlightening. However, there is an underlying assumption that the answer lies somewhere in the words and ideas of our ancestors, and that we need merely to decipher and properly apply this hidden meaning in order to achieve resolution.

I am not so certain. Perhaps the answer to our question can be so divined, but it is more likely that our divergent sourcing and interpretations will never converge, leaving us no closer to a conclusion than when we began. This makes for great debate fodder, but I find that it offends my empirical sensibilities. I'm not in this for the game -- I want an answer.

And so, I've been considering an alternative methodology that I feel has some promise. Rather than relying on the pontifications of a bunch of dead white men, let's approach the question from an anthropological perspective.

To do this, let's first change the question slightly. Instead of asking what government should be doing, let's ask why government even exists. What happened in our ancient history that necessitated the rise of such top-down societal management?

When the human species arose in Africa, they began as hunter-gatherers, functioning in a manner not dissimilar from the wild primate troops that we can witness today. These early humans lived in a condition not far removed from a pure state of nature. Yet, even at this primitive stage, there surely were rules of conduct that governed the troop's members. However, the small size of these communities meant that bureaucratic institutions of rule enforcement were unnecessary. Hierarchies undoubtedly existed, and those at the top certainly wielded control of those below them, but all such interaction was conducted face to face.

Then, about 10,000 years ago, humans started to give up their nomadic ways. As they learned to domesticate local plant and animal species, communities began to focus more and more of their energy on agriculture. While the productivity of these early farmers was still relatively poor, the shift did allow an increasing number of humans to subsist in a relatively small area. At first, this increased population density would not have demanded a shift in the social order. As long as the numbers remained low enough for high levels of intimacy to exist between members of the community, rules of conduct could be maintained through the direct application of interpersonal pressures.

Soon though, the size of these communities began to grow. As the number of individuals increased, the levels of intimacy between them began to drop. The connection between family and close friends remained strong, but community members were now frequently exposed to individuals who were not well known to them. Eventually populations increased to the point that community members frequently encountered fellow denizens who were complete strangers. This was a radical shift from the experience of the hunter-gatherer, who might have gone months without encountering a non-familiar human. Suddenly, such an experience was an everyday occurrence. And it surely began to create problems.

In small groups, where every individual is well known to everyone, there are high levels of accountability for behavior. Knowledge of transgressions against community norms circulate rapidly, making such transgressions extremely costly. You might be able to get away with cheating a fellow member of your clan, but if you are caught, all of your relationships will be affected by the existence of this sin. Moreover, for most people it is simply more difficult to cheat intimates, as opposed to faceless strangers. However, once these communities reach a certain size, these prohibitions against bad behavior start to fail. Individuals are no longer beholden to these informal constraints and are free to behave in a manner that serves their narrow self-interest.

The solution to the failure of these informal constraints is to institute new, formal constraints. This is otherwise known as government.

There is, I think, an object lesson in this tale of government's origin. Government, it appears, evolved to address a specific problem that arose out of increasing community sizes. Clearly, there were advantages to abandoning the hunter-gatherer lifestyle in favor of agricultural communities. Over time, with increasing population, these advantages became much more dramatic. Communities with larger populations had higher levels of technological innovation, which led to higher levels of productivity, which could in turn support an even larger population.

But, increasing population brings with it its share of problems, the breakdown of informal behavioral constraints being merely the first. As we are now aware, large populations have a significant impact upon the environment, both with respect to resource exhaustion and production of waste. Also, the high population density of large communities increases the individual's vulnerability to infectious disease. These negative byproducts of increasing population must somehow be managed, as they threaten the very survival of the community. Without such management, the long-term advantages of dense population centers would be overcome by the costs. No large community could survive without it.

Now, let's return to our initial question. What should government be doing? It should be managing the negative byproducts of communal existence, just like it always has. Anything that government does should be justifiable in the context of this simple rule. Anything that falls outside of this narrow mandate is probably an inappropriate application.

Of course, the application of this rule isn't going to immediately resolve any public policy debates. Reasonable people can disagree about what necessarily constitutes a negative byproduct. Moreover, disagreements will arise regarding how we choose to manage the byproducts we agree on. That said, I do feel that reframing the question in this fashion allows us to jettison a tremendous amount of useless rhetoric. How would Jefferson, Locke, or Aristotle choose to apply government to a given problem? Who cares? Even if it were possible to divine answers to such questions, of what value would those answers be unless they were informed by our current understanding of the problem? Rather than attempting to justify policy by invoking the words of ancestors completely ignorant of the world we live in, why not simply address the problem directly? Given what we now know: Is the given issue a negative consequence of communal existence? Everything beyond that question is useless.

People, it seems, are too willing to rely upon the wisdom of our ancestors. This wisdom has become imbued with a sense of infallibility that often becomes impossible to dispute. While I would not argue against the brilliance of many who have come before us, it isn't the final word. These men and women were limited by the information available to them during their era. It is fascinating to see them struggle to answer the questions of their time. But, the key phrase here is of their time. We live in a different world and we shouldn't be afraid of wrestling with the questions of our time. Our ancestors were smart, but so are we. And we will demonstrate that fact -- as long as we can recognize the question before us.

Coming Soon...

2005-05-06T00:58:00.000-06:00

I hate to sound like a broken record, but the real world has kept me away from the blog for these last few days. I've got something in the pipeline, but it won't be up until this afternoon. If you can, check back a little later. As always, it will be worth your time.

In the Interests of Full Disclosure...

2005-05-01T19:22:00.000-06:00

I am:

17%

Republican.

"You're a tax-and-spend liberal democrat. People like you are the reason everyone else votes for guys like Reagan or George W."

Are You A Republican?

Just thought you should know.

The False ANWR Solution

2005-05-01T17:19:00.000-06:00

One of the central features of George Bush's energy plan has been the achievement of so-called energy independence. Of course, since the only significant source of foreign energy is derived from petroleum, what we are really discussing is foreign oil independence. Not that that would be a bad idea. The instability of the Middle East makes our reliance on their oil exports economically risky, to say the least. Moreover, our foreign policy is driven, at least in part, by our voracious petroleum appetites. Our concern over the free flow of oil has frequently led us to pursue policy tailored to achieve that narrow end while ignoring the long-term consequences of such actions. Much of the terrorist threat that we today face can be directly attributed to our pursuit of such short-term policy goals. Clearly, producing energy independence would pay dividends on many fronts.

That said, there are many ways to skin a cat. And, to continue a rather morbid analogy, there are ways that actually get the skin off and there are those that don't. If it's a skinless cat you want, you want to make sure that you pick a method that can produce that result.

Thus far, Bush has been promoting a two-pronged attack on our foreign oil dependence. First, he's pushing technological innovation designed to increase efficiency and develop new domestic energy sources. These are all excellent ideas and worth pursuing aggressively. Then, he endorses enhancing the domestic energy infrastructure. This is where things get a little bit more problematic. An increase in the amount of domestic energy produced by coal and nuclear power would indeed reduce demand for foreign oil. Unfortunately, the environmental consequences of such a shift mitigates the attractiveness of this option.

As you are no doubt well aware, there remains one final aspect of the domestic energy infrastructure under discussion: increasing domestic oil production, specifically by tapping the ANWR petroleum reserve. This has been a controversial proposal for some time now, with most of the squabbling turning on the size of the reserve and the environmental consequences of the project. While these are issues that should play a role in our deliberations, they have, I feel, obscured a larger question: Will ANWR, under even the most optimistic productivity predictions, reduce our dependence upon foreign oil?

Not likely.

The key to this issue is realizing that petroleum is a global commodity. Kevin Drum pointed this out quite recently.

But as long as we're on the subject, I want to pick a nit: short of either a major catastrophe or a dramatic scientific breakthrough, we will never reduce our dependence on foreign oil. Period. Oil is a global commodity, and even if we reduce our use of oil, the oil we do buy will come from the cheapest producers. And the cheapest producers are all in the Middle East.

The reality is that our oil supply will always come from whoever is offering the best price. If ANWR oil is somehow less expensive than oil extracted in the Middle East, our dependence upon their oil will decrease. Otherwise, there won't be any change.

That isn't to say that having ANWR up and running wouldn't be advantageous in certain respects. It would increase the amount of oil on the global market and thus drive down the cost of energy and of other petroleum-based products. This would provide an economic boost to petroleum-based economies across the globe. The degree of impact revolves around the ultimate productivity of the project and is therefore open to question. However, at least some positive effect would be realized.

But, let's be clear: it is highly unlikely that our dependence on foreign oil will be affected by increasing domestic oil production at ANWR or at any other domestic location. That just isn't how the global oil market functions. So, there are reasons to like ANWR, just as there are reasons to hate it. But, if you were looking there for energy independence, look elsewhere. It simply isn't there.

Homework

2005-04-28T23:59:00.000-06:00

Again, I have some real world issues to address, so I would have anything new until the weekend. However, I would recommend checking out this post on confirmation bias. I want to talk about this more, but I won't be able to do it justice until next week.

Anyway, be sure to stop by this weekend. We'll be talking about oil (fun stuff -- I assure you).

Sucker-Be-Gone! Yours If You Act Now!

2005-04-27T23:04:00.000-06:00

Are you a frequent mark for con men? Have you recently purchased a year supply of "miracle cream" that you saw advertised on late-night television? Still investing in laetrile?

If so, have I got something for you! It's the most recent issue of The Skeptic's Circle offered by our good friends over at Thoughts from Kansas. Simply apply liberally at regular intervals. Absolutely, positively guaranteed to remove all trace of suckerhood from your person, or double your money back.

You have my word on it.

Centrism: Another Word for Useless

2005-04-27T03:29:00.000-06:00

Kevin Drum recently directed his readers to a Ronald Brownstein article which argues that there exists a real opportunity for a centrist political party to seize control of the White House in 2008. Kevin quickly dispatches the notion that the Internet could somehow be the engine for such a movement, a point I completely agree with. But, I'm willing to go further and suggest that the notion of a popular centrist movement outperforming the existing political establishment is sheer fantasy. And, I'm willing to back that up.

First of all, let's think about what a so-called "centrist" voter really is. A large percentage of those who so identify are actually individuals who simply have no vested interest in the political issues of the day. In other words, they are utterly apathetic. Those who are not completely disconnected from politics are unified only by their distaste for the system. They reject the partisanship displayed by politicians in general and therefore view both sides of the spectrum as equally problematic. Now, these people may represent a large portion of the electorate, but I don't really see them as the basis some sort of centrist revolution. The combination of apathy and aversion isn't exactly a recipe for the type of radical political change we are discussing. These people are more likely to see politics as the problem itself, rather than an avenue for innovative solutions. Therefore, no one is going to be riding their backs to victory.

Of course, there are other self-identified centrists out there. These individuals have opinions, but these opinions fail to overlap neatly with either major party. Could these be the basis of a centrist political movement? My opinion: no. Here's why.

When people talk about centrist politicians, they often refer to their ability to behave in a bipartisan fashion. Lieberman and McCain are often cited as examples of individuals who are willing to buck the party line in support of their personal principles. Here's the thing though: on individual issues, are these centrist politicians taking centrist positions or are they really taking a position in opposition to that of their party? You see, on many issues, there really is no center. You either support the issue or you don't.

Take abortion. You can talk all you want about how it's a personal issue, how you view it to be a sin, etc. But, in the end that's just talk. The issue is whether or not the government should be able to regulate it. If you take the pro-choice position (i.e. little or no government regulation), no one on the pro-life side is going to care that you wouldn't get an abortion yourself. If you subdivide the issue and began talking about parental consent or partial-birth abortion, you are in the same boat. You either like parental consent or you don't. Same with partial-birth abortion.

Now, you might argue that, because you take differing positions on the various subissues (i.e. pro partial-birth ban, anti-parental consent), your conglomerate abortion stance is centrist. Maybe. But the question isn't really whether or not you achieve political centrism by taking alternating positions within the overarching question. The question is what can you do, politically speaking, by holding these positions.

Centrism, as it plays out in practice, is sort of a cafeteria ideology. You take a little from the left on issue A, B, and C while taking a little from the right on issue D, E, and F. It's a regular smorgasbord. However, every centrist is going to serve himself something different. Every plate will be unique. Therefore, you aren't going to end up with any unifying themes upon which to base a political movement. Instead, you are going to have a million centrists who can't agree with each other. Again, not exactly what he would call a recipe for political dominance.

The real reason that people like McCain win elections is that they are perceived to have integrity and/or charisma. You might disagree with McCain on many issues, but because you feel that he is an honest broker who will always do what he feels is correct, you're willing to support him over a candidate who blindly toes the party line. Or, if you are not a particularly issue driven voter, you can be charmed by someone like Clinton. Either way, though, you aren't pulling the lever because of a shared centrist ideology. Such a thing simply does not exist.

This is not to say that playing to swing voters has no strategic merit. Of course it does. But when such a strategy works, it does so only when personal integrity and/or charisma overcome the apathy or ideological difference within each captured voter. The middle has no ideological consistency to court. You can use their votes to pad those supplied by those in your political base on the right or left. If you can sway enough of them to your side, they can definitely turn an election your way. But, they will never be anyone's base simply because there is no there there. Without ideological coherence, they simply cannot be addressed as a group. And without that foundation, nothing can be built upon them.

So, in the end, centrism is a nice idea. It is a sort of utopian ideal, a place where we can all get along. But, like the lost city of Atlantis, it doesn't really exist. And just like I'm not planning on building a house on Atlantis' upper West side, I wouldn't be planning a political campaign based on the fable of a centrist majority.

It's the Resources, Stupid!

2005-04-25T14:28:00.000-06:00

As one of the more memorable phrases to emerge from American politics in the last 15 years or so, James Carville's "It's the economy, stupid!" was not merely a snappy rejoinder to the question "what is the campaign about?" It was a reminder that, no matter what other issues might be in play, those who chose to ignore the significance of economic concerns could ever come to understand the modern political landscape. Other issues might exist, but they only come to prominence once people have achieved a sense of economic security. While certain issues (such as national security) might temporarily distract us, our focus inevitably returns to our pocketbooks. It is the Rosetta Stone of the American political scene.

However, once we expand our focus beyond our domestic political microcosm, there is another universal rule that we should begin to acknowledge. Political movements may rise and fall in accordance with the economic successes that they provide, but these movements are just one element within the larger cosmos of society itself. Once our analysis begins to operate at that level, the significance of economic oscillation is suddenly dwarfed. Instead, a separate, yet related, factor emerges as the preeminent determinant of success or failure. In a word: resources.

The question of rising and failing civilizations is one that I approached with a certain naïveté until very recently. The wealth and power of Western Civilization was something that I accepted uncritically, rarely stopping to wonder how it had come to pass. In moments where I did consider possible explanations, I was largely drawn to the theory of Western cultural exceptionalism. This was never a theory that I bother to flesh out in its entirety, but there was something satisfying about it at first glance. Western culture had given us individualism, the Enlightenment, and the Puritan work ethic, all of which combined might have given Western society a competitive advantage over other civilizations.

However, I experienced a radical paradigm shift after reading Jared Diamond's Guns, Germs, and Steel: the Fates of Human Societies (a shift that was further cemented after completing Diamond's follow-up effort, Collapse: How Societies Choose to Fail or Succeed). Rather than attempting to answer the question by studying the cultural philosophies of modern-day civilizations, Diamond's examination began literally at the dawn of human society. By doing so, he was able to develop an incredibly persuasive theory that largely explains the current state of human affairs here on planet Earth. And, yes, it's largely about the resources.

These days we all have a basic understanding about society's need for certain resources. This awareness is brought into sharp relief with every visit to our local filling station. But many of us, myself included, often fail to realize the full scope all of our society's resource requirements. Some are acquired so cheaply and easily that they can hardly be considered resources at all. Moreover, the facility of this resource acquisition often disguises the fact that these resources are not distributed equally across the globe. Again, everyone knows that petroleum resources are concentrated in a few select locations. But how many of us have really considered the distribution of highly productive agricultural land.

Of course, modern technology and globalization have served to obscure these uneven distributions. However, if you are examining the human societies of our distant ancestors, the importance of resource access is brought into focus. Suddenly, the resources in question become far more foundational in nature. As it turns out, the availability of high protein grains and the presence of domesticable large animals played a critical role in the evolution of early human cultures. But, due to the fact that these resources were not available to humans in all locations, those that did have them enjoyed a competitive advantage over those that did not.

And so, resource distribution played a critical role in establishing the modern hierarchy of civilizations. But, the initial presence of resources is only half of the story. As we are well aware, certain resources are nonrenewable, such as petroleum and hard rock minerals. Others are renewable, but the rate of renewal is slow and is potentially exceeded by the extraction rate. Finally, the "renew-ability" of many resources is determined by nonstatic factors, such as climate. Therefore, resource availability determines not merely the rise of certain civilizations, but frequently their fall as well.

The importance of resource access to a functioning society cannot be overstated, yet is frequently overlooked. What I wrote about the opium problem in Afghanistan a couple of weeks ago, this was the issue that I felt was missing from the debate. We have a tendency to assume, usually unconsciously, that the poverty of Third World nations is the result of local mismanagement. The unstated belief is that, with the appropriate application of technology, ingenuity, and effort, these problems would evaporate. Maybe they can't make it work, we think, but surely we could. But this is no less than pure arrogance on our part. Our technology might improve crop yields, but it could never level the playing field between nations rich and poor in resources. It is a fantasy to believe otherwise.

As we move into the 21st century, we will begin to confront the resource question more directly for the simple reason that many of them will be exhausted soon. As always, we are cognizant of this fact with respect to petroleum. However, the same can be said for topsoil, water, forests, ocean and freshwater fisheries, to name just a few. Moreover, as the climate changes, so will the distribution of these renewable resources be changed. Regions that currently enjoy high levels of agricultural productivity may suddenly discover themselves to be unable to feed even themselves. In short, we face a looming crisis whose consequences will be both dramatic and widespread. This isn't just some fantasy of the environmental extremists; it's very real.

I suspect that within the next few decades, we will look back upon this time as a period when public policy was driven by our obsession with short-term economic ebb and flow, while we ignored the long-term ramifications of our shortsightedness. We will wish that we had considered how these policies affected our resource management when it was still relatively painless to do so. We will be bitterly amused as we study those political careers that turned on a small hike in inflation or unemployment. We will be looking back from a very different world then the one we currently occupy. It will be a world of conflict driven by the shortages that are only now emerging and we will long for our current era of plenty. During that time, there will be a political consultant who will hang a sign above his desk in order to keep his campaign on message, and that sign will say "It's the resources, stupid!"

The Real Enemy

2005-04-25T12:07:00.000-06:00

This is required attire for all fans of Mr. Show. If you don't know what I'm talking about, don't worry. The link is funny in its own right.

(Via Majikthise)

Workers of the World Unite

2005-04-24T23:45:00.000-06:00

Yes -- I know. Things have been a little inconsistent for the last few days. I apologize. I will have something new up later this afternoon.

Until then, why not head over to Red Harvest to check out the latest Carnival of the Un-Capitalists. You'll find a lot of meaty material over there -- surely enough to satisfy you until I can get my act together.

Update: Link fixed.

Who Loves You, Baby

2005-04-20T18:47:00.000-06:00

Not everyone likes me, but some people do. What a relief!

Anyway, my little shop has received in the tiniest bit of attention this week and I thought I would memorialize the moment with this short acknowledgment. First, we have been added to the blogroll over at Heraldblog. Second, we made the cut for Kathy's Friday Random 10 over at Citizen's Rent. So, congratulations to me.

But, this isn't just some exercise in self-aggrandizement. Both of those blogs are pretty interesting and worth checking out. Plus, a number of the other blogs listed on the Friday Random 10 deserve some investigation. So, when you get a chance, be sure to click on over.

Fun with Images

2005-04-20T14:24:00.000-06:00

This here is a little experiment. This is what I would look like if I lived in South Park.

Amusing, no?

A Little Regulation

2005-04-19T20:04:00.000-06:00

Not 15 minutes after I finished reading Collapse: How Societies Choose to Fail or Succeed do I discover Publius referencing Jared Diamond in this post regarding the coming oil wars. Now, that is what I call a coincidence.

Anyway, while Publius limits himself to discussing the oil problem (something Diamond decidedly does not do), he nails the problem that we're facing.

As Diamond might explain, when you have multiple parties competing for scarce resources, you should expect conflict. And that’s essentially where we are today. The economies of the world powers need reliable supplies and suppliers of oil. In addition, they need to remove potential threats to these stable supplies of oil. Thus, as we might expect, we are beginning to see these world powers engage in a string of seemingly isolated global conflicts to secure supplies of oil – both in the sense of physical conquest and/or in the sense of removing threats to the stability of oil-producing regions. This is what I mean by the "Oil Wars."

On the one hand, this is a fairly elementary stuff. If you need something bad, you will go a long way to get it. If others get in your way, things have a tendency to get ugly. It's not exactly what you would call rocket science. And if that something is something like drugs, everyone gets on board. But, if that something is oil, there's a segment of the population that has a tendency to go batshit.

This reaction was typified a few weeks ago when I was listening to Rush Limbaugh pontificate on his radio show (yes, I know, I know -- I don't know what the hell I'm doing listening to that show either). He had been asked whether or not he was worried about the finite nature of the oil reserves here on planet Earth. His response was, essentially, that (a) oil isn't that scarce and (b) the market will solve this problem.

Thus, the idea that scarce resources could play a role in conflict is unacceptable because it challenges the notion of the "magical" market, a divine system that, when left alone, will rain blessings down upon all earthly creatures. Surely, they claim, the market would address the issue of resource scarcity long before it would be resolved through armed conflict.

Generally, I'm not one to forcibly disabuse the faithful of the objects of their adoration. If it makes you happy to believe in spirits, the Easter Bunny, or a the talents of John Travolta, who am I to stop you. In this situation, though, I can't let this pass. Too much is at stake.

There are many ways to look at the modern capitalist market, but one analogy that I find to be incredibly useful is that of an ecosystem. In essence, the market is the environment in which business entities compete for consumer dollars. And, just like natural ecosystems, the entities that are best suited to the environment succeed and thrive, while those less suited tend to evaporate (through bankruptcy or buyout). This dynamic is what creates the market efficiency so beloved by its libertarian/conservative advocates. The threat of failure pushes these business entities to constantly improve and adapt in order to succeed. They are forced to constantly streamline and reduce waste. Over time, this process transforms them into incredibly proficient operations.

So, I acknowledge without complaint that markets are indeed incredibly efficient systems. The problems arise when you take the next step and ask "what are markets efficient at accomplishing?"

The answer is simple: generating profits. While there are many beneficial aspects of this goal, it is in of itself an amoral pursuit. There is nothing inherently good or bad about it-- it merely is what it is. The positive and negative repercussions arise out of the ancillary effects of this pursuit. Therefore, the mistake that is made is assuming that the positive effects vastly outweigh the negative ones. Sometimes they do, but often they do not.

Some of the negative effects stem from the scope of the specific business entity's profitability forecast. The activity of a company is often determined by its outlook. If a company is forward-looking and concerned about profits 100 years in the future, it will take measures to assure that its current activity will not preclude future profits. However, if they are concerned only with their next quarterly report, they will take actions that provide the highest profits currently available regardless of the effect that that will have on the future. Thus, economic resources can be plundered for short-term gain, leaving those in the future without what they need to conduct business.

Other negative effects are related to what is commonly referred to as the collective action problem. The basic idea is that rational entities acting independently cannot address collective issues. For example, if all farmers in a town allow their cattle to graze all in the town commons, the land will soon be overgrazed and useless to everyone. However, they cannot choose to independently limit their grazing because others would simply take advantage of the situation by allowing their cattle to graze further. In such a situation, those acting on behalf of the group are punished while those acting on their own interests are rewarded. To solve the problem, limits must be established and enforced collectively.

There are many such collective action problems in the modern market. Many natural resources are finite (oil) or are slow to recover from exploitation, yet independent business entities cannot unilaterally decide to conserve them. The production of industrial pollutants damages the environment for everyone, yet businesses cannot independently assume the costs of prevention and cleanup. The fact that businesses compete with each other means that they cannot be trusted to consider the interests of anyone but themselves.

Finally, profit is itself a nebulous concept. Profits can be achieved in many ways. In the most general sense, increasing profits are derived from a widening gap between revenue and cost. However, reducing cost can be achieved by increased efficiency or by externalization. If an operating cost can be taken off the books and revenue is neutral, profit increases and the behavior is rewarded. But lots of cost externalizations are bad for society at large. For example, hard rock mines typically force the public at large to pay for the environmental damage they cause. The profitability of the mine increases, yet we are worse off collectively.

Defenders of the market might complain that I am ignoring the fact that consumers have the ability to pressure business entities that act irresponsibly. Supposedly, consumers will recognize bad actors and boycott their products. Sometimes this does occur and, when it does, it can be very effective. However, more often than not, such consumer resistance fails to materialize. There are three reasons for this. First, consumers lack the time, energy, and information required to consistently exert such pressures. The modern market is far too complex and compartmentalized for consumers to fully comprehend the effects of their market choices. A consumer might be unhappy about the environmental consequences of copper mining, yet unable to discover which of their consumer products contain copper from the offending mines. Second, consumers often do not understand the severity of certain corporate bad actions. Some environmental damage is difficult to perceive and frequently requires high levels of expertise to truly comprehend the threat. Finally, consumers are independent actors as well. In so, they might disproportionately benefit from certain consumer choices in spite of the fact that the collective is damaged. For these reasons, consumers can never be the final arbiter of appropriate business practice.

The market accomplishes many things very well. A large percentage of our modern comforts are derived from the market system. Whenever possible, it is advantageous to use market solutions to accomplish our collective goals. However, unfettered markets do not work purely for our benefit; they work purely for their own. Sometimes the interests of the market align with ours and in those instances we should give it free rein. But, when our interests diverge, we must change the market environment so that it produces results that are beneficial to us. Like it or not, this means regulation. There are systemic costs for imposing regulation, but the consequences for failing to do so are much more severe. How and what we regulate is an ongoing discussion and is something that we should constantly be refining. Yet, the question of whether or not to regulate should be settled.

The free market is a tool. It is neither good nor evil. It is merely a thing. It is how we use the market that will determine whether or not it is our salvation or our ultimate undoing. It can go either way -- but, if you want a world your children can live in, the choice is clear. A little regulation is, without a doubt, a good thing.

Expertise Matters

2005-04-16T21:21:00.000-06:00

A few weeks ago I proposed a theory as to why so many continue to cling to the idea that Saddam Hussein possessed weapons of mass destruction immediately preceding the American-led invasion. While this was far from the best thing I had ever written for this site, I felt that it was worth at least a little attention. However, I admit that there was some hesitation on my part. I knew that many might find the substance of that post to be rather irritating and that it was quite likely that I would experience some blowback. After a few minutes considering the pros and cons, I decided to enter it in the Carnival of the Vanities. I mean, really. How bad could it be?

As it turns out, not that bad. A lot of people read the post and I didn't get any death threats. But, at least one gentleman let it get under his skin and he laid into me in the comments and own his own blog. Alas, rather than address the subject of the post, the discussion largely digressed into a debate over the existence of WMDs. But, beggars can't be choosers. If that's what a reader wants to discuss, who am I to argue?

Anyway, during this little debate, my adversary (unintentionally, I think) revealed that he was unfamiliar with the conclusions of the Duelfer report. Since this document is essentially the final word on the subject, I didn't see how we could have a rational discussion until he was up to speed. In light of this fact, I recommended that he read this article, published in the Washington Post.

I realize this is a lot of prelude, but here comes the interesting part. Since this gentleman is of the conservative persuasion (he considers FOX News to be the most evenhanded major news source), he wasn't about to let the Washington Post be the final word on the issue. Therefore, he tracked down the actual Duelfer report and read it. Then, he posted an extensive summary of the report, arguing that the Washington Post had "shamelessly cherry-picked" quotes from the report in order to distort its meaning.

Now, if you didn't actually click through to the extensive summary, you should because that post is going to provide us with some context moving forward. As you can see, my friend has constructed a very compelling rejoinder to my claim that the WMD issue is settled. Moreover, he has quotes directly from the Duelfer report backing his position. I'm sure that many would read that post and come away believing that the jury is still out. Hell, after reading that post, I almost believe it.

In the end, though, I don't. And neither should you. Here's why.

The Duelfer Report is not exactly what you would call a thrifty read. It tops out at approximately 1000 pages (the complete PDF files total 200 MB). So, as you can see, when they refer to it as a comprehensive report, they aren't kidding. It's an extremely thorough examination of the WMD issue, truly leaving no stone unturned. This is, of course, exactly as it should be.

Unfortunately, when documents get to be this size, it starts to become difficult to summarize their meaning. When so much is said, how does one decide what's really important? Moreover, how easy is it for someone with absolutely no expertise in the subject to interpret the document's findings?

Not easy. Not easy at all.

This is a problem that I am starting to notice more and more in the blogosphere. In this modern era, we have access to enormous amounts of raw data. We also have at our disposal incredibly powerful tools for finding and evaluating this data. And finally, we have a medium in which to publish our conclusions. But, with all this power at our fingertips, is there any meaning to what we are producing? Or are we just a bunch of nimrods with cable modems and free time. Sometimes, it's difficult to tell.

On the one hand, I have to commend my conservative friend for actually getting into the trenches and doing some real work to back his position. Far too many people are willing to hold convictions on faith, sometimes even refusing to consider evidence brought to their doorstep. But, at the same time, you have to know your limits. A few weeks ago, when I was writing about the Lancet study regarding excess Iraqi deaths postinvasion, I faced a similar problem. I read the report (only about 10 pages) and I know more than the average bear about statistics. However, I don't know much about epidemiology or about cluster sampling. Therefore, I spent a lot of time reading what experts had to say about it before I presented my conclusions. To paraphrase Rumsfield, there are things that I know I know, things that I know I don't know, and things that I don't know that I don't know. Or something.

The bottom line is that, in the blogosphere, with the knowledge and tools at our disposal, almost anyone can seem like they know what they're talking about. However, the world is an incredibly complicated place and access to information does not directly correlate with comprehension. Often times it takes years of training and experience to extract meaning from a given data set. There was a time not long ago when that training and expertise would be a prerequisite for seeing the data in the first place. The fact that that is no longer true is mostly a good thing. I'm all for the widest distribution of information possible. But it means that we can no longer assume that the analyst knows more than we do. The presentation can be sharp, appealing, and loaded with raw data -- but still be completely wrong. Unless you're the expert, there's almost no way to know for sure.

With respect to the Duelfer report, it turns out that the authors anticipated this problem. As part of the full report, they published a short summary of key findings for each section (which, conveniently, can be downloaded separately (PDF)). It's sort of a Duelfer Report for Dummies, an ideal companion for nonexpert bloggers like myself. It's only 19 pages and is much easier to understand. And it shows how far off my conservative friend’s interpretation of the full document actually was.

But, I don't want this to come across as a slam against this gentleman. Sure, on the one hand, as consumers of blog-product -- buyer beware. On the other, though, blogger beware. This gentleman is far from the only one to get in over his head (I'm looking at you Powerline and Daily Kos). I've tried to avoid this particular pitfall, but if I have so far succeeded, I am sure it is only a matter of time before my intellectual hubris gets the better of me. No doubt, my downfall is quickly approaching.

So, remember: expertise matters. We've all got megaphones now, but all that means is that we're really fucking loud. Unless we really know what we're talking about, we're doing no more than broadcasting our ignorance. And that might make us feel good, but in the end, is that really why we're out here?

Separated at Birth

2005-04-14T00:57:00.000-06:00

For some time now, Ward Churchill has been the poster child for the right-wing's distaste for the academy. No tirade against academic liberal bias would be complete until Churchill's name makes an appearance. No iteration of the academy's sins can conclude without prominent mention of this specific case in point. One is sometimes left wondering what conservatives would do on this issue without the house whipping boy. I'm sure that they would dig someone else up, but is doubtful that anyone else could provide them the mileage that Ward Churchill has. He is as important to the anti-academy movement as anyone -- even David Horowitz.

Funny thing, though. I've been noticing recently a surprising similarity between these two gentlemen. Now, they exist on opposite ends of the ideological spectrum, so this isn't what I'm talking about. Instead, what I have realized is that when it comes to method and presentation, they are, without a doubt, brothers in arms. I'm sure that if either of them ever read that last sentence they would explode in rage and indignation (which would, as an aside, be fairly entertaining). But, the more I think about it, the more it rings true.

Let's take a look, shall we?

First off, both men are clearly ideologues. The investigations into their respective fields of inquiry are driven not so much out of a pure quest for knowledge, but as a springboard for change. While they both publicly present their findings, they most frequently do so in the service of their respective agendas.

Of course, that describes nearly every pundit, politician, and advocate in America, so that isn't the most insightful observation in the world. Where things get interesting is when you begin to investigate the quality of the data that they present. Now you're talking about some serious double vision.

As I pointed out in this post, Churchill has for many years been making claims that are, shall we say, poorly supported by his research. Most notably, he has claimed that an 1837 Native American smallpox epidemic was instigated by the United States Army despite compelling evidence that this is untrue. He has also made questionable claims regarding his own ancestry, frequently representing himself as Native American -- an affiliation denied by the nations in question. While these facts fail to impugn his character in its entirety, it does demonstrate a certain nonchalance with respect to accuracy.

However, Churchill isn't the only one with a casual relationship to the truth. In service of his assault on the academy, he has frequently circulated anecdotal evidence that has later been proven to be false. A recent example of this phenomenon was his claim that a student at the University of Northern Colorado was asked on a midterm exam to "explain why George Bush is a war criminal." As the story goes, she responded by instead explaining why Saddam Hussein is a war criminal. Her efforts were rewarded with a failing grade, thus demonstrating ideological discrimination on the part of her instructor.

Leaving aside the question of whether or not a student should receive a good grade for a non-responsive answer, is the story even true? As it turns out, not so much. Follow the preceding link to get the whole story, but the bottom line is that Horowitz failed to confirm the assertions of a complaining student, falsely claimed that the student had testified during legislative hearings, and, when the story started unraveling, essentially asserted that the gist of the story was correct even if certain particulars were mistaken. I guess that if you lie in service of a greater truth, it all comes out in the wash.

"Wait," you say. "That's just one example. Are there more?" Why, yes. I'm glad you asked.

In support of his claims regarding the 1837 smallpox epidemic, Churchill relied heavily upon the work of another historian. Russell Thornton, the Cherokee scholar and professor of anthropology at UCLA, had investigated andwritten about this same event. The problem was that he true radically different conclusions. Therefore, using Thornton's research as support for his claims is a little dishonest. But, more than that, it's pretty stupid. After all, the first person to check Churchill's references would uncover the deception (which is exactly what eventually happened). And if that hadn't tripped him up, there is always Thornton himself. When asked about Churchill's misrepresentations, Thorson replied, "Issues like Ward Churchill cast aspersions on legitimate Indian scholars. The history is bad enough -- there's no need to embellish it."

Horowitz also seems to have problems interpreting the work of others. The most recent example was on display a few short days ago. He had challenged Michael Bérubé to an online debate regarding Horowitz's new web site, Discover the Network, and the extent to which it attempts to blur the distinction between Roger Ebert and Osama bin Laden. This debate was to be published in its entirety at Horowitz's main storefront, FrontPage Magazine. And it was, except for one little thing. I'll let Michael take it from here.

[W]hen I went to the FrontPage site to check out the “debate,” I found that almost all my replies to David had been cut from the “conversation,” and that Glazov and Horowitz, after chopping all the stuff I’d written, slapped me upside the head for not replying to them…

Michael then proceeds to publicly bitch-slap Horowitz for both his dishonesty and his shocking stupidity. Afterwards, Horwitz claimed that he somehow had "missed" the responses in Bérubé’s last reply -- an honest mistake that anyone could make. He then posted the conclusion of the debate with the previously excised responses intact.

Whether or not this was an honest mistake is anyone's guess (although, the blogosphere is never short on opinions). However, that question aside, it shows the same slavish dedication to ideology as does the Churchill/Thornton example cited above. Surely it should have struck Horowitz as bizarre that Bérubé would have failed to respond to the points that he had raised. But the nonresponsiveness confirmed his pre-existing conclusions about liberal academics. It was the data point that he was looking for and, thus, he failed to approach it with an appropriate level of skepticism. Likewise, Churchill read Thornton's work and found what he was looking for, despite the fact that it wasn't there.

I'm sure that any exhaustive examination of these gentlemen would uncover more differences than similarities. I realize that my presentation is more of a rhetorical exercise than an honest inquiry. That said, the similarities that do exist are worth noting because of what they say about the conclusions that these men draw. Perhaps there are kernels of truth within their pontifications. Yet, any such truth is lost under an avalanche of dreck, impossible to distinguish from the morass of misinformation that engulfs it. Intellectual honesty matters because intellectual dishonesty cannot be contained. It infects the entirety of one's discourse. The fact that you may be speaking to a larger truth will not serve to fortify your position. Every brick of the foundation must be solid lest the entire structure collapse. That may impede the progress of an ideological assertion, but at least the progress achieved will be real.

So ends today's edition of "separated-at-birth." Tune in next week when we examine the link between Tom Friedman and Ann Coulter. You won't want to miss that.

Borderline

2005-04-12T01:45:00.000-06:00

First, understand the problem.

That's a good rule. Whether you're trying to answer a math problem or trying to reform Social Security, if you aren't clear about the nature of the problem, the odds are that your solution won't address it. If it does, it's just dumb luck -- and who wants to rely on that?

These are the thoughts that arise when I think about the Minuteman Project now in progress down in Arizona. For the remainder of the month, volunteers will be providing "assistance" to border patrol agents who are attempting to stem the flow of illegal immigrants across the border. These volunteers are motivated by their belief that the federal government "is not fulfilling its mission to protect American citizens from the economic and physical danger of porous borders." The hope is that, by bringing attention to the issue, the federal government will be shamed into action.

Unfortunately, I strongly believe that the Arizona Minutemen do not understand the problem that they are supposedly trying to address. Therefore, they are doomed to fail.

Here's the situation. There are, in the most general sense, two types of crime. First, you have victim/perpetrator crime. In each instance there is an entity that profits from the activity and an entity that experiences harm. These crimes are zero-sum in that there must be a winner and a loser for each occurrence. Murder, theft, and vandalism are all examples of victim/perpetrator crime. The second class of crime is what you might refer to as transactional. In these crimes, both of the directly involved entities gain from its commission, while the negative effects are experienced by tangential entities. Drug sales and prostitution fall into this category.

From a law enforcement perspective, transactional crimes are much more difficult to address for numerous reasons. First of all, since those directly involved benefit from the crime’s commission, the police are usually unaware that a crime has even occurred. There may be complainants, but due to the fact that they are tangential entities, they rarely have valuable information to offer. The second difficulty facing law enforcement is that transactional crimes tend to follow a supply-demand dynamic. Merely focusing upon the supply side of the equation results in higher demand and thus a stronger incentive to engage in the specific criminal activity. Busting drug dealers has the effect of driving up the street value of narcotics, which in turn draws new dealers into the market. Therefore, any effective law enforcement response must address both supply and demand. If you don't, you'll never make a difference.

What about illegal immigration? Where does it fit in? Well, despite all the rhetoric about immigrants stealing jobs and using up valuable municipal resources, it pretty clearly falls into the transactional category. While most people recognize the immigrants themselves as criminal entities, few seem to recognize their partner in crime: employers. Overwhelmingly, individuals cross the border in order to find work, not to live off of the American welfare state. And employers are all too happy to have them. When the two sides meet, they both benefit and a transactional crime is born.

Now, let's return to the Minutemen. Their focus is sealing the border, pure and simple. But, in the transactional crime model, this addresses only one half of the equation -- the supply half. Assuming they are successful in reducing the flow of immigration, it will merely serve to drive up wages, making immigration that much more attractive. Through this process they could potentially drive wages so high that it would no longer make sense to hire illegal workers, but it is hard to imagine anyone investing the resources that that would require.

If the Minutemen truly wanted to make a difference they wouldn't merely be standing on the border. They would be monitoring strawberry and avocado farms or standing outside HomeDepot and writing down the license plate number of each car that picked up an immigrant to help around the yard. But, I've noticed that they aren't doing that. No one is.

Having insecure borders is a real problem, especially when we live with the constant threat of terrorist infiltration. That said, it's a fantasy to think that we can address the problem in this manner. As with most transactional crime, the solution isn't to stop it, the solution is to regulate it. Secure borders could be achieved with an appropriately constructed guest worker program. Immigrants would much rather pass through a border patrol station than through the Mexico-Arizona deserts. Employers would be happy to continue to employ these workers. Border patrol agents would much rather focus their efforts on immigrants with truly nefarious intentions, as opposed to those simply trying to earn a living. It's a win for everyone.

Unless, you just don't like foreigners. The following is from the Minuteman Project welcome page:

[The Minuteman Project] is a reminder to Americans that our nation was founded as a nation governed by the "rule of law", not by the whims of mobs of ILLEGAL aliens who endlessly stream across U.S. borders. Accordingly, the men and women volunteering for this mission are those who are willing to sacrifice their time, and the comforts of a cozy home, to muster for something much more important than acquiring more "toys" to play with while their nation is devoured and plundered by the menace of tens of millions of invading illegal aliens. Future generations will inherit a tangle of rancorous, unassimilated, squabbling cultures with no common bond to hold them together, and a certain guarantee of the death of this nation as a harmonious "melting pot."

The result: political, economic and social mayhem.

Historians will write about how a lax America let its unique and coveted form of government and society sink into a quagmire of mutual acrimony among the various sub-nations that will comprise the new self-destructing America.

Okay -- maybe my solution isn't a win for everyone. But it sure makes clear what everyone's problem really is.

An Ode to Mothers Everywhere

2005-04-11T10:55:00.000-06:00

Just click here. You won't be sorry.

Blog Still Off

2005-04-11T00:26:00.000-06:00

Sorry folks. I'm really almost there. Check back tomorrow.

If it makes you feel any better, this is way worse for me than it is for you.

Blog Off

2005-04-08T23:39:00.000-06:00

Almost done, so I'm going to focus for the remainder of the weekend. I'll have something new up on Monday. Blog off till then.

Stuff Other People Wrote

2005-04-05T19:54:00.000-06:00

Here's what's worth reading today (damn these graduate school essays!).

Matt Yglesias has a good take on Senator John Cornyn's comments from the chamber yesterday in How to Do Things with Extremists.

If you are interested in understanding the debate surrounding the upcoming change in Senate filibuster rules, The Next Hurrah has a 11 part primer: here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here.

Over at The Carpetbagger Report we find The Role Reversal on Rationalizing Evil, which notes how many on the right spend time looking for root causes of evil, rather than demanding accountability. Quite amusing.

Things Worth Reading

2005-04-04T12:52:00.000-06:00

In Punditland, a Little Imagination Could Yield Needed Diversity offers some interesting perspective on the issue of women and minorities in the pundit classes.

If you'd like to design your own South Park character, click here.

Think people having control of their retirement investments is a good idea? Think again, after reading (Why) You Suck at Investing.

I usually think of Roger Ebert as a soulless marketing tool who whores out his thumb to the highest bidder. But, proving the adage that even a broken clock is right twice a day, he takes an admirable stand against creationism here.

Jonnybutter is guest blogging at TIA and has presented us with a fantastic rant in Against Euphemasia. I'm probably going to have a bit to say about this post once I'm done with my graduate school essays (damn them!).

I Hate Graduate School

2005-04-03T23:14:00.000-06:00

And I'm still in the application process!

Anyway, this is a roundabout way of saying that I have to take a few days off here. I have to write up a bunch of stupid essays this week and I'm using this blog to procrastinate. So, while I'd rather pontificate aimlessly in this medium, I have to do something else for a few days.

But, rather than simply turning the blog off, I'm going to experiment with something. Over the coming days, I'll be posting links to other interesting stuff that I find and consider worth reading. There will be little or no commentary offered, but it will keep things idling around here. Once I bang out my graduate school applications, things will return to normal.

And let's start right now.

"It's a Sicilian message. It means Luca Brasi sleeps with the fishes." from Hullabaloo.

More later. Wish me luck on the whole graduate school thing.

You Can't Prove a Negative

2005-04-01T00:36:00.000-07:00

Actually, the above statement is false. Let me explain.

Oftentimes, in the course of debate, we find ourselves in the awkward position of claiming that a certain assertion is false. Are aliens visiting Earth? Is there a Santa Claus? Or, the ever popular, were there weapons of mass destruction present in Iraq immediately preceding the American-led invasion? I don't know about you, but I want to answer "no" to each of these questions. The problem arises when your adversary responds by saying, "Oh yeah? Prove it!"

I generally try to avoid this predicament by refusing to provide an outright denial. Instead, I try to shift the burden of proof to the individual making the claim. "Is there a Santa Claus? Well, I can't say for certain, but I don't see any affirmative evidence demonstrating his existence. Come back when you have some and we'll talk."

But, some people just won't let up. For them, this expression of healthy skepticism comes across as weasel-speak. Or, it is used to claim that the positive and negative position are equivalent; neither proved nor disproved and thus equal. This can be extremely frustrating, especially in situations where there have been extensive investigations that have failed to prove the assertion. For example, for years, children across the globe have attempted to catch a glimpse of Santa Claus, often going to extraordinary measures to achieve discovery. To my knowledge, no child has yet succeeded. So, when the adversary claims that neither the "Santa Claus exists" nor the "Santa Claus does not exist" proposition has been proved and, therefore, each position has equal merit, I tend to get a little annoyed.

It is at this point that I tend to lose it and scream (or type in all-caps), "You idiot! You can't prove a negative! Therefore, the burden is yours!" Then, I tend to feel a little better.

However, as I thought about this some more, I realize that this isn't exactly true.

There are lots of negatives that can be proved. I am not a woman. Babe Ruth never played for the Atlanta Falcons. There is no beached orca decaying in my living room. You are not reading this article in today's edition of the New York Times. I could go on. These are all negatives and they are all easily disproved. Therefore, I've been a little disingenuous on this point from time to time.

That said, I'm not forced to endure the triumphalism of fools. I just need to clarify what I actually mean.

The problem isn't specifically with the negativity of the assertion I am making. It actually has to do with the size of the domain in which such a proof would have to occur. If the domain is large enough, many positive assertions are also impossible to demonstrate definitively. Jim Lippard offers us a clear explanation of the problem.

This is really the idea behind the claim that "you can't prove a negative"--that we don't have the resources or ability to exhaustively enumerate all examples over the entire universe. But notice that this is an issue whether the proposition is positive or negative, and that all positive propositions have equivalent negative propositions, and vice versa. Also notice that, if the scope of the domain is sufficiently small, proof can be quite easy.

Let's take our domain to be swans, and look at the property of being purple. Which of these statements is supposed to be impossible to prove? (1) All swans are purple. (2) Not all swans are purple. (3) There is a purple swan. (4) There is no purple swan. Now, statements (1) and (2) are easy to disprove and prove, respectively--each requires only a single non-purple swan to demonstrate. The former is a universal positive statement, the latter is a negated universal. Statement (3), a positive existential statement, requires only a single purple swan to prove, but takes a lot of enumeration to disprove. Statement (4), a negative existential, is a statement of the type that is supposed to be impossible to prove, and it clearly requires the most work to demonstrate, but only a single purple swan to disprove. (This statement is equivalent to the universal negative, "All swans are not-purple.")

All that lies behind the more precise statement, "you can't prove a universal negative (or negative existential) statement" is that the most straight-forward, direct manner of proof--exhaustive enumeration--is not always available due to practical limitations.

Therefore, to all of you out there that I have admonished with the "you can't prove a negative" reprimand, I apologize. I was wrong, and I take credit for this failing. I should've said, “It is impossible to enumerate through all possibilities within the domain in a reasonable amount of time -- and thus, the burden of proof is yours!" It doesn't have quite the same zing, but at least it's accurate.

And, when you get down to it, it doesn't change a thing. So, for everyone out there who believes in aliens visiting Earth, Santa Claus, or Baathist WMD programs -- the burden is still yours. Step up if you can. Otherwise, don't let the door hit your ass on the way out.

Guns, Germs, and Opium

2005-03-31T01:00:00.000-07:00

Matthew Yglesias has a short post up over at Tapped regarding the US military's intention to become more involved in opium eradication efforts in Afghanistan. Naturally, he's skeptical of such an endeavor.

Unfortunately, there's every reason to think that mere military crackdowns and eradication campaigns will do little to improve the situation. These sorts of efforts may well reduce poppy cultivation (and hence improve the heroin problem in drug-consuming countries) but they'll do little to make things better for Afghans (indeed, they'll make things much worse) unless the inhabitants of that country are given non-poppy economic opportunities.

Of course, he's exactly right. Eliminating poppy farms through the direct application of force doesn't begin to address the longer-term issues. Once we get tired of fighting drug lords in Afghanistan, or we get distracted by events elsewhere, poppy production will bounce right back. It's basic macroeconomic theory. As long as the first world continues to maintain a voracious appetite for poppy based narcotics, poppies will bloom in Afghanistan.

Unless, says Matt, we give them "non-poppy economic opportunities." And again, he's right. This is just the next step in the macroeconomic equation. Right now, poppy production is the most profitable economic sector. Once another industry supplants poppy cultivation as an income generator, Afghanis will naturally transition to it. Problem solved.

Or is it? Once people realize the futility of eradicating drug markets through force, these sorts of solutions are a frequent next step. Drug producers, the thinking goes, just need to have their efforts redirected. If we could just convince them to grow coffee instead, they wouldn't need to grow whatever narcotic they are currently cultivating. In theory, this is a great idea. But, in practice, it isn't very realistic.

The geology of Afghanistan is not particularly well-suited to agriculture. It is an extremely mountainous land, with 49% of its territory existing above 2000 meters. It is also a relatively arid nation, with average annual rainfall reaching a mere 13 inches (compared with 40 inches for the United States). Estimates of the total amount of arable land vary between 12 and 22% of the total landmass. Additionally, they suffer from a host of environmental issues, such as soil degradation, overgrazing, deforestation, desertification, and increasing levels of air and water pollution. All of these factors make agriculture a difficult endeavor for the Afghanis.

Also, Afghanistan is a landlocked nation. The nearest seaport (in Karachi, Pakistan) is 1170 km away. Therefore, products destined for export must be fairly durable. They do trade with India and Pakistan, but their route to the remaining world markets is rather circuitous.

Considering the geology of the region, its distance from potential trading partners, and its relatively rudimentary agricultural technology, is there any crop that will make them economically competitive?

There sure is. It's called opium. And it's profitable there not because Afghanistan is a particularly good environmental host for this crop. It's profitable because few other nation-states allow its cultivation. The Afghanis, to their credit, have figured this out and are exploiting this advantage.

I think that when we talk about redirecting narcotic-based agriculture to other, more acceptable crops, there is a degree of first-world arrogance on display. There is an assumption that the locals are growing illicit crops because they don't know any better. If we swoop in and show them how it's done, they'll be making money hand over fist growing lettuce and tomatoes.

But, people in Afghanistan didn't just start farming last week. They've been doing it for thousands of years. The crops and cultivation techniques are what they are in Afghanistan because that is what works there. Knowing what they know about the productivity of the land, they have discovered the most profitable crop possible. Even if they adopted certain technological advances from the West, it wouldn't change the equation at all. They would just become more efficient opium producers.

So, when we talk about shifting their economy away from opium, we should really acknowledge what's going on. We're asking them take a gigantic pay cut. That's a pretty obnoxious request, considering our relative economic standing. And, moreover, it's never going to work in the long run. Any switch to nonnarcotic-based agriculture would have to be completely subsidized by donor nations for as long as we wanted the new system maintained. Once we take our hand off the scale, the forces that brought opium to Afghanistan in the first place would bring it right back.

This isn't to say that opium production isn't a problem. Because it remains an illicit commodity, the industry tends to attract nefarious characters. Concentrating so much economic might in the hands of such individuals has a terribly destabilizing effect on the nation at large. But, outside of literally paying farmers to grow other crops, there's not much to be done about it.

What really has to happen is that Afghanistan has to move beyond an agrarian economy. Given the natural gas and oil resources of the region, such a transition might be possible. But it won't be easy. It would require major changes at all levels of Afghan culture. It would require a great deal of capital investment. And negotiating the transition so that the economic benefits were equitably distributed within the country (as opposed to a distribution benefiting only foreign investors) would be a great challenge. Most of all, it won't be quick. Change of this nature, even for those eager to accept it, requires an unwavering determination spread across many years. It is not for the faint of heart.

Until we accept the magnitude of the undertaking, no change of consequence will occur in Afghanistan. They will continue to produce opium. That opium will finance criminal enterprise, rather than the construction of a strong central government. As long as the central government remains weak, it will be unable to regulate its territory -- and thus Afghanistan will continue to harbor groups and individuals who threaten the security of the free world.

That's the situation, folks. Hopefully, we'll soon be ready to face it.

The Game Behind the Curtain

2005-03-28T15:15:00.000-07:00

It appears that, in accordance with her wishes, Terri Schiavo's body will finally be allowed to die. This event was not accompanied by the dignity that she surely would have wished for, but nevertheless, the farce is ending. Surely, it is time.

But, though the body may pass, the issue clearly will continue to resonate as we move into the future. The rhetoric and demagoguery on display these past weeks have developed a self-sustaining momentum that will continue to energize those who battled on behalf of the Schindlers. The family itself may drop out of the spotlight, but those who thrust themselves into it will not let this fleeting moment easily pass. Instead, they will revive Terri as a martyr and invoke her name in service of whatever cause brought them out of hiding in the first place. The question now is where will all of this lead?

I have suspicions.

One of the most interesting aspects of this entire affair has been the wording of the law passed by Congress last week. While there was a lot of sound and fury surrounding this law's passage, ultimately it did no more than magnify the controversy. The reason for this is that they failed to require that the federal courts impose a temporary restraining order against the removal of the feeding tube. As Mark Kleiman notes:

The original bill as drafted by Sen. Martinez provided that the court "shall" grant a stay. At the suggestion of Sen. Levin, that was changed to "may." But the final text of the bill as passed omitted that provision entirely, and provided that relief should be given "after a determination of the merits." That led both the district court and the appellate majority to decide that the usual rules about TRO's applied.

Of course, without the TRO, there was never a chance that the Schindlers would eventually prevail. In fact, the TRO was inarguably the most critical issue facing the Schindlers once the feeding tube had been removed. Without it, Terri Schiavo's body would die before the federal courts could rule on the merits of their case.

If Congress was, in fact, serious about a federal review of the case, their failure to require a TRO was an amazing oversight. That would be quite a failure for a group that makes a living passing laws, is overwhelmingly comprised of former practicing lawyers, and has at its disposal enormous resources to determine the likely consequences of legislation. In light of that, how likely is it that this was just a mistake?

Consider, too, the explosive rhetoric that emerged once the first federal court denied the request for a TRO. First, we have Congressman Patrick McHenry.

We passed a law that specifically is worded for this case. Yet those judges aren't even talking about our original intent from Congress. What we have here is an out-of-control judiciary.

Then, we have our old friend Tom Delay.

Sadly, Mrs. Schiavo will not receive a new and full review of her case as the legislation required. I strongly believe that the court erred in reaching its conclusion and that once again they have chosen to ignore the clear intent of Congress.

(Hat tip to David Shuster).

The implication here is that the judiciary is actively defying the will of Congress and, in so doing, the will of the people. But, that claim is being made despite the fact that the judiciary is strictly following the law as it is worded. Both McHenry and Delay seem to be endorsing an intent-based interpretation of the law, something that they have strongly opposed in the past when criticizing so-called "activist" judges.

Many on the right seem to be endorsing the view that the court are "out of control" in this situation. Sean Hannity has repeatedly argued that the courts are ignoring reams of evidence that would favor the Schindlers' position. He has paraded numerous "witnesses" before his audience who claim to contradict the conclusions of the trial court. He has disparaged the numerous medical experts who testified to the PVS diagnosis and claimed that only "hearsay" evidence has been offered to support the claim that Terri would have refused further medical intervention. Thus, his audience is led to believe that the judiciary is acting in a reckless and capricious fashion.

Some have taken this position to the next level. If the judiciary is acting in an improper and irresponsible manner, it should be ignored. Enter Bill Bennett.

the Florida supreme court…[has] failed Terri Schiavo. It is time, therefore, for Governor Bush to execute the law and protect her rights, and, in turn, he should take responsibility for his actions. Using the state police powers, Governor Bush can order the feeding tube reinserted. His defense will be that he and a majority of the Florida legislature believe the Florida Constitution requires nothing less.

Governor Bush was apparently persuaded by this argument.

Hours after a judge ordered that Terri Schiavo wasn't to be removed from her hospice, a team of Florida law enforcement agents were en route to seize her and have her feeding tube reinserted - but they stopped short when local police told them they would enforce the judge's order, The Miami Herald has learned.

Ultimately, nothing of substance has immediately come of this posturing. The authority of the courts was respected and the rule of law was followed. But, this last turn of events demonstrates how close many are to jettisoning the constitutionally defined powers of the judiciary. Had local police not stood their ground, that is exactly what would have happened.

And so, perhaps this shall be the legacy of Terri Schiavo. Congress could have acted in a manner that would have prolonged the status quo, but did not. In failing to do so, they allowed a simmering disenchantment with the judicial branch of government to come to a full boil on national television. People will for years recall the Florida court that condemned an innocent woman to death over the objections of her family, of numerous medical experts, and of the elected branches of government. This will be a powerful message for the right to wield as they move forward in their attempts to consolidate power in their tyrannical majority. I expect endless repetition of this theme.

Will this be a successful strategy for them? That is a more difficult question. It appears that polling is consistently showing the public at odds with the actions taken by Congress and Governor Bush. President Bush's numbers have also taken a hit over the last week (although, it is not clear that this case drove those numbers down). So, this may be a case where the right has overplayed its hand and will now face a backlash.

That's the situation as it is today. But, in the months and weeks ahead, the details of this case will fade from memory. As it does, the truly passionate will work tirelessly to keep alive their version of events. In this environment, those who opposed intervention will forget why they did and will slowly be drawn away from their convictions. The theme of "judicial activism," already so popular in many circles, will now have a concrete basis for those who rally against it. Should attempts to limit the authority of the courts make their way into the public sphere, they will find it far more receptive audience than ever before.

I can't say for certain how this will all turn out. But, I've been watching for long enough to know how the game is played. And, mark my words, there is a lot of play left in this game. Conservatives may have failed to win in the short-term, but it is far from clear that they ever wished for such a victory. In the past, they have demonstrated their ability to play for long-term advantage. Today is no different. For them, tomorrow is a brand new day.

I Have Arrived

2005-03-28T09:56:00.000-07:00

When I began this blog, I had in my mind a few preconceived indicators of success. Obviously, one was establishing a readership (and as this milestone demonstrates, we're on our way there). But, another important measure exists. And recently, we achieved it.

Apparently, this post (and the comment thread that ensued) pissed someone off so much that he decided to dedicate some of his valuable blog real estate to the goal of demonstrating its folly.

What a badge of honor! You know, we bloggers toil in relative obscurity, hoping against hope to be noticed and, in some way, valued. The fact that an ideological opponent has deemed me worthy of such attention makes it all worthwhile. To this gentleman I would say many things. But, most of all, I would say the following.

Thank you!

And, for the rest of you who may not be so interested in such blogospheric-cattiness, never fear. New content of substance will appear later today.

The Real World Calls

2005-03-24T23:44:00.000-07:00

I've got some business to take care of for the next few days, so there's going to be a brief hiatus. I'll probably have something up again on Monday. Until then, check out the THOUGHTS OF OTHERS or maybe the Carnival of the Vanities.

See you soon.

Carnival of the Vanities

2005-03-24T09:47:00.000-07:00

I'm becoming quite the carnival junkie. At any rate, the most recent Carnival of the Vanities is up and running at CodeBlueBlog. Naturally, we're featured. But so are a lot of other great writers who deserve your attention, so stop by when you can.

1000 and Counting

2005-03-23T13:22:00.000-07:00

We passed a milestone today here at Threading the Needle. Sure, 1000 lifetime visitors relegates us to the absolute bottom of the blogospheric food chain, but it will still make my mother proud.

Thanks to everyone who has stopped by so far. And remember, it's a long road -- so keep coming back.

Sincerely,

--TTN

PS. For the record the winning visitor arrived at precisely (visitor's time) 12:11 p.m. PST. Please contact the management to receive your commemorative plaque.

PPS. Just kidding. Prizes don't kick in until we reach our millionth visitor. But, once we get there, look out...

Bill Frist: Quack

2005-03-23T11:38:00.000-07:00

In an ideal world, we would all be knowledgeable enough about the relevant issues of the day such that we could independently evaluate and assess the related arguments. This would elevate the debate and eliminate the sway that charlatans have over us. But, as we all know, we live in an incredibly complex world and it is simply infeasible for us to consistently formulate opinions from a position of personal expertise. As a result, we are, more often than not, being led to conclusions by trusted individuals who claim authority on a given subject. Without this reliance on trusted experts, our most important decisions would be decided by processes no more accurate than the flip of a coin. It is the only way to rationally proceed in such an expansive universe.

But, as Uncle Ben told Peter Parker, with great power comes great responsibility. Thus, those who claim expertise must be willing to employee it honestly. Failing to do so is a deep betrayal. It is no mere act of deception; it has the potential of leading people against their own beliefs and away from the path that they would follow if they knew the truth. With consequences so severe, we must forever guard against the expert who uses that title to mislead the masses. They must be marked so that no man or woman would ever believe a word crossing his lips.

That brings me to Senator Bill Frist.

Senator Frist has never made a secret of his medical pedigree. Before joining the United States Senate, he was indeed an extremely talented heart surgeon. There is no question that his knowledge and expertise places him among the elite in the medical profession. His accomplishments in the field are indeed impressive and, were I in need of a surgical cardiac intervention, I would not hesitate to place myself in his care (although I might opt for someone who had practiced more recently).

Therefore, he clearly deserves the "medical expert" descriptor so frequently assigned to him. I would not begin to challenge this claim.

However, having achieved his current position on the national stage, he has consistently invoked his medical background in service of ideological goals that are at odds with medical science. Let's observe.

On March 11, 2003, Bill Frist took to the floor of the Senate to rail against the practice of "partial-birth abortion."

Mr. President, I rise in support of the Partial Birth Abortion Act of 2003. And I do so with a deep passion not only for the protection of life, but also for the ethical practice of medicine. Before coming to the Senate, I had the opportunity to study and practice medicine for 20 years… I know there are ethical bonds to the application of surgical procedures -- bonds that in a moral sense should never, ever be crossed by a surgeon. Indeed, I took an oath to treat every human life with respect, with dignity, and with compassion. But abortion takes life away. And partial-birth abortion does so in a manner that is brutal and barbaric and morally offensive to the mainstream medical community… The fact is that partial-birth abortion is a repulsive procedure…

In this excerpt, he is clearly attempting to establish his right to argue from a position of authority. Having done so, he describes the procedure in a fashion intended to inflame passions. Thus, observers would reasonably conclude that the procedure is considered both unnecessary and barbaric by the medical community at large.

What he fails to mention is that the term "partial-birth abortion" has no meaning in the field of medicine. The correct term is "intact dilation and extraction." Moreover, this term does not describe a distinct procedure.

The recently crafted political term partial-birth abortion loosely means "partially vaginally delivering a living fetus before killing the fetus and completing the delivery." This definition broadly includes all methods of second-trimester abortion (done after the first 3 months of pregnancy).

From the position of someone who claims to be an expert, these are not subtle distinctions. While it may be to the advantage of an ideologue to misrepresent the opinion of the medical community, one claiming the mantle of medical expert should strive to make these differences clear. Senator Frist knows these distinctions exist, yet chooses the path of political expediency. Those who trusted him to speak as a medical scientist were undeniably misled.

More recently, he appeared on "This Week with George Stephanopoulos" to discuss, among other things, administration policy regarding abstinence-only sex education programs. Apparently, some of these programs were making wild and misleading claims and Stephanopoulos wanted to get his opinion on the subject -- especially since he is a medical professional.

GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS

(Off Camera) Okay, let me switch to another subject. There was a bit of an uproar in Washington this week about this issue of these abstinence programs that are funded by the Federal government, the funding has doubled over the last four years but there was a report by the minority staff at the House Government Affairs Committee that showed that 11 of 13 of these programs are giving out false information. I want to show some of the claims they identified in the curricula…A third [claim] suggested that tears and sweat could transmit HIV and AIDS. Now, you're a doctor. Do you believe that tears and sweat can transmit HIV?

SENATOR BILL FRIST

I don't know. I can tell you ...

GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS

(Off Camera) You don't know?

SENATOR BILL FRIST

I can tell you things like, like...

GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS

(Off Camera) Well, wait, let me stop you, you don't know that, you believe that tears and sweat might be able to transmit AIDS?

SENATOR BILL FRIST

Yeah, no, I can tell you that HIV is not very transmissible as an element like, compared to smallpox, compared to the flu.

For the record, there has never been a recorded instance of HIV transmission via tears and sweat. Never. Moreover, this is not some obscure piece of medical trivia known only to specialists in the field. This is a widely known and well accepted medical fact. Yet, Frist equivocates furiously, admitting only that HIV is less transmissible than the wildly contagious smallpox and flu viruses. While what he says is true, it vastly understates the difficulty of transmission. And it obfuscates the matter at hand: HIV transmission through tears and sweat. He never answers this elementary question and leaves his trusted viewers with the impression that such transmission is possible.

Finally, the recent case of Terri Schiavo has afforded Frist another opportunity to make political hay from a position of authority. According to the Washington Post:

Bill Frist…went to the floor late Thursday night for the second time in 12 hours to argue that Florida doctors had erred in saying Terri Schiavo is in a "persistent vegetative state."
"I question it based on a review of the video footage which I spent an hour or so looking at last night in my office," he said in a lengthy speech in which he quoted medical texts and standards. "She certainly seems to respond to visual stimuli."

As I noted above, Bill Frist is a cardiac surgeon. In the real world, he would never be called upon to diagnose a patient in Schiavo's condition. His expertise on this matter is of no greater value than any other medical school graduate. You might as well call upon a dermatologist or a podiatrist to render an opinion. But diagnosing outside of his specialty is hardly his greatest sin in this situation. That's because Frist has never actually examined the patient in question. He has merely observed heavily edited videotape provided to him by those challenging the prevailing diagnosis. If he engaged in such behavior during the course of his medical career, he would almost certainly have been sued for malpractice and seen his license revoked.

Despite behaving in a manner that, if practiced by a physician, would represent a grave violation of his Hippocratic oath, Senator Frist continues to capitalize on his medical background. He frequently dismisses the arguments of the opposition by asserting, essentially, that "I'm a doctor -- who you gonna trust?" And surely, on the strength of his supposedly medical expertise, many do. But, as these examples demonstrate, that trust is misplaced. His first responsibility to "do no harm" has been amended to read "do no harm to conservative ideology." His adoring public should be made aware of these shifting priorities.

On one level, he is certainly free to practice the political arts in the manner of his choosing. As a politician, he employs his professional and personal assets exceptionally well. Those who support his agenda are well served by this style of play. But, once an individual makes clear that his political goals supersede all others, we should not accept claims of unrelated expertise. A politician like Frist is a politician first and, therefore, a politician only. He serves one master, not two. Claims to the contrary should be seen for what they are: naked attempts to con his trusting public.

Ultimately, we cannot prevent him from presenting himself as a medical professional when he finds it to be politically expedient. But, if he claims to be a doctor, we must judge him as one. That judgment leads one to a singular conclusion: Bill Frist is a quack.

So, Senator Frist, pick your poison. You are either a politician or a quack. Only one of these roles has any honor -- I suggest that you select it.

Do-Nothing Congress

2005-03-21T01:48:00.000-07:00

I was speaking to a good friend of mine today about some of the recent goings-on in Congress. He's a big baseball fan and had spent a good part of Thursday observing the congressional spectacle surrounding the steroid controversy. His reaction?

"It was kind of like picking up a rock and seeing two bugs fucking. You know that it’s part of what makes the world go ‘round, but it ain't pretty to watch."

I couldn't have said it better myself. The only thing that I would add is that there is a hell of a lot more beauty, grace, and purpose in entomological coitus than was on display in the halls of our federal legislature this week. A lot more.

ON THE JUICE

I don't follow baseball the way I once did, but the sport will always have a special meaning to me. It was the sport that I grew up on. I admired professional ballplayers and aspired to join their ranks one day (a fantasy that persisted far longer than it should have, if you must know). And so when Mark Maguire and Sammy Sosa raced to break Roger Maris’s homerun record in 1998, the spectacle overwhelmed me. When Barry Bonds broke the record again only four years later, in what was arguably the greatest offensive display in the history of the sport, I was transfixed, unable to believe that what I witnessed was the accomplishment of a mere mortal.

Needless to say, recent revelations have tarnished these memories. It is disappointing, to say the least, to learn that these achievements were almost certainly aided by performance enhancing drugs. While my indignation fails to reach the hysterical heights expressed by many, I can honestly say that I am crestfallen in learning the truth. My heroes are not dead, but they are far more mortal than I ever thought they would be.

Enter Congress.

Wait. What the fuck?! Why is this happening? I mean, logistically I understand. Due to baseball's antitrust exemption, Congress does have far more regulatory jurisdiction over the game than it otherwise would have. So, I understand that it can intervene. But really, should it? Is this truly a problem of such great national importance that it requires that Congress table a large portion of its pressing agenda to address it? Or is this simply an opportunity to grandstand, to unnecessarily inflame passions, and to interject confusion and chaos into the issue?

Make no mistake -- I desperately want this issue to be resolved. But, I want it to be resolved appropriately by people who are actually interested in understanding the systemic issues that have created it, not by those wishing to use it to establish their relevance to the common man. Especially when those people have other, far more serious issues to address. If baseball somehow fails to get its act together, life will go on. That fact alone should remand it to the very bottom of any rational list of priorities.

REQUIEM FOR A CORPSE

But as outraged as I am by those misdirected energies, it pales beside the disgust I have experienced watching the Terri Schiavo spectacle evolve.

Where do I even begin? How about right here: Terri Schiavo is already dead. Pulling her feeding tube is a formality. There are few certainties in life, but this is one of them. If this assertion seems questionable to you, step over here for a moment. Every conceivable rationale for keeping her alive has been debunked (excellent summaries here and here). The situation is from start to finish a tragedy, exacerbated by a familial dispute that has been laboriously adjudicated over several agonizing years. Now, at long last, it's over.

Or, rather, it should be.

Instead, realizing the political opportunity before them, congressional Republicans have seized the issue and are attempting to push through legislation that would allow the entire process to begin from scratch in the federal courts. And as they nod to their supporters in the Christian right, they set a dangerous precedent that threatens to undermine the authority of every state court in the nation. It is a shortsighted strategy designed to consolidate power at the expense of a desperate family who cannot accept the hand fate has dealt them.

Tom Delay has seen fit to question the character of Terri's husband. Well, take a look in the mirror, prick!

MEANWHILE…

Given the way Congress has been spending its time of late, you'd think that no other issues required their attention. But, of course, nothing could be further from the truth. The deficit is exploding with no plan for eliminating it in sight. The economy is still sluggish. A major debate over the future of Social Security is simmering. Health care expenses are soaring, resulting in an imminent Medicare crisis. Nuclear weapons technology is proliferating across the globe. Energy expenses are skyrocketing. Environmental degradation is progressing unabated. And that's just the list off the top of my head. I could go on.

But no. This week it's steroids and corpses. Rather than beginning the work on the tough issues in the day, issues which cannot be reasonably addressed by anyone else, they've chosen to stick their nose where it does not belong and where it can only make the problems worse. And lest you think of this is a partisan rant, let me be clear that this indicts every member of Congress. True, Republicans are driving the Schiavo fiasco. But no one of either party has stood up to question their involvement in either issue. No one has questioned the body's priorities. Well, someone should.

There is, to my mind, no excuse for this situation. There is no counter argument, no explanation that provides justification. This is, plain and simple, a meaningless circus, accomplishing nothing. If we're lucky, that is. Nothing is the best that could come out of these recent endeavors. But as we aim for the lofty goal of maintaining the status quo, the walls crumble around us. If only there were somebody whose job it was to address these other, more pressing issues.

Oh, that's right. There is. It's called Congress.

There's work to do, people. Get on it.

The Opposite of Buyer's Remorse

2005-03-17T23:59:00.000-07:00

Just before heading out on vacation, Publius of Legal Fiction briefly revisited a deeply troubling topic to all of us in the "reality-based community." It appears that, despite enormous evidence to the contrary, many Americans still believe that Saddam Hussein possessed weapons of mass destruction immediately preceding the American-led invasion. To explain this phenomenon, Publius refers us back to a post written nearly a year ago, wherein he argues that individuals approach issues such as this only after they have determined the position of their political affiliates. Rather than evaluate the evidence, they consider the impact of any conclusion to their "team" and respond accordingly.

…[I]n modern, ultra-polarized America, this process [of evaluation] has been reversed. People seem to picking political parties or labels first, and then relying on the parties (or “liberals” or “conservatives” in the media/blogosphere) to tell them what to think about all other issues. For example, let’s assume that Joe can only perceive the world through a clear glass window. He cannot observe the world any other way – everything is seen through the window. Now let’s assume that with respect to a given issue (let’s say welfare reform), someone has come along and splashed some red paint right on the part of the window through which Joe sees welfare reform. Joe can now only see the issue by looking through the red paint, which twists and distorts the way he sees it.

Essentially, this is what happens when people lose themselves in partisanship. The entire window becomes either blue or red. So, it becomes impossible for them to see any issue as it actually is – they can only see through the lens of partisanship which will necessarily distort their view. Again, try to imagine it on the most basic epistemological level. When looking at external events, Americans see the color of the window first, and then the actual issue, which always appears to them in that color. Or, to put it another way, when Americans perceive the world, they first reaffirm their political affiliation in their own minds, and then view the issues through the tinted lens of that political affiliation.

I completely agree. Clearly, many have abandoned the vagaries inherent in the personal consideration of available evidence for the comfort of answers provided by trusted authority. However, I also believe that something else is going on that shouldn't be ignored.

The WMD issue is, at this point, as resolved as something can be. Since the invasion, two separate large-scale search operations were conducted by David Kay and Charles Duelfer and both concluded that, while a desire for the weapons existed, the weapons themselves did not. The administration has responded by calling off the search and redefining the invasion's rationale. Unable to produce a single piece of affirmative evidence, they have abandoned the case and are hoping that no one will notice. True, they haven't fully admitted the error, but they have gotten as close to doing so as a political operation will.

Yet, despite the fact that the party with the greatest interest in discovering weapons has tacitly acknowledged the futility of that quest, many of their followers continue to cling to that discredited claim. You would think that their partisan allegiance would lead them to abandon the old talking points and move on to the new ones. However, many refuse to do so and are soldiering on under their own initiative.

Consider how many reacted to this story from the New York Times.

In the weeks after Baghdad fell in April 2003, looters systematically dismantled and removed tons of machinery from Saddam Hussein's most important weapons installations, including some with high-precision equipment capable of making parts for nuclear arms, a senior Iraqi official said this week in the government's first extensive comments on the looting. [Emphasis added]

"Equipment capable of making parts" is a far cry from a WMD. And nowhere does the article state that the existence of this equipment meant that WMDs were within Hussein's grasp. Apparently, those "nuances" were lost on the faithful. The post at LGF was titled " 3/14/2005: NYT: Saddam Had WMD Capabilities” and claimed that the story was "an amazing reversal" for the paper of record. Many smalltime conservative bloggers went even further. One in particular headlined his post "NYT admits it: Saddam DID have WMD." Several conservative commenters over at Legal Fiction also pushed this canard (among others). And lest you think this was just a hot topic among fringe wingnuts, have a gander at the king of conservative radio.

LIMBAUGH: The New York Times reports that there were horrible weapons in Iraq and they got secreted out of there after we invaded.

This isn't just partisanship. Well -- maybe for Limbaugh it is. But he wouldn't be going down that path if there wasn't a fairly substantial audience for this kind of misinformation. And clearly, there is. Why do so many cling so tightly after even Bush himself has let the ship sail?

As it turns out, another commenter over at Legal Fiction is, I believe, on the right track. A few days ago, in the midst of a post on a completely different subject, I described the phenomenon of cognitive dissonance.

Normally our behavior is informed by our attitudes and beliefs. We strive, as much as we can, to conform to the constraints laid it down by our knowledge, experience, and conscience. However, there are inevitably times when our behavior strays from the path defined by our better selves. While this misbehavior is generally driven by a degree of self-gratification, it is also accompanied by a measure of discomfort. This discomfort is referred to as cognitive dissonance and you can witness it in your own life any time you act against your better judgment. For example, every smoker knows how unhealthy his habit is, yet he lights up anyway. When he does so, he feels guilt and shame because he knows better.

This dissonance can be extremely uncomfortable. Therefore, we will usually take steps to try to resolve it in some fashion. To do this, we have two options. First, we can avoid the behaviors that trigger it. Unfortunately, we will often find ourselves in situations where that option is untenable. In the example of the smoker, his addiction prevents him from changing his behavior. This leaves us with the only other option: changing our beliefs.

The disparity between behavior and believe is, however, not the only type of dissonance requiring resolution. There is also what is known as post-decisional or, as Bluewave describes it, post-purchase dissonance.

There's also the phenomenon of reconciling post-purchase dissonance; essentially this means (for the non jargonistas out there) that once you've bought something, you convince yourself you made the best choice by downplaying both negative information about the product you did choose, and positive information about the products you DIDN'T choose. It's just basic human behavior, and we all do it to one degree or another, and the bigger the perceived decision, the more we do it… That we didn't find WMDs doesn't cause people to think the war was unjustified (and therefore we made a bad purchase decision), it just causes them to change their recollection of the basis for the purchase.

Thus, for many the war was still about WMDs, but they've changed their opinion as to what constitutes a WMD. No longer is it simply chemical weapons or nukes. Powerful conventional explosives, WMD components (even if crucial pieces are still missing), and the equipment for WMD construction all now qualify as WMDs. In extreme cases, Saddam Hussein is himself a WMD. This may be extremely frustrating for those of us who remember what a WMD was before the war began, but for those suffering from post-decisional dissonance, that reality no longer exists. It's simply gone.

Unfortunately, this makes rational debate that much harder. Partisanship drives the two sides apart and post-decisional dissonance divides their realities. This is a serious problem because, as Publius says:

If people are disagreeing about these most basic facts, everything else is a waste of time.

Yep. Again, I don't have any answers. But, this is what we're up against. Just so you know.

Update: There's a great case study for this phenomenon in comments. Check it out if you have time. I wouldn't necessarily describe the discussion as informative, but it is entertaining -- if you're into that sort of thing.

Delta Deficit Equals Zero

2005-03-16T23:19:00.000-07:00

One of Bush's greatest achievements has been his ability to be all things to all people, especially with respect to fiscal policy. Somewhere along the line he realized (or, more accurately, Karl Rove realized) that fiscal conservatism presented certain electoral challenges that were difficult to resolve. True, everyone likes tax cuts, but benefit cuts are a more difficult sell -- especially when you are talking to the beneficiary. When it comes right down to it, most of us like the services provided to us by government and when someone starts talking about eliminating them, we start to get antsy.

So what's a fiscal conservative to do? After all, since the name of the game is reducing the size of government, tax cuts are only half the battle. Moreover, it would be outrageously irresponsible to reduce revenues without reducing expenditures. I mean, that's madness.

But, of course, great thinkers are never limited by such pedantic restraints, and Karl Rove (let's be honest about who we're talking about here) is no exception. His master stroke was realizing that maintaining power was more important than sound fiscal policy. Why not lower taxes AND increase benefits? That way everyone's happy (except for a few economists pulling out their hair on the sidelines -- but really, how large a constituency is that?). It may create crippling deficits, but those effects will be faced long after this administration has retired to Crawford. Moreover, those deficits might finally create enough political will to truly eviscerate the welfare state. Thus, the benefits of this strategy pay dividends both in short-term electoral victories and long-term ideological goals. Talk about win-win…

Clearly, defending against this tax-cut/spend strategy is quite difficult for responsible Democrats. This is especially true when you consider how willing people are to swallow something-for-nothing rhetoric when it is presented by someone with such down-home charisma. How do you get people to recognize the looming disaster with the assurances of Mr. Sunshine in the air? And if they can't see it coming, how do we avoid it?

As it turns out, there may be an answer. Mark Schmitt over at The Decemberist has a post up about PAYGO that seems to have promise. The basic idea is that you require budgetary changes to have a net zero effect on the deficit. Want to increase benefits/expenditures? Fine, but they have to be offset with tax increases rather than borrowing. Want tax cuts? Same deal. Cut expenditures. No borrowing.

Politically, this is a great issue for Democrats to take on. Since matching income and expenditures is something that everyone deals with in their own lives, it's easy to understand. Frankly, most people never quite get how the government avoids facing this reality when the rest of us have to. Plus, it forces Republicans to put up or shut up about fiscal responsibility. If they reject it, it becomes a potential campaign issue in 2006.

On the other hand, if it passes, the administration is finally forced to pick a side. Are they big spenders or big tax cutters? No longer can they be both. And if they remain ideologically pure with respect to tax cuts, people will finally understand what is being asked of them? Mark boils all this down quite succinctly.

A few weeks ago, in writing about Goldwater, I noted that the genius of Rove and his followers was that they had figured out how to separate the ideological conservatism that Americans liked from the operational conservatism -- the real cuts in government -- that Americans did not. PAYGO rules are a way of forcing those two back together. If Republicans are serious about cutting taxes and making government smaller, they must be willing to come forward simultaneously with the cuts they are willing to make and bear the consequences. Or, if they do not want to make cuts but still want to cut taxes for the top 0.2% of the population, they must be willing to say whose taxes they are willing to raise to pay for those cuts.

Passing PAYGO could go a long way to bring honesty back to federal fiscal policy. No longer could Bush use absurd accounting techniques to conceal the outrageous damage being done to our economic future. No longer could he be all things to all people. Most importantly, people might begin to understand what they're really voting for. If people really don't want government services, I can live with that. But right now the electorate is pulling levers in fantasyland. And once that starts happening, is it even a democracy anymore?

Anyway -- I'm just getting into this, so I don't know how viable it really is. But initially, it looks good. I, for one, will be keeping an eye on it. You should, too.

Another Carnival

2005-03-16T08:11:00.000-07:00

In another act of shameless self-promotion, I announce the publication of History Carnival #4 over at Blogenspiel. My amateur contribution is this week accompanied by the work of some actual pros. So, if history is your bag, be sure to swing by.

Updated Thoughts

2005-03-15T17:44:00.000-07:00

I have slightly modified the BEST THOUGHTS section to your immediate left. If you've missed something, now's your chance.

Slavery and History Index

2005-03-15T17:11:00.000-07:00

With all the work that I've done on this subject of late, I thought it might be nice to provide an index to all the various entries. Therefore, without further ado…

I. Revealing America's Peculiar History

II. A Downward Progression

III. Traumatic Reverberations, Part I

IV. Traumatic Reverberations, Part II

V. Extension of Toxicity

Extension of Toxicity

2005-03-15T16:48:00.000-07:00

Recently I've spent a lot of time discussing the long-term ramifications of race slavery in America (here and here). But, up until this point, I have focused exclusively on its effects within the African-American community. While it is undeniable that the most serious and damaging effects of this American tradition fell wholly on the enslaved and their descendents, I find it hard to believe that so poisonous a phenomenon could exist within our history without leaving a mark on everyone. In fact, I reject that notion outright.

That said, it is difficult to describe the negative consequences on the enslavers and their descendents because the clear clinical foundation of disorder present within the slave experience is lacking outside that community. Whereas before I could discuss the causes of post-traumatic stress disorder and its symptomatology, the relevant historical experience, and then draw a reasonable inferences from each, in this instance I must move forward without such an established framework. Therefore, I freely admit that my conclusions here will be far more speculative and, as such, debatable. So be it. The discussion has to start someplace.

DISSONANCE

Normally our behavior is informed by our attitudes and beliefs. We strive, as much as we can, to conform to the constraints laid it down by our knowledge, experience, and conscience. However, there are inevitably times when our behavior strays from the path defined by our better selves. While this misbehavior is generally driven by a degree of self-gratification, it is also accompanied by a measure of discomfort. This discomfort is referred to as cognitive dissonance and you can witness it in your own life any time you act against your better judgment. For example, every smoker knows how unhealthy his habit is, yet he lights up anyway. When he does so, he feels guilt and shame because he knows better.

This dissonance can be extremely uncomfortable. Therefore, we will usually take steps to try to resolve it in some fashion. To do this, we have two options. First, we can avoid the behaviors that trigger it. Unfortunately, we will often find ourselves in situations where that option is untenable. In the example of the smoker, his addiction prevents him from changing his behavior. This leaves us with the only other option: changing our beliefs.

Now, this may successfully resolve the immediate discomfort associated with our cognitive dissonance, but it is not without its consequences. The beliefs that we are abandoning have not been arrived at capriciously -- our life experience has led us to them. Even if they are not completely rational, they almost always have functional merit. Once we release them we also lose whatever benefit they brought to our lives. In extreme cases, releasing them involves literally distorting our perception of reality. As we move forward, our vision is clouded and our actions informed by myths of our own creation. In many cases, the price for our relief can be quite high.

DEFENSE

Sigmund Freud was one of the first Western scientist/philosophers to postulate the existence of the unconscious mind. He believed that the great majority of our actions are driven by unconscious motivations of which we are totally unaware. While this theory largely lacks empirical evidence, it is an extremely useful metaphor and has been employed successfully in clinical settings for nearly 100 years. This is especially true when addressing the issue of defense mechanisms.

According to Freud (and his modern adherents), certain emotions may, for a host of reasons, be difficult for us to experience directly. They may simply be too painful, or their expression might be culturally inappropriate. Whatever the reason, Freud theorized that when faced with this situation we will employ what he termed a defense mechanism. In practice, this results in an unconscious redirection of our emotional energy that allows release in a manner that is acceptable to us.

Freud defined eight different defense mechanisms, but for our purposes here I want to focus on only two of them. First, there is repression. This is the process of taking uncomfortable emotions and memories and pushing them out of conscious awareness and into our unconscious mind. Then, there is rationalization. This is when we concoct socially acceptable explanations for otherwise unacceptable thoughts and behaviors. These two mechanisms assist us by either convincing us that our inappropriate emotions or actions are actually OK, or that they simply do not exist.

Unfortunately, there's no free lunch in this world. Our short-term goal of avoiding certain discomforts is achieved, but for this we pay a price. Driving unresolved emotions into the unconscious doesn't eliminate them. We might not experience them directly, however they have a persistent tendency to resurface in unpredictable and neurotic ways. In point of fact, one of the primary goals of psychoanalytic therapy is to identify and consciously reconnect with these emotions, thus eliminating the source of the patient's neuroses. Likewise, rationalization doesn't eliminate problematic behavior, it merely allows it to continue unabated. And both of these mechanisms involve varying degrees of distorted perceptions. As with cognitive dissonance, this relief comes at the expense of one's connection to reality.

DISTORTION

What, you might ask, does this have to do with slaveholders? Well, my theory here is that, in order to engage in the practice of owning and cruelly mistreating other human beings, an individual must endure a psychological transformation that leaves him with a seriously distorted sense of what is or is not real and meaningful. Did this occur? It's hard to say, but I do think that there is some evidence for it.

During the mid-17th century, slaveholders were faced with a growing threat to their economic dominance. Remember, as discussed in this earlier post, at this time slaves often achieved freedom after a designated period of service. Moreover, children of slaves were not necessarily slaves themselves. Finally, contemporary Christian doctrine forbade the enslavement of fellow Christians -- allowing slaves to achieve freedom through conversion. Thus, slaveholders were not only being forced to constantly replace the newly freed components of their labor force, but were also competing with an ever-growing population of ex-slaves for agricultural resources. They could have abandoned the deteriorating institution of slavery and moved to a system that was consistent with the values that they held. Yet, they did not and instead completely reinvented their justification for slavery. This put them at odds with other Christians who were not forced to similarly twist their moral compass (ultimately culminating in the bloodiest conflict in American history), but it also put them at odds with themselves and with reality as they understood it.

As time passed, and the inhumanity of the institution exponentially increased, I suspect that it began to offend the conscience of those who engaged in it. True, many seemed barely affected by the cruelties they witnessed. However, a significant percentage of slaveholders were clearly conflicted by the practice. George Washington, who freed his slaves once he passed, and Thomas Jefferson, who maintained a long-standing romantic relationship with a slave, both demonstrate this ambivalence to varying degrees. The prevailing justification for slavery at the time was that slaves were animals, requiring an existence of self-determination no more than a horse or ox. Yet, Washington, Jefferson, and many others observed mountains of evidence that would have contradicted this assertion. Oxen do not plan escapes or stage rebellions. Neither do they recognize family or resist its dissolution through the sale of offspring. Facing these realities would have forced slaveholders to recognize the immorality of their actions and required the institution's dissolution. Instead, they chose to view the world through a rationalization that justified its persistence.

Finally, now that slavery has receded into the distant past, America has collectively "forgotten" the role that it played in our history. Few today realize that America has been a slaveholding nation far longer than it has been a free one. Few realize its regional ubiquitousness, choosing to believe that it existed as an aside on a few Southern plantations. Many otherwise reasonable people assert that slavery was an incidental factor during the American Civil War. And, perhaps most importantly, nearly everyone believes that the consequences of slavery ended with the passage of the 13th amendment. These deep misperceptions reflect a collective repression of a terribly shameful episode in our history. If similar omissions were identified in the recollections of any individual, Freud would no doubt predict its resurgence in behavioral neuroses. Would it be any different for society at large?

CONSEQUENCES

In the previous section, I laid out the argument for widespread perceptual distortions within both slaveholding communities and modern society. I admit that direct evidence for these distortions is hard to come by. Likewise, proof of repercussion is equally fleeting. This is largely an exercise in "what if?"

That said, what if?

What if a substantial portion of a population cannot perceive reality as it is? How would its social institutions evolve? How would these misperceptions manifest in public policy? How would they be reflected in society's relationship to the enslaved's descendents?

Honestly, I cannot at this time provide answers to any of these questions. My speculations on these matters would be of no greater value than would be your own. And so, I leave it to you to consider the possibilities.

But let me add one final question.

No matter how you resolve the questions posed above, consider this: how likely is it that the negative consequences of slavery, given established psychological theory, are wholly contained within the downtrodden party? My consideration of this issue has only just begun and I am not yet prepared to wager heavily on any conclusion. However, I know that I am on the right track. The effect is there waiting to be identified, waiting to be named.

Our understanding begins here.

Return to Slavery and History Index.

Back Online

2005-03-15T16:40:00.000-07:00

Sorry about the delay. The Internet has been out for the last couple of days. That's what I get for living in the sticks. Anyway, everything should be up and running from here on out.

How Bad Is It?

2005-03-12T00:42:00.000-07:00

So, I'm driving home on Thursday and I'm catching the very end of Rush Limbaugh's broadcast when a spunky liberal caller manages to get through. This caller noted that, despite the financial burden borne by National Guardsmen currently on active duty in Iraq, the bankruptcy reform bill offers no military exemptions. Then, he pointed out that the homestead exemptions, used by the fabulously wealthy to shield assets during bankruptcy proceedings, were being maintained. Having laid out these two issues, he asked Rush to defend the bill.

Rush's response? He refused to accept the caller's premise because he couldn't believe the bill lacked active-duty protections.

Do you see what this means? It means that this bill is so bad that even Rush Limbaugh can't believe it! It's so bad that to support it he has to imagine that he is supporting a different bill.

Now that is what I call a bad bill.

Carnival

2005-03-11T19:15:00.000-07:00

I have just become aware of the blog phenomenon known as a Carnival. For the uninitiated, a Carnaval is a periodic collection of blog posts presented by a rotating host blog. Sometimes the collected posts share a theme or subject matter, but not always. By participating in a Carnival, smaller blogs (like this one) can share their better posts with a larger audience, rather than having them slip into obscurity unnoticed.

I bring this to your attention so that I might direct you to Tangled Bank #23. The Tangled Bank Carnival is dedicated to essays related to science, medicine, and the natural world. And this issue does in fact feature some of my handiwork. Of course, a lot of other great scientifically oriented writing will be found there as well, so I encourage each member of my vast readership to check it out.

Out Of Town

2005-03-08T15:00:00.000-07:00

Just a note to let you know that I will be out of town for the next few days. No blogging until Friday at the earliest.

But in the meantime, why don't you peruse through the BEST THOUGHTS selections to your left. And if you still have time, why not find out what you can do to help this blog succeed.

OK -- I'm off. Peace.

Disparity Does Not Equal Discrimination

2005-03-07T20:46:00.000-07:00

With the control of the executive, legislative, and judicial branches of government along with their dominance of the corporate sphere, it's getting a little difficult for Republicans to maintain their status as an oppressed minority community. But since this myth is critical to modern conservative identity, they aren't going to give it up easily. In this context, the brewing jihad against academia starts to make a little more sense. By focusing on what is arguably the last bastion of American liberalism, conservatives can continue to portray themselves as noble Davids attempting to slay a tyrannical Goliath. Therefore, as they attempt to eliminate potential liberalization from college campuses, they can do so from a familiar rhetorical position.

Unfortunately for them, the arena of this conflict has necessitated the use of some unorthodox tactics, and the results have been quite amusing. The main charge (leveled by David Horowitz, Sean Hannity, and many, many others) is that the liberal-academic complex discriminates against conservative thinkers, leading to an oppression of conservative voices in higher education. On the one hand, conservatives must take special pleasure in using a traditionally liberal argument against what they perceive to be liberal interests. However, this joy prevents them from comprehending how ridiculously inept their efforts are. Let's take a look, shall we?

The most recent justification for the discrimination claim comes from a recent article by Daniel Klein and Andrew Western published in the Palo Alto Weekly.

We have conducted a scholarly study of voter registration and find that among Berkeley faculty the Republicans are outnumbered 10 to 1. At Stanford the ratio is 7.6 to 1. Lumping both together gives 9 to 1. Talk about a lack of diversity! If this were a gender, race or ethnic-background study it would be considered almost evidence of discrimination.

Where to begin...

Well first, I'm not sure how much you should be extrapolating from a study focused exclusively on two institutions situated in one of the most consistently liberal regions in America. It's quite possible that conservative intellectuals are less inclined to live in the San Francisco/Bay area and thus fewer apply for positions there. So, that's a problem.

But, this is where their miscomprehensions come sharply into focus. You see, for them, it's all about the numbers. Nationally, we break down about 50/50 between registered Democrats and Republicans. Therefore, they claim, any significant departure from this ratio is "almost evidence of discrimination." Todd Zywicki claims that "understates the case." If only that were true.

Consider the following preliminary research conducted by Aaron Swartz.

…my preliminary research has discovered some…shocking facts. I have found that only 1% of Stanford professors believe in telepathy (defined as “communication between minds without using the traditional five senses”), compared with 36% of the general population. And less than half a percent believe “people on this earth are sometimes possessed by the devil”, compared with 49% of those outside the ivory tower. And while 25% of Americans believe in astrology (“the position of the stars and planets can affect people’s lives”), I could only find one Stanford professor who would agree.

As fun as it is to compare Republican ideology to telepathy, satanic possession, and astrology, that's not really the point. The real issue is that there are many possible reasons for differential representation in the academy. Discrimination isn't the only explanation.

For example, conservatives have a special affinity for the free market. Ergo, it is theoretically possible that they will tend toward careers in business (especially if you consider the financial incentives for doing so). Likewise, right-wing think tanks might have a tendency to draw conservative academics out of their ivory towers. Both these phenomena could potentially depress conservative representation in academia and neither is driven by discrimination. There are many other possibilities.

In truth, the above study tells us only that a discrepancy exists, not why. And if you are considering some sort of remedial action (which some are), the "why" of the discrepancy is pretty damn important.

Unless you're afraid of the answer. Case in point, David Horwitz. Chris of Mixing Memory recently suggested that we get to the bottom of the issue.

Since, to date, there is no study showing anything more than a disparity, I propose that we actually conduct a new study. In this study, we will do more than simply collect voting and political donation records, or hiring, firing, and promotion decisions. This information alone can only provide evidence of disparity, not discrimination. To do this, we need to rule out alternative explanations for the disparity. Thus, we will need to collect information about job applicants and faculty that is relevant to hiring and promotion. Thus, we should collect information related to publication, citation, teaching evaluations, ongoing research, etc., that hiring and promotion committees consider when making their decisions. Using this information, along with the relative number of liberal and conservative applicants, we can apply fairly simple statistical tools (e.g., regression analysis) to determine whether the ideological disparity that exists in American universities is a result of discrimination.

When Horwitz was presented with this suggestion, he referred to it as a "ridiculous exercise." When pressed further, he responded:

Don't be an asshole. If blacks were half the country and were outnumbered on faculties 10 to 1 all schools and even 30-1 on many you would have no trouble finding something amiss. Whoever proved by the way that faculties actually discriminated against women and blacks? The answer is no one. The Supreme Court has ruled that the absence of skin diversity (skin diversity!) IN ITSELF is harmful to education. So how much more powerful is this case.

Aside from the attitude and the astonishing ignorance revealed in that reply, what is he afraid of? What would be the problem with accumulating more data?

Of course, Horwitz is afraid that the results would indicate that the true reason for the discrepancy is scholarly inferiority. Frankly, if Horwitz's tendency to employ scientific methods only when convenient is in any way indicative of conservative academia at large, I'd say he's right to be afraid.

And this is what has always puzzled me about this issue. If my particular ideology was severely underrepresented in a population of the most highly educated individuals on earth, I'd want to keep that quiet. Sure, it could be that my ideology contradicts prevailing orthodoxy. But without a lot of convincing data to support my position, most people aren't going to believe that I'm being discriminated against. They are going to assume that I'm an idiot.

For my part, I'd love to see some actual research done. Honestly, discrimination probably plays a small, but significant role in the numbers seen above. I'm willing to face that and take appropriate steps to remedy it. But, I only want to fix what's broken. Ideological parity isn't a goal.

For me, that is. I can't speak for Horwitz, but I have my suspicions. If he were only interested in ending ideological discrimination, I can't help but feel that he would be more receptive to attempts to more fully describe the phenomenon. On the other hand, if he's really more concerned about getting conservatives ensconced at Berkeley…

Update: I neglected to hat tip Coturnix over at Science and Politics for uncovering the dustup between Horowitz and Chris of Mixed Memory. Thanks for the good work.

Bankruptcy Reform Gets Some Attention

2005-03-06T11:41:00.000-07:00

Now that there's a little room to breathe regarding Social Security reform, some of the other pieces of the Republican legislative agenda are starting to get a little attention. Not a moment too soon, if you ask me.

Anyway, Kevin Drum is painting the big picture for us with respect to bankruptcy reform. First, he takes a look at the process of its construction. The whole thing is worth reading, but two items really stand out.

Loopholes. What loopholes have been left in the bill? Answer: the bill does nothing to address the growing use of "asset protection trusts," used by rich people to shield income from bankruptcy proceedings, or to rein in the unlimited use of the homestead exemption, which allows them to shield multimillion dollar homes from bankruptcy courts.

Also…

Medical bankruptcy…The bill does nothing to address this. Since medical emergencies certainly aren't an abuse of the system, wouldn't any honest bill aimed at abuse pay special attention to the recent and growing epidemic of families that declare bankruptcy due to medical emergencies?

Reform advocates keep insisting that their real goal is curbing abuse by making sure that those who have the ability to pay their debts do so. In actuality, they are preserving protections that benefit their wealthy constituency and putting the squeeze on those declaring bankruptcy for what is arguably the most legitimate reason possible. So, how exactly is this reducing abuse?

Next, Kevin takes a look at the profits generated by credit card companies through the use of penalties and late fees. Whether it's the fundamental unfairness of "universal default"…

...that penalty rate of 30-40% can be imposed for missing a single payment — in fact, it can be imposed for missing a single payment on a different account, like your telephone bill — but a card spokesman said this was perfectly reasonable because it was "clearly disclosed on account applications." Something tells me that their idea of "clearly disclosed" is a wee bit different from most people's.

...or the attempts to escape the consequences of these policies…

They actively seek out customers who are likely to miss payments and end up in a penalty fee spiral, and they make a fortune from them. In a normally functioning market there's at least a small incentive to limit loans to these high-risk customers, namely the possibility that they might go bankrupt, and the bankruptcy bill before Congress is a brazen attempt to remove even that small but annoying incentive to act responsibly.

...it's impossible to view this bill as anything other than a bold attempt to screw consumers.

This last point, the attempt to absolve the credit card companies of the risks associated with the credit they are irresponsibly distributing, is something I spoke about a couple of weeks ago.

In truth, it doesn't matter how people are entering bankruptcy. The point is that the credit card industry has always been aware of that risk. If they didn't want to pay for the negative consequences of that risk, then they shouldn't have been loaning money to such high risk clients. If they're being hurt (which they are not) it is due to their own imprudent business practices. It isn't our job to clean up their mess.

Clearly, this bill is nothing more than a political payout to generous Republican campaign contributors. Any serious case for reform wouldn't be answered by the legislation we see before us. If legislators were truly interested in reducing bankruptcy, some of the reforms would be aimed at curbing the predatory practices of the credit card industry. Instead, we're being told that bankruptcy is solely the responsibility villainous consumers who are capriciously fleecing the pockets of an innocent and noble set of multinational corporations. If that sounds absurd, well, that's because it is.

I understand the political necessity of responding to one's constituency. But it sure would be nice if Republicans could do that without literally screwing the most vulnerable among us. I mean, is that so much to ask?

Be Careful What You Wish for

2005-03-04T19:59:00.000-07:00

There seems to be a number of indications now that President Bush's Social Security reform plan is DOA. Republican Congressmen are dropping hints right and left that they are unwilling to support Bush's plan in its current manifestation. Plus, we have Treasury Secretary John Snow basically giving away the store.

Treasury Secretary John W. Snow indicated Wednesday that the White House would accept a Social Security overhaul that does not divert the program’s payroll taxes into personal retirement accounts, a major shift in the administration’s position.

So -- time to pop the champagne, no? Well, not quite yet.

Some time ago Kevin Drum was wondering what the administration was doing supporting such a legislative turkey.

But here's the funny thing: surely Karl Rove knows [that Social Security reform is a loser]? Unless I'm missing something, it seems like a no brainer. So what's the point?...

What's the point of loudly pushing a proposal you're going to lose? What's behind it all?

Kevin then directs us to Ed Kilgore, who has an interesting hypothesis.

You have to wonder if the purpose, if only the fallback purpose, of the Bush SocSec campaign is to suddenly shift the debate from personal retirement savings accounts financed by payroll taxes to personal general savings accounts stuffed with sheltered upper-crust investment income. If there's any chance of that, Democrats needs to start preparing for it.

According to Ed, it's a "bait-and-switch." It remains to be seen whether or not the switch is for general savings accounts, but there are unquestionably areas where the Democrats have become vulnerable to the course of this debate. And if this has been, or is quickly becoming, a diversionary tactic, we are quickly approaching the moment when the administration's strategy will shift. Therefore, whether this was planned or not, it behooves us to examine possible weaknesses in our flanks.

Many Democrats, stung by the criticism that they were obstructing the common man from benefiting from the high rates of return available in the stock market, have repeatedly claimed a willingness to support private accounts as "add-ons" to Social Security's guaranteed benefits. This makes sense as a matter of immediate politics, but as a matter of policy, the devil is in the details.

So you have to ask yourself, "where does the money come from for add-ons?" Well, there are really only two choices. First, it can come from revenue generated via an increase in the payroll tax, by raising either the rate, the cap, or both. Of course, there isn't going to be a whole lot of Republican support for such an idea, so this source is a political nonstarter. However, even if support for tax increases could be garnered, these aren't policies that Democrats should be supporting.

As we all know, the payroll cap means that wage income above $90,000 is taxed. Therefore, if the add-ons are funded by increasing the tax rate, they will essentially function as a forced investment plan for wage earners (i.e. labor). And since returns from these accounts would not be guaranteed, the compulsory investments would be accompanied by the compulsory adoption of risk. I suppose that an argument can be made that personal savings in this country are too low and that wage earners should save more than they do. That said, forcing this kind of investment assumes that people have money in their budgets that they could be saving, but are blowing on coke and whores instead. I seriously question whether or not this is true for most of the people paying the payroll tax -- and especially those near the bottom of the ladder. For many this money will come out of wages already stretched to the breaking point -- and that isn't good policy or politics.

You could also raise the cap on payroll taxes to fund add-ons, but that is problematic for different reasons, which I will address below.

Now, if add-ons aren't being funded by increased taxes, they're being funded by voluntary individual contributions. Another name for this is a general savings account and that is exactly what Ed Kilgore was talking about above. It's a way of providing more tax sheltering opportunities for those who have savings above the limits covering existing tax shelters -- more tax cuts for the wealthy (sound familiar). So, I can definitely see why Republicans would support add-ons so funded, but no Democrat should have any part of it.

The other thing to keep in mind with regard to add-ons is making sure that it actually adds on. Bob Somerby raised the issue earlier this week.

First, a point of simple logic—an “add-on” account is only “added on” if traditional Social Security is fully preserved before the “adding” is done. After all, if future SS benefits are cut, then any additional savings account isn’t an “add-on”—it’s a replacement for the lost benefits. In short, before “add-on” savings accounts make sense, Congress will have to solve future funding problems with traditional Social Security.

It's true that Social Security's long-term funding problems are of questionable severity and therefore it's reasonable to wonder whether add-ons could be supported without acquiescing to demands for benefit cuts. However, I don't know how Republicans could accept a compromise that doesn't address what they claim is the central issue, Social Security's insolvency. I mean, at that point it isn't even Social Security reform anymore. Clearly, add-ons are a mere bargaining chip designed to enable the government to default on its Social Security obligations. And since the funding issues negate the value of having private accounts at add-ons, this isn't a bargain we should be making.

The other big concession that Democrats have been looking for is the option to raise or lift the cap on the payroll tax. This has been raised as a solution to Social Security's theoretical insolvency, but could also be used to fund add-on accounts (although it's important to note that it can't do both). There are two reasons this is a bad idea. Mark Schmitt encapsulates the first one very nicely.

…the basic argument is that the payroll tax is not a tax so much as a premium in a system of insurance. And the cap ensures that the insurance policy is basically a good deal for everyone. That's always been the bedrock of its political success. You might be able to get a better deal, in exchange for more risk, through private accounts. But no matter how you cut it, in general Social Security is a net plus for almost everyone, whether through retirement or survivors benefits. On the other hand, if you lift the cap, and people who make $120,000 are paying almost $15,000 a year in FICA taxes (including the employers' share), they would start to see it as a very bad deal. They would have to be alive and retired for almost as long as they were working in order to see a positive return.

So, even though lifting the cap would make Social Security more progressive, it would also make it less popular in the high wage earner demographic and therefore undermine its long-term political solvency. This is especially true when you consider Mark's second point.

The second point is that viewed as a tax rather than an insurance premium, it's a bad tax. Lifting the cap makes it slightly more progressive, but not much. It's an ugly regressive tax that applies only to work, not to investment income…

Politically, the system is successful because, as insurance systems go, it's a pretty good deal for almost everyone is paying into it. Making it more progressive turns it into an entitlement that is funded by the middle class. They are likely to resent shouldering the burden while the super wealthy get off scot-free. So, even though I can see why Republicans would want to foster this sort of resentment, Democrats shouldn't allow it to happen, especially with so little in return.

Besides which, all this talk about closing the funding gap through some sort of payroll tax manipulation ignores the distinctly unfair nature of such a proposition. Remember, we didn't wake up yesterday and discover that there was going to be a funding shortfall when the baby boomers started to retire. In 1983, we raised the payroll tax in order to build up a surplus to address this demographic issue. So, wage earners have already paid to fix this problem once. Regrettably, the funding surplus was used to obscure the actual size of our national debt, and thus justify spending increases and tax cuts that would otherwise have been seen as financially irresponsible. Therefore, the first place we should go for that money is to those who have been receiving the benefits of all George Bush's tax cuts, those at the upper income levels. Money was essentially taken from wage earners and given directly to the wealthiest among us. Any corrections to the system should begin with the repayment of this debt.

The bottom line is that both of these compromise positions, add-on accounts and raising the payroll tax cap, are dubious accomplishments for the left. No long-term progressive goals are achieved, while they allow the right to move forward their agenda, if only slightly. Therefore, this isn't the time or the place for an olive branch. If changes can't be made on our terms, I see no reason to change at all. There may be merit in some sort of a compromise on some aspect of this deal. But if we are going to give something up, let's make sure we get something we actually want in return.

Rome Wasn't Built in a Day

2005-03-04T13:24:00.000-07:00

One of these days I'm going to learn to write short, concise posts for this here blog. Today, however, isn't going to be that day. Anyway, I'll have the new novella up later this evening. Check back, if you can.

Traumatic Reverberation, Part II

2005-03-02T10:47:00.000-07:00

In Part I of this post, I argued that American slaves endured conditions that would have induced high rates of the psychological disorder known as PTSD. Today, I would like to build on this assertion and investigate the possible ramifications of such a psychological epidemic.

GROUND ZERO

First, let's review the array of symptoms that is commonly associated with PTSD, broken down into the three major categories: intrusive, avoidant, and hyperarousal.

Intrusive
Dissociative states
Flashbacks
Intrusive emotions and memories
Nightmares and night terrors
Avoidant
Avoiding emotions
Avoiding relationships
Avoiding responsibility for others
Avoiding situations that are reminiscent of the traumatic event
Hyperarousal
Exaggerated startle reaction
Explosive outbursts
Extreme vigilance
Irritability
Panic symptoms
Sleep disturbance

This list demonstrates, clearly I hope, the seriousness of the disorder. Severely traumatized individuals have the potential to become utterly dysfunctional in nearly every aspect of traditional existence.

Of course, the life of a slave was characterized by one traumatic experience after another. If you were born in Africa, you were potentially traumatized by the four months spent crammed into the hold of a trans-Atlantic slave ship. If your psyche survived that assault, or if you were born on American soil, there was ample opportunity to be damaged by the violence perpetrated against you by your white master. Therefore, it is quite likely that slaves frequently displayed many of the disruptive symptoms listed above.

But, that's just the beginning.

THE BUTTERFLY EFFECT (PRE-1865)

Like many psychological disorders, the negative consequences of PTSD are not limited to the affected individual. Those displaying PTSD symptoms typically find healthy social interaction to be extremely difficult, if not impossible. The intrusive symptoms are the most disruptive, as individuals may have only a tenuous grip on reality. But, in terms of familial distortion, the avoidant symptomatology may be nearly as bad. One who avoids emotions, relationships, and responsibility for others has essentially abandoned the core elements of social connection. Even those symptoms associated with hyperarousal transform the individual into a extremely difficult personality. It is hardly surprising that one of the primary complications associated with PTSD is divorce and separation. It is often simply impossible to remain bonded to an individual so affected.

So, imagine for a moment what ramifications this condition would have had in the context of an American slave family. Remember, of course, that slave families already exist in an incredibly caustic environment. The constant threat of separation would have meant that these families consistently endured in extremely high stress levels. The needs of the slave family were always subservient to the whims of the slave owner. In this context, even the healthiest and most robust among us would struggle to maintain a semblance of familial normalcy.

But many slaves were not psychologically healthy -- in fact, far from it. In a situation where social support would be necessary to merely retain sanity, many would be incapable of providing it. The connection between husband and wife would be fragile, often characterized by a cold detachment between them. Children would be born into families with parents unable to provide them with the love and security so necessary for healthy development. They would be deprived of the emotional modeling the parents traditionally provide to their children, and would thus reach adulthood lacking emotional maturity and find themselves unable to form healthy bonds of their own. All this in what is already a horrifically disruptive state of existence.

Yet, it gets worse.

A psychology professor of mine, in his discussions of PTSD, told us of the research he conducted on traumatized Bosnian refugees who had immigrated to the United States. Many of these refugees had either witnessed or experienced acts of unspeakable cruelty. Predictably, their symptoms were quite debilitating. However, my professor noted that the severity of their symptoms and the resistance to recovery was significantly affected by the strength of their post-trauma social network. Individuals who were surrounded by trusted family had a tendency to recover much faster than those who were isolated and alone. In some cases, the social network was more predictive of the ultimate outcome that was the initial trauma.

Therefore, if we transpose this knowledge to slavery, we can see that a vicious cycle was put in motion. Slaves were traumatized, which led to a savage disruption of their social structure, which in turn made the following generation even more susceptible to PTSD. After 200+ years of progressive deterioration, it's a miracle that anyone escaped the ravaging effects of the disorder.

And this is what differentiates the slave experience from so many other community-based traumas. The victims of the Cambodian and Rwandan genocides, the Jews of the Holocaust, and the veterans of our modern wars were all assaulted over a comparatively short period of time. Those who escaped returned to a relatively normal existence within the scope of a single generation. Their families were undoubtedly damaged by the victims’ suffering, but their children did not have to endure the same horrors that they did. For these individuals, the passage of time provided healing. The same cannot be said for the American slave community. For them, time was an enemy.

INITIAL CONDITIONS (POST-1865)

In nature, complex systems can be broken down into two general categories (this is, of course, a gross oversimplification -- but for our purposes here, the general statement is true). The first category describes systems whose solution set is rather small and is largely independent of its defining variables. Regardless of the opening state, the system approaches equilibrium in a reliable and predictable fashion. The pluck of a guitar string is an example of such a system: regardless of how the string is put in motion, the string's oscillation will quickly arrive at a defined frequency.

The second category, by far the most common, includes systems that are highly dependent upon initial conditions. Small changes of its starting position radically and chaotically alter its concluding state. Weather is an example of such a system.

While it may be difficult to demonstrate conclusively, I believe that it is fairly clear that community systems follow this second example. Thus, when the African American community was released from its bonds in 1865, even a small differentiation and its initial conditions could have dramatically altered its trajectory. However, in this instance we are not talking about a small differentiation.

1865 was undoubtedly a dramatic improvement over the preceding 250 years. The institutional subjugation of African-Americans had finally ended and the importance of that moment cannot be overstated. But one must not forget that many hurdles to success remained. At this point in time their access to economic resources was almost nonexistent. The racism that became entrenched during the era of slavery did not evaporate upon its dissolution, only now African-Americans were suddenly competing in the free labor market, which deepened the resentments of lower class whites. Reconstruction was a period of dramatic improvement in terms of the political power wielded by black Americans, yet for many, freedom represented a decreasing stability in their day to day existence. And, of course, this was a community that was already experiencing deep psychological damage. The incidence of trauma would have markedly declined, but the healing that would normally ensue following the cessation of hostilities would have been stunted at best.

Moreover, the environmental conditions did not consistently improve over the next 140 years. There were several periods of discriminatory regression (most notably during the era referred to as Post-Reconstruction), the depths of which challenged those of the years preceding emancipation. Healing within that community would have been further retarded, halted, or even reversed during these periods.

Given these initial conditions and the state of affairs during the ensuing 140 years, is it reasonable to assume that the traumatic effects of slavery have completely receded into the past?

CONCLUSION

In this and the preceding post, I have attempted to examine the challenges facing the African-American community through a clinical lens by examining one specific issue: PTSD. In doing so, I am not claiming that this was the only psychological disorder that this community faced. A similar argument could be made by examining the incidence of depressive disorders, personality disorders, and anxiety disorders, as well as a host of other conditions that would have been undoubtedly exacerbated by the inherent cruelties of the peculiar institution. A complete examination of these issues could not be fully addressed in a doctoral dissertation, let alone within the space of a pair of blog entries. If I have adequately demonstrated the issue’s daunting complexity, I have accomplished my goal.

Also, one might wonder whether or not I am claiming that the African-American community is, due to its history, presently disordered. This is a delicate issue that pivots on what it means to be disordered -- which is, in and of itself, difficult to define. To answer this question, I would say "yes, it is" -- but only in the sense that a community that suffers from high rates of cancer due to its proximity to a chemical waste dump is also disordered. The disorder is not inherent to the community. It is the result of the immoral actions perpetrated by the larger society, and the ultimate resolution will only be achieved through collective action taken by all individuals alive in America today.

Finally, while I have gone to great lengths to describe the deep psychological scar that the African-American community wears, there is a factor that I have neglected to mention until this moment. Given the hurdles faced, be they economic, prejudicial, or psychological, the ever improving advancement of the African American community demonstrates a humbling strength and resilience that is truly awe-inspiring. It is a testament to their ability to endure and succeed in an environment where nearly every external factor conspired against them. It is a tale of heroic perseverance that should overwhelm any willing to honestly face the historical reality. It is, without question, the stuff of legends.

Of course, the African American community was not alone in suffering the detrimental effects of slavery. But that discussion will have to wait for another day. Again, stay tuned.

Proceed to Extension of Toxicity.

Return to Slavery and History Index.

The Only Constant Is Change

2005-02-28T21:11:00.000-07:00

As some of you have no doubt noticed, I've changed the color scheme of the web site rather dramatically. It seems that there was a small, yet vocal minority of individuals who were incessantly whining about the white-text-on-black-background look that preceded what you see now. Apparently, it was giving them headaches or seizures or something. Anyway, the squeaky wheel gets the grease.

If you'd like to comment or vent about the new look, this is the place to do it. I'm fairly pleased with the transformation, but clearly I can be persuaded if there's a groundswell against it. So, speak now or forever hold your peace.

Traumatic Reverberation, Part I

2005-02-27T01:37:00.000-07:00

With the passage of the 13th amendment in 1865, 250 years of slavery on American soil came to an end. In the intervening 140 years, approximately 5 generations have come into existence never directly experiencing America's original sin. There are perhaps a handful of individuals alive today who have ever met a living former slave or slaveholder. The institution is as dead as something can be, a discarded relic of our distant past.

But, in the immortal words of William Faulkner, "The past is not dead. In fact, it's not even past."

As much as we wish it was not the case, the legacy of slavery lives on today in many different forms. The economic and educational disadvantages faced by the newly released slaves in 1865 have yet to be fully erased. Certain laws enacted during this period, done with the intention of preserving the marginalization of the African-American community, remain on the books today (most notably the Florida statute barring convicted felons from voting). Of course, the racism that became culturally entrenched during this period still exists. It may be less intense and less overt than it once was, but it continues to percolate beneath the surface. And more often then we would like to admit, it boils over.

But what of the psychological legacy? Is it possible that, after all these years, the descendents continue to bear the emotional scars of their bonded ancestors? Again, we might cling to the notion that time heals all wounds. But to do so would be to ignore our large body of evidence demonstrating the persistence of trauma across generations. That cliché might provide us with a small measure of comfort, but it would merely be turning a blind eye to the reality that we face today.

POST-TRAUMATIC STRESS DISORDER (PTSD)

In the last quarter century or so, the field of psychology has come to recognize the persistent long-term effects of trauma exposure. It was originally a condition associated with the battlefield and was referred to as "shell-shock." More recently we've come to understand the genesis of PTSD to be far more expansive. Victims of kidnapping and violent sexual or physical assaults frequently display PTSD symptomology. Even witnessing violence can trigger the onset of PTSD. In short, nearly any exposure of violence has the potential to leave a lasting mark on the victim or witness.

While it remains difficult to predict which experiences will lead to PTSD in which individuals, some correlations have been noted. For example, individuals with pre-existing mental health conditions (such as borderline personality disorder) or who have low self-esteem tend to exhibit PTSD symptomology at higher rates than the population mean. Exposure to previous traumatic events also appears to increase the incidence of the disorder. The quality and competency of one's social support structure plays a role both in onset and in ultimate recovery. And, naturally, the nature and severity of the triggering event is a significant determining factor. That said, PTSD can emerge in individuals who lack all of the previously mentioned risk factors. Ultimately, there's no telling.

The range of symptoms is quite wide and can be dramatically affected by the nature of the triggering event and the environment in which it occurs. These symptoms can be broken down into three general categories: intrusive, avoidant, and hyperarousal. Within these categories, the symptoms break down in the following manner.

Intrusive
Dissociative states
Flashbacks
Intrusive emotions and memories
Nightmares and night terrors
Avoidant
Avoiding emotions
Avoiding relationships
Avoiding responsibility for others
Avoiding situations that are reminiscent of the traumatic event
Hyperarousal
Exaggerated startle reaction
Explosive outbursts
Extreme vigilance
Irritability
Panic symptoms
Sleep disturbance

Typically the symptoms are compounded by the following complications.

Alcohol and drug abuse or dependence
Chronic anxiety
Depression and increased risk for suicide
Divorce and separation
Guilt
Low self-esteem
Panic attacks
Phobias
Unemployment

While we have come a long way in our understanding of this disorder, treatment remains as much an art as it is a science. Various psychotherapeutic modalities in conjunction with medication (including antidepressants, antipsychotics, anti-anxiety agents, and mood stabilizers) have had some success in ameliorating some of the more serious symptoms. Yet, a true cure remains elusive even in this modern age. And those of a preceding era would have been forced to rely on nothing more than community support and their internal constitution. Ultimately, for them, the condition would remain largely unresolved.

ITEMIZING TRAUMA

Too often, I think, we blithely acknowledge the brutality of the peculiar institution without consciously facing it. But for reasons that will soon be clear (if they are not already), we can't ignore the details in the course of this discussion.

Those entering bondage during the early history of American slavery largely did so as prisoners of war. Whether they were captured by a warring tribal faction or directly by slave traders, the ultimate result was the same: a forced relocation that almost universally obliterated all familial and social ties. The process of relocation was quite barbaric in and of itself. Potential slaves were packed into tiny compartments for the transatlantic voyage. The ceilings in these compartments were often so low that the Africans could not stand erect. Ventilation was poor, mobility severely truncated, and sanitation nonexistent. These were the conditions they were forced to endure for a journey that lasted between 90 and 120 days. The mortality rates on these voyages were shocking, with some estimates ranging as high as 30%. Finally, efforts to segregate the diseased and the dead from the living and healthy were lax at best, which often meant that the prisoners spent long periods of time crowded up against seriously ill individuals and corpses.

The experience upon reaching American shores improved slightly if at all. Once slavery had devolved into its most virulent form, extremely draconian methods were employed to retain control over the slave population. Whippings, maiming and mutilation, branding, and castration were common behavior management techniques. Uncontrollably rebellious slaves were murdered by decapitation, hanging, or outright torture. Their bodies were often publicly displayed as a warning to other potential malcontents.

However, within this environment, familial structures began to reemerge. Slaves married and bore children. Yet, this created little stability. Considered property of the slaveowner, family members were frequently sold to distant plantations. All families lived in constant fear of such forced removals.

Female slaves faced an additional threat within their life of bondage: rape. Sexual assault perpetrated by white slave owners was extremely common. All too often these encounters produced mulatto offspring. When this happened, these children were accepted into the slave families. However, they also served as a constant reminder of the traumatic method of their conception.

Finally, everything that the slave experienced they experienced more or less in the open. This meant that everyone (white, black, slave, free, adult, child) was a witness. Since the laws of man and God at the time supported the institution, there was no need to conceal the methodology of its maintenance. Nothing was hidden.

DIAGNOSIS

In one sense, I'm making a fairly obvious argument today: slaves were treated poorly and suffered for it psychologically. I'm not exactly going out on a limb on this one. But, I am trying to take the argument a little further and suggest that the type of trauma that they endured would have led to a high incidence of a very specific psychological disorder. And I think that if you look at the triggering mechanisms and risk factors for post-traumatic stress disorder and compare them against the experience of an American slave, the population's predisposition for the disorder becomes clear.

Kidnapping and exposure to violence (as a victim or as a witness) frequently induces PTSD. The forced relocation from Africa and the common practice of selling slaves are essentially nothing more than a form of kidnapping. Violence (physical and sexual) was often directed at slaves, and those who were not the object of this violence were regularly witness to it. The inhumanity of the transatlantic voyage was surely a traumatizing experience. Likewise, the displayed remains of rebellious slaves would have left a deep mark on any exposed to them.

But even more significant than the actual trauma was the susceptibility of the population. The chronic nature of violence in the slave experience meant that any exposure was preceded by previous traumatic events. Familial and social structures were constantly being deconstructed, thus depriving slaves of the support structures that might reduce the negative consequences of any traumatic experience. Low self-esteem, a recognized risk factor for PTSD, was undoubtedly rampant in slave populations. And many common slave experiences (physical/sexual abuse, neglect, parental loss or separation) presupposed individuals for developing borderline personality disorder, yet another PTSD risk factor.

In short, if you were attempting to induce PTSD in a large population, you would design a system not unlike the American institution of slavery.

At this point, my conclusions are speculative. No psychologist would ever attempt to diagnose an individual sight unseen. Moreover, at this point I know of no historical sources that describe symptoms commonly associated with PTSD. Therefore, it is impossible to know with any certainty how this disorder manifested in the population in question. However, the confluence of trauma and risk factors suggest that its incidence could have been extremely high. If that were the case, the consequences for the community at large would have been devastating.

This entry is turning into quite a monstrosity, so I'm going to stop here and continue this argument in a new post. At that time, I will investigate the potential ramifications of widespread trauma disorder for the slaves, for their descendents, and ultimately for us all.

Proceed to Traumatic Reverberations, Part II.

Return to Slavery and History Index.

Best Friday Cat-Blog. Ever!

2005-02-26T02:21:00.000-07:00

I'm about to publish the next segment in the slavery series that I'm working on. But, since it's going to be a few more hours, here's something a little lighter to chew on. Enjoy!

(Be sure to read the comments when you get there -- you'll see what I mean.)

A Downward Progression

2005-02-24T01:55:00.000-07:00

Perhaps the most startling revelation that I have come to these last few days regarding the institution of slavery was how little I knew about the institution itself. The little time that my high school American History class spent discussing the subject largely focused on its political implications in the years preceding the Civil War. I seem to recall brief mention of the institutions inhumanity, but these references were rather oblique and lacked any real examination of its horrors. It was as though its existence in the historical narrative served only as contrast to the progress achieved following its abolition, its evil presented so that we might take pride in its eradication.

Thus, for me the details of slavery were provided by popular culture. Gone with the Wind, Roots, and The Blue and Gray television miniseries were my primary sources of information. And since two of those three sources focused primarily on white Americans (and one is a factually challenged romanticization of plantation existence), these presentations did little to correct my ignorance. Even so, I did come to understand some basic facts. Slavery was an institution that transformed African Americans into property, valued only for their ability to work. The institution was maintained via unspeakable cruelties and freedom, for both the individual and his or her descendents, was unachievable. At the time, that seemed to be all one needed to know.

Of course, while that is an apt description for a certain time and place, it obscures the depth and complexity of slavery's 250 year existence in what is now the United States. What actually occurred during those years is incredibly revealing and, in fact, challenges one of the most central notions of American mythology. In so, a fresh look is overdue.

THE BEGINNING

The first 20 African slaves arrived in the Jamestown colony during 1619. At the time, Jamestown was struggling to become an economically viable outpost in the New World. After several failed attempts at various colonial industries, a strain of tobacco began to show a potential for profitability. However, tobacco cultivation required a massive and inexpensive labor force, something in short supply. To remedy this dilemma, the colonists had two choices: indentured servitude and slavery.

Despite the distinction, there was initially little different between the two labor categories. Indentured servants were bound to service for a specific time period in exchange for passage across the Atlantic. Upon completion of their contract, they were released. Likewise, though slaves did not enter into the arrangement willingly, their term of service was not lifelong. Moreover, since the English did not traditionally enslave fellow Christians, slaves could occasionally gain their freedom through conversion.

At approximately the same time, slavery emerged in Dutch New Amsterdam (which would eventually become New York City). The first 11 slaves arrived during 1624 and were immediately put to work constructing the colony's infrastructure. The terms of their servitude were somewhat stricter than their southern brethren, as there were no explicit routes to freedom. However, they were allowed to earn and keep wages. Also, they had access to the courts and used them to recoup wages that they were owed. And more generally, they realized the critical role that they played in their society and used this knowledge to negotiate favorable settlements on many issues. Ultimately these negotiations led to a change in their status from enslaved to what was known as half-freedom. This allowed them to lease and work their own property. They could still be called upon to provide free labor for the colony, and their children were born slaves. Yet, it did represent a small degree of upward mobility.

Make no mistake. Life as a slave during this era was exceptionally difficult. Your primary value to the society in which you lived was determined by the labor you performed. As such, slaveholders did all they could to extract this value from you. Days were long, hard, and largely thankless. But for all the hardships, freedom was an achievable goal. Hope was not lost.

DEVOLUTION

From the perspective of the Virginia tobacco farmer, they were certain problems inherent with their adopted labor system. As slaves and indentured servants completed their obligations and became free, there was a constant need to replace the lost laborers. This attrition was compounded by the slaveowner's obligation to free those who converted to Christianity. Finally, those released from service began to compete with the established landowners for access to the most productive acreage. To preserve the social order they had constructed, changes would have to be made.

Economic necessity began to drive cultural change. The notion that Christians could not enslave fellow Christians allowed far too many to escape bondage. That tradition vanished. Suddenly, one's race determined eligibility for enslavement. Likewise, the limited term that had characterized the preceding era disappeared. Slavery was now a permanent condition, as immutable as the color of one's skin. And, in one cruel and final insult, the Virginia colony passed a law in 1662 declaring that children would share the status of their mother. Freedom was now all but impossible, even for one's descendents.

With these changes, the profitability of slaveholding skyrocketed. Slowly but steadily, slavery replaced indentured servitude as the exploited labor force of choice. As this occurred, the demand for slaves increased dramatically, leading to an explosion of the international and domestic slave trade. By 1720, slaves outnumbered free whites in some territories by nearly 2 to 1.

However, there were other consequences of these changes. With all hope of legitimately acquired freedom lost, slave resistance increased dramatically. Slaves began to search out the means to escape bondage -- and when they could they ran. Slaves lashed out against their masters, burning their barns and poisoning their food. Outright rebellion was a constant threat and many were put down during this era. Whites responded with ever increasing acts of cruelty. Captured runaways were punished with whipping, branding, and, for male offenders, castration. Even tangential association with a slave uprising was rewarded with decapitation. These grizzly trophies were mounted on spikes and decorated high-traffic roadways as a warning against revolt.

Of course, the barbaric treatment only served to intensify the slaves' quest for freedom. And so, the system began to cycle rapidly downward. Increasing violence led to increased resistance, which led to even darker depths.

But increasing profits, especially in the Carolinas, changed the calculus for the slaveholder. Whereas before the replacement value of a slave deterred the most inhumane treatment, no longer was this true. If a slave was maimed or killed, the deterrence that act provided against misbehavior in the population at large was worth the relatively small cost of his or her replacement. With moral, legal, and now economic constraints lifted, slaveholders were limited only by their imagination. And they were very, very creative.

THE MYTH OF EVOLUTION

One of the most frequent misunderstandings with regard to Darwin's Theory of Evolution is what it actually means to evolve. Typically people view evolution as a process whereby organisms move from less perfect to more perfect forms. Implied within this view is the notion of progress. Earlier organisms are seen as less advanced than those that exist today. But, as any biologist will tell you, this is a fundamentally flawed perspective. Each organism is adapted to the environment of its time. As the environment changes, so do the creatures that exist within it. The quality of any adaptation is measured against its suitability for the current environment and not against proceeding forms. Progress is a myth created to bolster the notion of human exceptionalism. It doesn't really exist.

However, this myth is not confined to the biological sciences. James W. Loewen, author of Lies My Teacher Told Me: Everything Your American History Textbook Got Wrong, spent several years examining some of the most popular American History textbooks. During this research, he discovered that every textbook presented narratives infused with an unyielding faith in American progress. A case in point:

Three textbooks offer appendixes that trace recent trends, all onwards and upwards. These efforts are undistinguished. They do not use constant dollars, for one thing, so their bar graphs of rapidly rising family income or health care expenditures show far more "progress" (if spending more on health care is progress) than occurred… No textbook charts phenomena that might the negative, such as frequency of air pollution alerts, increased reliance on imported oil, or declining real wages.

The story told by these textbooks is one of ever increasing enlightenment, wealth, morality, and freedom. Progress is the overarching structure into which all historical events must fit.

But, the story of slavery does not fit into this mold. As bad as slavery was in 1619, it was infinitely worse hundred years later. Despite the rhetoric of American patriots in 1776, for a substantial portion of the population, freedom was not on the march. Quite the opposite. And while we currently stand far above the bar set early in the 17th-century, the myth of steady improvement obscures the wild oscillations that have occurred at points in between.

This was an important lesson that I was deprived of. True, things often get better. But sometimes they get much, much worse. Moral advancement isn't automatic -- it requires awareness and perseverance. And even then we sometimes fail to escape our darker tendencies. It's a crime that one can earn a high school diploma without facing this irrefutable fact.

We aren't served by the American fairy tale. The truth is that the United States has frequently been a force for good in the world. There is no need to embellish our accomplishments. But we should also recognize that many have suffered at our hands. It is part of who we are. Slavery is a stark reminder of our weakness in this regard and, if it isn't taught accurately, a tremendous opportunity for growth is squandered.

And that is something that we truly cannot afford.

Postscript: While much of the information in this essay was derived from the PBS documentary Slavery and the Making of America, I also discovered this resource. Both were invaluable sources of knowledge and I highly recommend them to you.

Proceed to Traumatic Reverberations, Part I.

Return to Slavery and History Index.

Revealing America's Peculiar History

2005-02-22T01:17:00.000-07:00

If you had asked me in high school what my least favorite subject was, I would have said Spanish. But that would only have been because I was so bad at it. If we had restricted the selection to those classes where I demonstrated reasonable aptitude, I would have said American History. There was simply nothing in the disjointed presentation of names, dates, and events that seemed relevant to the life I was living. It was so boring, so lifeless, and such an exercise cliché and platitude that it's amazing that I didn't lose my mind. However, while slumped in my chair in the back of the class, I did get plenty of sleep. So, I guess it wasn't a total loss.

Over the last few days, though, this simmering bitterness has been reawakened. The catalyst for this rediscovery has been my exposure to a recently aired PBS documentary titled Slavery and the Making of America. I learned more about our Peculiar Institution during the first five minutes of the documentary than I did in all my years of school. And when you consider that slavery was the single most important socioeconomic institution in the history of our nation, you can see how worthless my history education was.

Slavery isn't a footnote in our history. It wasn't a quaint tradition utilized by a handful of Southern plantations. Rather, it was an absolutely critical component of the birth of the American nation. The economies of the early settlements (in the North as well as in the South) depended upon the low-cost labor provided by slavery. Our fortunes during the American Revolution were nearly turned by slavery's existence, as offers of freedom convinced many slaves to join the British against the American patriots. It fueled the southern agricultural juggernaut, sustaining an otherwise uncompetitive economy. It was the single most controversial political issue from the advent of independence through the conclusion of the Civil War. And the consequences of slavery reverberate through history, affecting the lives we live even today.

In short, one cannot even begin to understand who we are without facing this shadow from our past.

Over the next few days, I'm going to attempt to remedy this deficiency. I haven't planned this out entirely, so I don't know how many posts this will actually generate. But, I have a few ideas that I want to explore with respect to both history education in general and slavery in specific. Hopefully, I'll be able to do it justice.

Stay tuned.

Proceed to A Downward Progression.

Return to Slavery and History Index.

Intellectual Biowarfare

2005-02-21T01:04:00.000-07:00

There are a lot of cheap and dishonest tactics that people use in the course of a debate. But without a doubt, one of the worst of these is "The Strawman." For the uninitiated, this is when you misrepresent your opponent's position so that his argument is easier to defeat. It works best when your opponent is unable to correct your misrepresentation, such as when he is not in the room and is unaware of how you have characterized his reasoning. That's the cheap part (that dishonest part is when you lie).

It's always a sad moment when The Strawman makes an appearance. To the informed audience, it's the moment when the advocate admits that his position cannot stand on its own. It's sort of like saying "your argument is so good that I wish I was arguing with someone else -- so let's pretend that I am." And consider the value of the victory so achieved. I mean, I could be heavyweight champion of the world if I could select all of my opponents. But, would it mean anything?

Given what this technique says about those who employ it, it is initially surprising that it gets as much plays it does. Yet, not a day goes by without Rush and Hannity beating the shit out of some liberal strawman. Even Bush makes a point of trotting out this rhetorical canard from time to time. So, it makes me wonder. If using it makes you look bad and, since it only works when the opposition is absent, it converts no one, what's the point?

Well, it turns out that there is one.

Have you ever used the phrase "a germ of an idea" or described a quickly spreading intellectual concept as a "thought virus?" If so, you're probably already primed to view the spread of ideas and opinions through the lens of the germ theory. If not, it's really very simple. The transference of ideas from one person to another is closely analogous to the spread of a biological infestation. As with an infectious agent, ideas spread person to person with exposure. The factors that control the speed and efficacy of transfer, such as the strength of the idea and the hospitality of the host, likewise parallel the biological model.

However, the similarities don't stop there. Just as you can develop resistance to viral infection through exposure to a weakened strain of the virus, exposure to weak arguments makes you resistant to the full strength version. This is what is referred to as inoculation. In the biological manifestation of this phenomenon, your body develops antibodies when first exposed to the weak strain, thus preparing your immune system for the full-scale assault that might come later. And while the details of conceptual inoculation are not quite so clear, the resulting effect is the same.

And so, with this information, the true function of The Strawman is laid bare. The fact that this technique has no persuasive power is irrelevant because it is, by design, focused on allies rather than on opponents. It is a method of preaching to the converted, with the intention of cementing their allegiance.

I cannot say with any certainty whether everyone who employs this technique is aware of the inoculation effect. There are certainly times when an opponent's argument is distorted because it is honestly misunderstood. At other times strawmen are constructed simply to create an easily defeatable opponent. But once we move out of the amateur ranks, you can be certain that the effect is known. When national elections turn as they do on the smallest sliver of the electorate, is essential that each side avoid attrition by any means necessary. If that means stooping to what is, in effect, brainwashing, then that's the game were playing.

We often lament the state of political discourse in this country. But even as we protest, we remain largely unaware of how low we have sunk. There was a time when I fantasized about cornering a “dittohead” and converting him with the power of logic and charm. Experience has shown me what a fool's errand that was. Until we discover a method to pierce through this encrusted layer of intellectual antibodies, no real discourse between the right and left can occur. And while we wait for such a discovery, we must inoculate our own just to stay in the fight.

Bad Arguments for Bankruptcy Reform

2005-02-17T12:44:00.000-07:00

As the debate over bankruptcy reform has evolved, defenders of the proposed legislation have begun to emerge. One of the most vocal of these defenders has been Todd Zywicki of The Volokh Conspiracy. In two separate posts (here and here) he argues that credit card companies are not responsible for increasing bankruptcy rates and that medical expenses are not responsible for 50% of bankruptcies. To address these issues, I shall employ the always entertaining "So What?" defense.

Let's proceed.

Zywicki’s discounts the role of credit cards in bankruptcy by arguing that there has been no measured increased in household indebtedness.

First, the argument doesn't make much sense from an economic perspective. Unless credit cards have somehow removed the borrowing constraint on individual credit (and no one has provided any evidence that it has), there would be no reason to believe that credit cards would increase overall household indebtedness.

Instead, economic theory would predict that the primary effect of the introduction of credit cars would be to shift around patterns of consumer credit use, by substituting credit card debt for other less-attractive forms of credit, such as pawn shops, personal finance companies, and retail store credit (such as from appliance and furniture stores). In fact, this is what the evidence indicates has actually happened.

He continues by suggesting that the measured correlation between high credit card debt and bankruptcy is explained by the credit cards role as the credit line of last resort and the strategic debt repayment employed by those intending to file bankruptcy.

First, the correlation between credit cards and bankruptcy may reflect the unique role of credit card borrowing in the downward spiral of a defaulting borrower. Credit cards provide an open line of unsecured credit to be tapped at the discretion of the borrower. Thus, for many debtors credit cards are a "credit line of last resort" to stay afloat to avoid defaulting on other bills…

Second, a debtor's increased use of credit cards preceding bankruptcy also may reflect strategic behavior taken in anticipation of filing bankruptcy… Given the choice between defaulting on secured or nondischargeable obligations on one hand versus dischargeable credit card debt on the other, the incentive is to use credit cards to finance payment of nondischargeable and secured debt.

To these arguments, I respond So What? The crux of these arguments is that individuals, for various reasons, are shifting debt so that it might be dischargeable through a Chapter 7 filing. This offers no proof that individuals are being financially irresponsible. In fact, it's quite the opposite. People who are deeply in debt are transferring as much of that debt as possible to dischargeable credit lines, thus putting themselves into the best possible financial position post bankruptcy. It would be foolish to do anything less.

Moreover, the credit card industry has been knowingly handing out dischargeable credit lines of their own accord. Surely, they must have realized that their clients might choose to use this credit in such a fashion. And if they didn't, So What? Why is their recklessness cause for systemic reform?

Zywicki then moves on to the role of medical expenses in bankruptcy. To challenge the often cited 50% figure, Zywicki questions the methodology used in the supporting research.

In fact, the "finding" in this article of a massive rise in medical bankruptcies appears to actually be a result in the way in which medical bankruptcies are counted, rather than an actual change in the numbers. They draw their data from two sources. First, self-identified bankruptcy filers who say that some medical event "caused" their bankruptcy. [Emphasis in original]

…

Among the self-identified factors that are listed as "medical" causes of bankruptcy in Exhibit 2 of the article are the following: illness or injury, birth/addition of new family member, death in family, alcohol or drug addiction, uncontrolled gambling. First, it is surely open to question whether uncontrolled gambling or a death in the family really should count as a "medical" problem. More generally, the category "illness or injury" is very broadly defined in the study, and there is no apparent limit on the time frame over which the illness or injury occurred, or the severity. So classifying all of these factors as medical problems that have "caused" bankruptcy certainly seems open to question. [Emphasis added]

First, I'm a little puzzled by his assertion that it is "open to question" whether or not "death" should count as a serious medical problem. I mean, if there is a medical problem more serious than death I'd like to hear about it. But, in a more general sense, I'm not certain how valuable the opinion of a bankruptcy specialist is in establishing the seriousness of various medical conditions.

However, in the spirit of fairness, I will grant him that the study possibly overstates the role of medical expenses in bankruptcy. Likewise, I will stipulate that the causal relationship between medical expenses and bankruptcy is not established by the study and that media claims to the contrary are misleading.

Which brings me to my core argument -- So What? Even if medical expenses aren't causing bankruptcy directly, they are unquestionably a significant contributing factor in many cases. Given that fact, what matters is not the number of medical expense related bankruptcies, but the manner in which those bankruptcies are handled by bankruptcy law. David Welker of Ex Parte (which is managed by the Harvard Federalist Society, if you can believe that) backs me up on this point.

I am skeptical of the 50% number, but on the other hand, the whole debate is irrelevant. Does the analysis change if a mere 40% of bankruptcies are "caused" by medical problems. How about 30%? What if it is a mere 10%? Regardless of the number, any reform legislation should deal with such cases appropriately. Even a 10% number would be over 150,000 people a year. Zywicki concedes that some bankruptcies are caused by medical conditions and claims that the bankruptcy legislation deals with these appropriately. But whether these cases are dealt with appropriately or not, that is the real question! If the legislation deals with these cases appropriately, then it would not matter if the number were even much higher than 50%. After all, those cases are resolved appropriately. On the other hand, if these cases are not handled appropriately, you are going to be dealing with tens (maybe hundreds) of thousands of people a year in an unfair and innappropriate manner.

And so Zywicki may have caught the opposition playing politics with the numbers on this issue. To that I say "Touché!" However, I fail to see how this advances the argument for bankruptcy law reform.

Approximately 1.5 million people file Chapter 7 bankruptcy every year. Some of those are high interest earners who could repay at least some portion of their debts. I would happily support reforms designed to eliminate that sort of abuse. However, if those reforms prevent legitimate use of bankruptcy protections, I'm out. Given the enormous profitability that is ubiquitous to the industry, I'm willing to accept abuse to provide protections to the truly vulnerable (besides, all systems have noise). Until there is an affirmative demonstration of the need for reform and the ability to employ it effectively, I cannot support this endeavor.

I'm still waiting.

Witchhunt 2005

2005-02-16T10:22:00.000-07:00

There are many intelligent and important individuals alive today who represent the best of left wing political thought. Ward Churchill is not one of these people. Yet, he is now frequently held up as an example of modern leftist academia. As the controversy surrounding his radical views reached a fever pitch, and as calls for his resignation/termination began resonating across the conservative echo chamber, he has also become the poster boy for advocates of academic freedom. Churchill himself revels in the spotlight, having garnered more attention in this moment then he has in his entire career. Whether or not he retains his post at the University of Colorado matters, I suspect, very little to this man. Unfortunately, though, the repercussions of this controversy will matter to the rest of us -- and in some ways that I think are not immediately apparent.

BACKGROUND

The process by which Ward Churchill came to the attention of the mainstream media is a fairly typical tale for such things (Kevin Drum connects the dots for us). But, for our purposes, what's important is how it began.

Shortly after September 11, 2001, Churchill published Some People Push Back: On the Justice of Roosting Chickens. In this article he argues that the attacks of 9/11 were a predictable response to American cultural, economic, and military intrusions into the Middle East. However, he also attempts to discredit the notion that the victims of the attacks were purely innocent.

As to those in the World Trade Center… Well, really. Let's get a grip here, shall we? True enough, they were civilians of a sort. But innocent? Gimme a break. They formed a technocratic corps at the very heart of America's global financial empire – the "mighty engine of profit" to which the military dimension of U.S. policy has always been enslaved – and they did so both willingly and knowingly… If there was a better, more effective, or in fact any other way of visiting some penalty befitting their participation upon the little Eichmanns inhabiting the sterile sanctuary of the twin towers, I'd really be interested in hearing about it.

While it took a few years for these comments to reach the ears of the general public, once they did the result was predictable. Blaming the victim rarely makes you popular and in this instance you had to take a number to join the lynch mob.

ACADEMIC FREEDOM

As his views became widely circulated, and as the public became aware of his position as a tenured professor, calls for his termination began to grow. The combination of his radical opinions and the fact that his salary was paid at least in part by public tax dollars was too much for many to bear. He simply had to go.

It was then that a small cadre of defenders began to emerge. While they universally detested his controversial views, they were unwilling to accept his termination based upon them. In their view, the removal of a tenured professor based upon the unpopularity of his ideas would undermine the principle of academic freedom. And on this point, they are exactly right.

While it might seem odd to those of us who toil away as "at-will" employees, the principle of tenure is a crucial component to intellectual progression in academia. A newly hired professor is expected to spend the first few years of his career demonstrating his value to the host institution. Each institution measures value in its own idiosyncratic way, be it through teaching excellence, research and publishing, or the like. At the completion of this period, if the candidate has met the institution's expectations, he is granted tenure and cannot be terminated for anything less than academic fraud or gross misconduct. With these protections in hand, our newly tenured professor can venture out in any direction that captures his attention. Nothing is off limits.

This freedom allows academics to explore controversial issues in ways that would otherwise not be possible. They are expected to leave conventional wisdom behind and to embark into uncharted territory. Ideas are ultimately judged on their merits, but without the freedom that tenure provides the vibrancy of debate would be greatly diminished. The "marketplace of ideas" would be transformed into the "Wal-Mart of comfortable notions."

Thus, allowing Churchill's views to be the basis of his termination would set a precedent that would threaten the entire system. Academics everywhere would begin to self-censor their investigations, closing off any topic that might potentially draw popular criticism. Universities would rapidly become institutions proficient only at indoctrination and would leave behind a long tradition of intellectual inquiry.

So it would seem that, despite his views, Churchill's termination would have to be fought.

ACADEMIC FRAUD

If you're going to be in the business of defending the freedom of expression in this country, you inevitably are going to be rubbing shoulders with some fairly unsavory characters. It's simply the nature of the beast. And as this case demonstrates, defending academic freedom often places you in the same company. The problem with dealing with such individuals is that they tend to behave in a rather unscrupulous ways.

This appears to be the case with Ward Churchill.

Thomas Brown, an assistant professor of sociology at Lamar University, recently published an essay that strongly challenged claims made by Churchill regarding the 1837 smallpox epidemic. According to Churchill, this epidemic was a biowarfare event perpetrated by the United States Army. Brown's essay dismisses this assertion and concludes the following:

Situating Churchill’s rendition of the epidemic in a broader historiographical analysis, one must reluctantly conclude that Churchill fabricated the most crucial details of his genocide story. Churchill radically misrepresented the sources he cites in support of his genocide charges, sources which say essentially the opposite of what Churchill attributes to them.

One of Churchill's primary sources regarding the smallpox epidemic is Russell Thornton, a professor of anthropology at UCLA. Inside Higher Ed addressed this directly.

Thornton, who is a Cherokee, has written extensively about the horrors of U.S. treatment of Indians. But his study of the Mandan concluded that the epidemic was not intentional.

Thornton said in an interview last night that Brown's essay was correct. He said that people have periodically told him over the years that Churchill has "misrepresented my work."

"Issues like Ward Churchill cast aspersions on legitimate Indian scholars," Thornton said. Of U.S. treatment of Native Americans, Thornton said, "The history is bad enough -- there's no need to embellish it."

That doesn't seem to be the end of Churchill's deceptions. For much of his career he has presented himself as a Native American. This has played no small role in establishing his credibility with respect to his field of inquiry. Yet, according to the American Indian Movement:

…Ward Churchill has fraudulently represented himself as an Indian, and a member of the American Indian Movement, a situation that has lifted him into the position of a lecturer on Indian activism.

…Ward Churchill has been masquerading as an Indian for years behind his dark glasses and beaded headband. He waves around an honorary membership card that at one time was issued to anyone by the Keetoowah Tribe of Oklahoma. Former President Bill Clinton and many others received these cards, but these cards do not qualify the holder a member of any tribe. He has deceitfully and treacherously fooled innocent and naïve Indian community members in Denver, Colorado, as well as many other people worldwide.

Indian Country Today is also critical of his claims of native heritage.

Churchill's claim [of Native American heritage] is so seriously in question…that it offends some as much as the galling insults and the opportunistic political reactions. Churchill, it would now seem, is neither claimed by sensible liberal scholars nor by any of the American Indian tribes, including Cherokee and Creek, to which he has claimed affiliation.

These deceptions, academic and otherwise, serve to undermine any principled defense of Churchill's position. As much as we might like to defend his right to freely express his admittedly inflammatory opinion, his dishonesty in and of itself justifies his removal from the University of Colorado. And, as it now stands, it can be done without threatening the tradition of academic freedom.

SEEING THE FOREST

Actually, I'd like to take back that last sentence.

Over at Inside Higher Ed, commenter Louis Proyect noted:

…Churchill's sins [with respect to academic fraud] pale in comparison to what I have seen around me since my undergraduate days.

This raises a troubling issue. What if, despite aspirations, Churchill's level of academic fraud is more common than we had initially been led to believe? What if his poor scholarship fails to completely distinguish him from his peers?

Now, consider that question alongside the following David Neiwert observation.

…Ward Churchill is hardly the only academic in America with genuinely repulsive views that deserve renunciation. Indeed, there are a number of right-wing professors who could face similar academic firing squads if the punditocracy chose to raise their cudgels against them…
So why are they not every bit as eager to expel [conservative] radical academics from our midst? Their silence has been longstanding; if anything, you'll find so-called mainstream conservatives actually defending thinkers like this (see, e.g., the long-running right-wing apologia for Charles Murray's repulsive theories about race.)

In this country, drug use rates are virtually identical in the Caucasian and African American communities. However, despite comprising a mere 11% of the population, African-Americans represent a majority of those imprisoned on drug offenses. While many factors contribute to this phenomenon, one of the most important is the fact that drug prohibition criminalizes activity engaged in by a wide segment of the population. Since law enforcement lacks the resources that would be required to universally prosecute drug offenses, selective enforcement is the result. Inevitably this enforcement falls primarily on minority communities, who tend to be poor, easy to prosecute, and generally undesirable. In such an environment, it is their membership in an undesirable community rather than their criminal activity that determines their eligibility for prosecution.

And this is the situation with Ward Churchill. He may be a sloppy academic and that may justify his termination. But we shouldn't ignore the reality that it was his views that brought these ancillary issues to light. Fraudulent scholarship was a rationale developed ex post facto and most likely would never have been unearthed were it not for the withering scrutiny that Churchill endured. In truth, few of those calling for his dismissal have any stake at all in preserving the integrity of academia. That isn't what this is about.

Irrespective of the current rationale, the effect of his termination will be indistinguishable from a termination based upon his controversial views. In the future, academics will have to carefully consider whether or not their personal and professional history can withstand intense media focus before they venture beyond popular conventions. Many will choose to err on the side of caution. Invaluable contrarian view points will vanish from the public sphere, and our intellectual palette will be restricted to the ideas that comfort the majority. And we shall be poorer for it.

Ultimately, I don't like Ward Churchill or what he stands for. His views are poorly justified and, frankly, rather pedantic. I hardly think that his contributions to academia would be missed. Moreover, as things stand, the fraudulent quality of his research limits his claim to the protections of academic freedom. At the same time, we shouldn't kid ourselves. This was a witch hunt, plain and simple. And as he burns at the stake, many others tremble in fear, knowing that the forces brought to bear against Churchill are easily redirected.

Update: there's a fairly interesting dialogue developing in the comments section, so be sure to check it out.

Keep Your Pants On

2005-02-16T01:05:00.000-07:00

Sorry things have been a bit slow here recently. The post I'm working on has taken a little extra time to put together. It should be ready later today.

Remember people, it's all about quality…

What's in a Number

2005-02-14T13:36:00.000-07:00

In an effort to justify the blogosphere's reputation as a "self-correcting" medium, I offer you the following.

An entry I posted last Thursday included this juicy morsel:

They were showing support for the policies of George W. Bush -- the same policies that have led to the deaths of as many as 100,000 innocent Iraqis.

A few days later, during one of my semi-regular excursions onto the dark side, an intellectual jouster followed me home and came upon the phrase quoted above. He then chastised me for advocating the "long debunked" 100,000 Iraqi civilian death figure.

Given where I was lurking and who was reprimanding me, I wasn't terribly concerned. But, I realized that, in truth, I didn't really know all that much about where that figure came from or what it really meant. In the context of the post in which it appeared, the validity of the figure was not terribly consequential (accepting the 25,000-30,000 figure proposed by my critic would not have substantially undermined my argument). Still, I felt it was worth my while to research the issue so that I might approach it in the future from a position of authority.

And, as it turns out, a correction is in order.

The figure (which turns out to be, in fact, 98,000) arises from a study (pdf) that was published this fall in The Lancet. The study was an epidemiological investigation that used a sampling methodology to determine the death rate in Iraq before and after the American invasion. The study did generate a fair amount of controversy and condemnation from both the left and the right. Unfortunately for the naysayers, much of the criticism is nothing but -- well -- horseshit.

So much for it being "long debunked."

That said, there are some clarifications that should be made.

First, as I said above, the study was attempting to determine the net change in the death rate in Iraq before and after the start of the war. The 98,000 figure, therefore, was an extrapolation of the study's results and not an actual count. Since this is a completely valid statistical method to employ, this is a rather nuanced distinction to make. It is worth knowing, though.

More important than that, however, is what the study is not trying to say. Due to the macroscopic focus of the study, the authors made a deliberate decision to record all deaths, regardless of causality. No attempt was made to differentiate between combatants and noncombatants. Therefore, it is not accurate to say, as I did, that the 98,000 figure refers to civilians. Likewise, the data was not restricted to deaths caused by coalition forces. Deaths that occurred as a result of Iraqi military, the insurgency, and of natural, nonviolent events were all included in the study's data set. Therefore, one must be careful not to imply that 98,000 deaths resulted directly from actions taken by coalition forces (although, it is fair to argue indirect responsibility).

Finally, it is important to acknowledge that this is a single study and that it should not be the final word on the subject. If we truly care to know the answer to this question, other research using different methodology must be applied to the situation. This study takes an important first step, but it hardly puts the issue to rest.

OK -- enough with the caveats. Let's dig in to the actual statistics.

One point that is frequently misinterpreted by both sides is the nature and meaning of the study's confidence interval. For those of you who are not conversant in the details of research statistics, a confidence interval is a statistical calculation which reveals how certain researchers are that a measured value represents the actual value of the phenomenon being studied. Traditionally this is expressed by citing a range of values between which the actual value is believed to reside. The size of this range is determined by the methods used in the study and by the degree of confidence (hence the name) that the authors are attempting to express. Generally the level of confidence must be 95% before the results are considered statistically significant.

For many, this confidence interval is where the validity of the study appears to break down. Due to the methods employed (most notably, the small sample size), the 95% confidence interval for the study is 8000-194,000 postinvasion deaths. This range of values causes otherwise reasonable people to lose their minds. Case in point:

Readers who are accustomed to perusing statistical documents know what [that range] means. For the other 99.9 percent of you, I'll spell it out in plain English—which, disturbingly, the study never does. It means that the authors are 95 percent confident that the war-caused deaths totaled some number between 8,000 and 194,000. (The number cited in plain language—98,000—is roughly at the halfway point in this absurdly vast range.)

This isn't an estimate. It's a dart board.

Cute. According to Mr. Kaplan, any value between 8000 and 194,000 is equally likely. For everyone out there who hasn't taken Introduction to Statistics, that assertion is ridiculous. Despite this wide range of possible values, 98,000 is still the most likely value. It is considerably more likely than values that exist closer to the outside of this range.

However, the range does demonstrate the existence of uncertainty with respect to the 98,000 figure. Due to the sample sizes involved (and unavoidable consequence of performing research in a war zone), it is difficult to say exactly how many excess deaths have occurred postinvasion. It could be 8000 or less (a 2.5% chance exists for this possibility). It could also be 194,000 or more (again, 2.5% probability for this outcome). Honesty requires that we acknowledge this reality.

That said, the study makes one inarguable point that is frequently lost upon those who seize upon the implied uncertainty in the confidence interval. Here's Daniel Davies to educate us:

Although there are a lot of numbers between 8,000 and 200,000, one of the ones that isn’t is a little number called zero. That’s quite startling. One might have hoped that there was at least some chance that the Iraq war might have had a positive effect on death rates in Iraq. But the confidence interval from this piece of work suggests that there would be only a 2.5% chance of getting this sort of result from the sample if the true effect of the invasion had been favourable. A curious basis for a humanitarian intervention; “we must invade, because Saddam is killing thousands of his citizens every year, and we will kill only 8,000 more”.

I lose track of the current justification for the Iraq invasion. But it seems to me that we floated the "improving lives of the Iraqis" rationale at some point. Nothing improves one's life as little as death does, so death reduction appears to be fair metric by which to measure how we are faring in this regard. Unfortunately, this study unequivocally demonstrates our failure to accomplish this goal. A 97.5% probability exists that at least 8000 people have died who otherwise would not have if we had not invaded.

Personally, on issues as complicated as the justification for war, I am reluctant to employ cost/benefit analysis. There is simply no rational way to evaluate, in the moment, the costs and benefits of such an action. However, my reluctance is shared by few of those who would justify its cost by pointing to the tyranny of the previous regime. To these individuals we can say, with near certainty, that death is on the rise now that we are on the scene.

And so, I stand corrected. Never again shall I imply, directly or indirectly, that 100,000 civilians have died in Iraq. I will be clear that we do not know how many deaths we are responsible for. I have learned my lesson. I will, from this point forward, merely state that it is very likely that we have greatly inflated the ranks of the Iraqi dead.

I guess he showed me.

Threading the Needle

The "C" Word

Hiatus

Conversion Disorder

Redirect

The Black Hat

Thinking Outside the Box

Excuses, Excuses

Intelligent Designer-in-Chief

Guilty!

Sorry -- I'm Not Here Right Now...

Every Blog Has Its Day

The Weakly Standard

"Frack" You

Reports of My Death...

The Sharks and the Insurgency

Phew -- Made It!

The Immediate Future

Lessons from the Arena, Part II

One Toke over the Line

To Compare or Not to Compare -- That Is the Question

How to Blog

Still Unpacking

On Tour

Qualified Qualifiers

...But I Love the Internet

I Hate George Lucas

'tis the Season

Going Nuclear

The Myth of Merit

Collective Conservation

I Don't Believe It, but...

Looks Like I'm All Right After All

A Little Inside (Blog-)Baseball

Battling Confirmation

What Am I, a Fucking Idiot?

Why Government

Coming Soon...

More Is Not the Answer

In the Interests of Full Disclosure...

The False ANWR Solution

Homework

Sucker-Be-Gone! Yours If You Act Now!

Centrism: Another Word for Useless

It's the Resources, Stupid!

The Real Enemy

Workers of the World Unite

Who Loves You, Baby

Fun with Images

A Little Regulation

Expertise Matters

Separated at Birth

Borderline

An Ode to Mothers Everywhere

Blog Still Off

Blog Off

Stuff Other People Wrote

Things Worth Reading

I Hate Graduate School

You Can't Prove a Negative

Guns, Germs, and Opium

The Game Behind the Curtain

I Have Arrived

The Real World Calls

Carnival of the Vanities

1000 and Counting

Bill Frist: Quack

Do-Nothing Congress

The Opposite of Buyer's Remorse

Delta Deficit Equals Zero

Another Carnival

Updated Thoughts

Slavery and History Index

Extension of Toxicity

Back Online

How Bad Is It?

Carnival

Out Of Town

Disparity Does Not Equal Discrimination

Bankruptcy Reform Gets Some Attention