Ecce Homo

2003-06-23T16:08:00.000-05:00

Mark Twain Wouldn't Like George W. Bush

Ok, yeah, "it's been a while" (well, since I last posted). But here's something "interesting" I wrote about Mark Twain's thoughts on Iraq:

One hundred and two years ago Mark Twain identified the attitude that the Bush Administration currently holds toward the Arab world. The essay in which Twain advanced his discovery was entitled “To the Person Sitting in Darkness.”
Twain commented on various actions taken by Western powers in defense of their imperial possessions. Westerns justified these actions because they brought “civilization” the world’s backward peoples. This “civilization,” said Twain, was a “pie” full of unarguably good attributes like live, liberty, and mercy. Most backward peoples accepted the pie. After all, who wouldn’t want such a gift? The only problem was that sometimes the backward peoples, those sitting in darkness, didn’t quite cooperate in taking their new “civilization.” When that happened, such as when missionaries were killed in China or Filipinos resisted the American annexation of their islands, the lid of the pie of “civilization” came off and its other half emerged—imperial brute force and oppression. This, commented Twain, is what the customer who buys civilization actually receives.
Twain said this as a man who truly loved and valued Western civilization. However, he also saw the destructive tendencies of the West when it foists itself upon the rest of the world. The reaction of the person sitting in darkness, he argued, is to proposition the following: “There must be two Americas: one that sets the captive free, and one that takes a once-captive’s new freedom away from him” and then “kills him to get his land.”
Rightly or wrongly, this is the way much of the world perceives the United State’s actions, and, again rightly or wrongly, this is the way the United States has acted since the time of Mark Twain. Iraq is only the latest in a long line of foreign interventions where we have liberated the peoples of the world and proceeded to impose our will on them. Sometimes the U.S. is justified, such as in World War II. Sometimes it is not, such as in Vietnam and Haiti. In each case we come as liberators, and then stay, imposing our own ideals of civilization on the people we occupy.
The United States government views the man on the Arab street as the person sitting in darkness. He needs liberation, they say. He needs to learn the ways of the West, they say. What they do not say is, what are we supposed to do if he doesn’t go along with it? The answer is unpleasant. It is the inside of Twain’s pie of “civilization.”
It is the brutal, yet likely, result of our occupation of Iraq. In the Bush Administration’s mind’s eye Iraq will adopt a constitutionally democratic government, political violence will cease, and people will henceforth go about their daily lives in what might be labeled “East U.S.A.” If the Iraqi people don’t want to do this, however, we will run across Twain’s second America: the U.S. imposes its rule upon Iraq and doesn’t let go until it is no longer in its best interest to do so, i.e. a very long time.
The Administration might be excused for thinking it can manage since many nations grew into liberal democracies in the last few years. If they did, why can’t we force the Arabs to do the same? The problem is that Iraq and the Arab world posses little of the liberal dynamic that spurred new democratic governments in countries such as Poland and South Korea. True, in Jordan, Kuwait, and a small handful of other Arab countries there are hopeful signs of liberal values taking root. But in the main we are not looking at a land that merely needs its leaders deposed and Jimmy Carter to monitor free elections. We are looking at a region where our ways cannot be imposed without accompanying, and lasting, brute force and occupation.
The danger in Iraq is if the United States leaves another dictator might quickly emerge, rattle his sabers like Saddam, and push us to move right back in. To prevent this public relations catastrophe we will not leave Iraq. We will not leave alone whatever Iraqi government emerges. And while we are there Iraqis will see two Americas. We will introduce the Arab sitting in darkness to the pie of American civilization, both the good and the evil. It is my hope the good will somehow be the bigger portion. But in this matter I, like Twain, am not optimistic.

2003-05-08T13:34:00.000-05:00

Political Musings

My latests from the Minnesota Daily. I pontificate over what make next year's primaries ones to remember. I know that just about the only posts I've had lately have been from my column, but hey, ever heard of finals?

t’s the beginning of the summer the year before a leap year, so what do my thoughts naturally turn toward? The 2004 presidential elections, of course.
Now, I know this sounds sick to most of you, and it also does to me, but I really can’t help it. I’ve tried to kick the habit, and nothing has worked, so it’s on to presidential musing that I go. But hey, stick with me, because I’ve come up with an interesting prediction.

The unusual mix of contenders for the Democratic Party’s presidential nomination makes for an exciting scenario. What’s unusual about them is that just about all of them are rather usual. None of them stands out from the rest as a favorite, not even two or three. At least four have very strong hopes of grabbing the nomination.

Next, more than ever before, the nation’s primaries are on an accelerated schedule. It used to be that the presidential primary season was a state-by-state affair with the majority of delegates not chosen until well into the process. This allowed enough time for candidates to either run out of money or churn out enough name recognition and press coverage that one by one all but the winner would fall by the wayside. In addition, California and other big states were put off until near the end of the spring primaries, keeping large numbers of delegates unavailable as funds dwindled.

Now, after the traditional start in Iowa and New Hampshire, most other states, including California, will be over in a month or two. This doesn’t allow much time for candidates to run out of money and give up. Instead we have, in effect, a national primary.

This was somewhat the case in 2000, but we didn’t have a proper test of the new system. That was because there were only two big-ticket contenders in either party. In each case, one had a serious disadvantage in money and couldn’t last through “Super Tuesday.”

This time things really might be different. None of the four Democrats I alluded to above have a distinct advantage. Those are John Edwards, Dick Gephardt, John Kerry and Joe Lieberman. All except Gephardt are playing to the most moderate Democrats, all supported the war in Iraq (although a bit reluctantly, except for Lieberman) and all have none of the charm of past Democratic winners such as Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton. Also, each can claim a distinct slice of the old “Democratic Coalition.” Edwards is the only true Southerner, Gephardt is an old union hand, Kerry has strong support in the northeast (and somehow is often labeled the “frontrunner”) and Lieberman is Jewish (see New York and Florida) as well as being the only candidate who legitimately could be called a conservative Democrat.

And then there’s the rest of the pack, many of whom have a chance for hefty vote totals. Howard Dean was one of the only candidates courageous enough to oppose invading Iraq. This means many, many Democrats think very highly of him. Al Sharpton is not a “serious” candidate, but might grab a serious share of the black vote, as would former Sen. Carol Moseley Braun if she runs.

If all or most of these Democrats end up on the ballot in New Hampshire some strange stuff might happen that this country hasn’t seen since 1952. If three or more candidates still stand when the effective national primary is over, no one candidate may hold a majority of delegates. This means something very fun for cable news junkies: a broker convention.

National political conventions used to be the place where parties actually chose their presidential candidates, similar to the way parties often still choose statewide candidates in Minnesota. In the last 50 years the primary system has “democratized” the process, and year after year conventions have meant less and less.

If the primaries end with no clear holder of a majority of delegates the convention will resume center stage. The two or three candidates with the most delegates will try and court the also-rans so endorsements will follow and candidates will step down and pledge their support to someone else. However, this does not mean the delegates will necessarily follow their ex-candidate’s lead, and large numbers of undecided or shifting delegates might show up at the convention. Whatever comes out of that is anyone’s guess, but here’s one thing to chew on: The delegates don’t have to nominate someone who ran in the primaries. If they can’t agree on one of the candidates and another person steps forward, that person could be the nominee. And someone will have Hillary on speed dial.

2003-04-27T00:44:00.000-05:00

It's ok to read the Constitution

I mean REALLY. Here's my lastest rant in the Minnesota Daily about the judicial appointments saga:

New York Sen. Charles Schumer has not read the U.S. Constitution. I know this because he has said that people are unfit to be federal judges if they seek to “curtail the powers of Congress.” May I refer the senator to the primary author of our Constitution, James Madison, who said the federal government’s powers are to be “few and defined”?
Schumer and his cohorts in the Senate are currently doing whatever they can to block President George W. Bush’s judicial nominations, including the unprecedented use of filibusters. They say some of Bush’s nominees, such as Washington lawyer Miguel Estrada and Texas Justice Priscilla Owen, are “out of the mainstream” of American values. These legal scholars are not fit for the bench because, say our noble senators, they might believe the outrageous notion that Congress does not have the power to regulate every aspect of our lives.

Schumer’s shameless statements ignore the words of Madison and the following 200-plus years of history. During many of those years the court overrode Congress’ will when Congress moved beyond its allotted powers.

Charles Schumer can’t understand this history. The fact that he can’t is frightening. It points toward a view of absolute majoritarianism: If the majority of legislators vote for a law, then that law is per se constitutional.

That is not what the Constitution says. As clear as day, the Constitution limits the power of Congress. In the opening to Article I it states, “All legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress.” This means, by implication, that Congress does not have the powers that are not granted — which tells us, without reading any further, that not all powers imaginable are granted to Congress. If we read on, Section 8 of Article I enumerates most of the “vested” powers. They are quite specific. It contains narrow allocations such as the power “to establish post offices” or “fix the standard of weights and measures.”

The language from Section 8 that lawmakers like Schumer seize upon is “to regulate commerce with foreign nations, among the several states, and with the Indian tribes.” This seems to be the only sentence in the Constitution with which Schumer has familiarized himself. The phrase, set among other specific grants of authority, has been broadly read over the last 65 years to grant Congress plenary power over our lives. Activities that no speaker of the English language would classify as “commerce” or “among the several states,” such as the width of office hallways or the content of municipal drinking water, are now routinely regulated by Congress. The only limits on the federal government have become the liberties in the Bill of Rights. This turns the original understanding of the Constitution on its head. Instead of having no power except what is specifically granted to it, Congress has the power to regulate everything except what is specifically disallowed.

In the last eight years, the Supreme Court has begun to reverse this understanding ever so slightly. It has, either through striking down a law or through reading it in a limited light, stated that Congress does not have, for example, the power to criminalize the possession of guns near schools or to regulate non-interstate waters. This is hardly a revolutionary, dangerous or “out-of-the-mainstream” concept.

Yet, senators like Schumer think an opponent of unlimited congressional power is unfit for the federal bench. We are often told that the Democratic Party’s opposition to Bush’s judicial nominees relates to abortion rights. This is true to a point, but it contradicts Schumer’s own words. Statements made by his office demonstrate the Democrats are less worried about the legality of abortion and much more about threats to the plenary power of Congress.

It is not surprising that Schumer votes for laws that violate the Constitution. Congress has a penchant for doing so, and we shouldn’t be surprised he is no different than anyone else. What is surprising is that his party will not vote for — or even allow a vote on — nominees that actually read the text of the document authorizing Schumer’s day job.

If those who want unlimited Congressional power choose to believe the Commerce Clause gives them unlimited authority, so be it. But why is someone who believes Congress’ power is limited — something “mainstream” Americans would probably agree with — unfit for the judiciary? Who is the extremist here, the “ideological” nominees or the authoritarian senators who will not yield one inch of their kingly power?

2003-03-31T12:02:00.000-06:00

Tony Who?

My latest musings on Tony Blair's future as set below, as they are today in the Minnesota Daily. My apologizes to those in Britain who know more than me.

Although the war is issue number one amongst our nation’s leaders, the controversy surrounding it has yet to disrupt the power structure of the major parties. George W. Bush administration officials are not likely to march out of a cabinet meeting in support of a cease-fire, and no major Democrats threatened to leave the party if it failed to support invading Iraq. In Great Britain, however, there’s a different story.
British Prime Minister Tony Blair is among the most centrist members of his party. He has transformed the British Labor Party from a social democrat, if not socialist, “old left” party into a “third-way” technocratic party — a party that works in the name of the free market system, but seeks to regulate the market in the direction of social justice. This has created great strain in the Labor Party. Until now most in the party have by-and-large supported Blair because they remember how bad they did in the Margaret Thatcher era. Then party members would publicly shout “three cheers for Socialism!” at party conferences, only to be demolished in the general election.

Traditional Labor supporters have bit their tongues and followed Blair into two successive electoral landslides. Now, however, emboldened by that success, the rifts between Labor’s free marketers and the socialists might be about to break open. At issue, of course, is Blair’s support of Bush’s Iraq policy. The free market Laborites are by instinct inclined to support the United States and therefore are inclined to support Bush. This is the natural way for a pro-American European to act. The only problem is that most Labor members are not pro-American Europeans. Maybe they were pro-Clinton Europeans, but they do not hold a pro-American outlook.

Consequently, some of Blair’s cabinet ministers threatened that they would resign if Britain invaded Iraq without a U.N. Security Council authorization. When push came to shove a handful actually did. The House of Commons held a vote where Blair garnered a large majority of votes in favor of invading Iraq. However, more than a hundred members of his own party voted against him. Blair has survived his first test, but unless the war ends quite successfully (which, as we know, is doubtful), he might not survive for much longer.

It might be near the time for “Old Labor” supporters to play their hand. Blair is becoming much more like a moderate member of Britain’s Conservative Party than a mainstream Laborite. There are also the Liberal Democrats, the only major party who were against military intervention. The liberals currently hold more seats in parliament than they have at any time since the early years of the 20th century.

The rift in the Labor Party between the moderate (if not center-right) members, such as Blair, and the socialists, coupled with the pro-war Conservatives and the antiwar stance of a strong Liberal Democrat Party, make for a tinderbox in the British houses of parliament. If left-wing laborites turn against Blair, all manner of things might happen. On many economic policies Blair, and therefore the Labor Party, is to the right of the liberals. Most antiwar laborites are not happy about this. The war might be the last straw for many of them, and we might witness a perhaps temporary but nonetheless real exodus from Labor to the Liberal Democrats. This is less likely to occur if Labor’s left thinks it could oust Blair from power and “take back the party.”

However, Blair has many cronies in the upper echelons of the party. They got where they are through his political will and will follow him to the end. There is no chance of them jumping ship to the conservatives, as their party is in a continual state of upheaval that shows little sign of abating. Therefore, something has to give.

Throughout the Thatcher years, old school Labor socialists dreamed of the day when British voters would shake-off Maggie’s charm and embrace a renewed love for the welfare state. Those dreams might have mellowed a bit with the demise of communism and six years of power, but replace the name “Thatcher” with “Blair” and the dreams remain. Before Blair came to power in 1997, he told his rank-and-file they could not advocate what they want (a reversal of the Thatcher era) and get elected. Now that they have such a strong majority that advice is not as apropos. If Labor’s left does not act against Blair because of Iraq, it is hard to imagine when they would. Other “third-way” centrists stand in line behind Blair. It’s not like once he steps down a leftist will take his place.

So, political combat might be their only option. We might be about to witness another instance of the left eating the left. And isn’t it delicious.

2003-03-25T16:29:00.000-06:00

What?!

Robert Novak is anti-American? "You're either with us or against us" really is a load of tripe.

2003-03-25T16:08:00.000-06:00

Here They Come!

OK, my prediction for the Seattle Mariners this year (whose season begins in a mere week): 95-69. Not much of a change on last year, but remember the tough division they're in. Considering how they looked in last year's second-half, this would be a great improvement. I feel the pitching will be decent enough, and the addition of Randy Winn should help a good bit. If Edgar Martinez stays fit (and he's looking damn good so far this spring) and improves then things could get even better. This probably means they're in the playoffs, but beyond that three hateful words always keep me from further predictions: New York Yankees.

2003-03-05T09:49:00.000-06:00

Back from the Show

My long long absence from posting can be attributed to my participation in the University of Minnesota's first annual law school musical. Many law schools put on such a production, and now my school has jumped on the bandwagon. Why does a LAW SCHOOL put on a musical, you might ask? I really have no idea, but it's so fun to lampoon the institution that everyone loves to hate that the invitation to participate is too delectable to miss. And, I've always wanted to play Puck, for some odd reason, and now I finally got my chance (well, in a sick, twisted, and bizarre way at least).

2003-02-20T11:02:00.000-06:00

GUNS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Below is my column in today's Minnesota Daily concerning this year's conceal-carry debate in the Minnesota Legislature. Conceal-carry bills are in committee in the House and Senate. The only question is whether the DFL (for non-Minnesotans that's "Democratic-Farmer-Labor" party: Yes, "Democratic" isn't liberal enough here) majority in the Senate will put up a fight. There is sizable majority in favor of conceal-carry in the Senate, but I suspect the leadership has a trick or two up its sleave.

Here's my column:

Some of the most important facts in life are counterintuitive. Just because something doesn’t “make sense” on first glance doesn’t mean it’s crazy. Often after meditating on a counterintuitive proposition, we realize it’s actually true.
An example is the fact that banks pay you interest. Remember when you were a kid and you found out that in exchange for taking care of your money the bank was going to pay you? How does that make sense? They’re doing you a favor, and yet they reward you. Another example is the misery of 1920s Prohibition. Instead of making the ills associated with alcohol go away, Prohibition created more problems, not fewer.

Similarly, another counterintuitive proposition is that if people own more guns there will be less crime. “More guns?” the likes of Sarah Brady will scream. “If guns are used to kill people, how can more of them lead to fewer people being killed? You’re crazy!” This statement reflects a person’s first-glance reaction, and too often the same person never looks further and reflects on the truth underlying the claim.

Yes, guns are used to kill people. Know what else guns are used for? No, not just hunting. Guns are used to defend people. A very small percentage of the population actively seeks to murder fellow humans. The rest of us wish to defend ourselves from those who seek to kill, rob or maim us. A way of doing this is owning and carrying a firearm. If we view carrying a gun not as heightening the ability to kill, but as strengthening our ability to defend ourselves, the counter intuition of “more guns, less crime” suddenly becomes a presumption.

Of course, this presumption is refutable. The best argument against allowing people to own and carry guns is that they will accidentally use them to kill people. If a prospective murderer enters your home, shooting him in self-defense doesn’t sound that bad. But what if your neighbor mistakenly walks into your home instead of her own in the middle of the night? Shooting her would be a tragic accident made possible through gun possession.

We cannot easily arrive at an answer to the “more guns, less crime” dilemma. It is an empirical question with numbers on two different sides — the number of crimes (especially murders) thwarted by gun ownership on one side and the number of accidental mutilations and killings on the other. (I leave out gun crimes committed by criminals, as they will probably occur anyway, although that is a legitimate empirical question.) It might be that allowing people to carry guns in public cuts down on crime because criminals are afraid potential victims will be armed. On the other hand, it might be that when people own and carry more guns, accidental shootings rise so dramatically that they outweigh the gains stemming from lower crime rates.

By approaching the gun issue through recognizing legitimate costs and benefits, we can leave out some of the fire-breathing zealotry employed by both sides of the debate. Anti-gun activists can’t just defer to the fact that guns are designed to kill people, and Second Amendment enthusiasts can’t just defend unrestricted gun ownership by stating “if guns are outlawed only outlaws will have guns.” Instead, we can employ actual facts.

Of course, there are all kinds of facts to draw from and volumes of numbers that sometimes contradict each other. What tends to get lost, however, is the balancing ledger I outline above. Numbers that pertain to the costs and benefits in accidental shootings and lower crime rates are central to the issue.

This spring the Minnesota Legislature is considering greatly expanding our ability to carry handguns. Minnesota is one of only 17 states that

do not automatically allow non-felons, after meeting certain nominal requirements, to carry handguns. In the coming debates I hope we utilize information on the actual impact of gun possession and refrain from resorting to hyperbole. Stop and challenge your intuitions. Check data on both sides of the debate. You might discover that an armed society is a safer society. You might realize that not everyone who wants to carry a weapon wishes to use it. Or, you might find that granting more handgun permits creates more death than it prevents.

Either way you end up, you can then call your legislator knowing you have thought about guns as real things that people use, not as personifications of evil. I urge everyone to think hard, as the issue is about to hit us right between the eyes, and no amount of untamed rhetoric is going to stop it.

2003-02-18T09:02:00.000-06:00

"Victims" and Victims

Great piece by John Fund on Milwaukee County Sheriff David Clarke. Clarke is a black sheriff accused of being "racist." No, not racist toward whites, but toward blacks. Reminds us of the battles of Clarence Thomas and Miguel Estrada. I'm coming to the conclusion that our culture of victim hood will only abate when more and more leaders from "victim" groups (blacks, Hispanics, the disabled, gays) speak out against reflexive finger pointing. Groups like CORE and the Independent Gay Forum are doing this, and the trend definitely points toward things getting better. I just hope it continues.

2003-02-16T19:35:00.000-06:00

O Brother, What a Movie

I saw O Brother, Where Art Thou again the other night, the Coen Brother’s 2000 adaptation of Homer’s The Odyssey. As before, I was taken in by the ability of the Coens to meld Southern Christian motifs with Homeric spirituality. The story doesn’t follow Odysseus’ travels to the penny, but the general feeling is less the flight of three convicts and more the adventures of mortal men in the face of divinely inspired obstacles.

There are a few direct rip-offs from Homer’s work, such as the Sirens (who apparently turn one convict into a toad) and the Cyclopes (one of my favorite John Goodman roles), but the best parallel is the battle between Ulysses Everett McGill (George Clooney) and the surrounding societal and religious mores. The central struggle of The Odyssey is Odysseus’ attempt to make himself whole (return home to his wife and dog) and Poseidon’s (and other divine and semi-divine creatures) attempt to thwart him. The struggle is set up so that neither Odysseus nor Poseidon lies on the “right” side. It’s not like (as in Christian ethics) Odysseus just needs to learn to accept Poseidon as his lord and everything will be fine. Odysseus isn’t exactly a saint (he steals a bunch of cattle that aren’t his—but a god’s—among other things), but Poseidon is unfairly vindictive toward him. The divine isn’t something perfect, but something merely a part (albeit an important part) of the world.

Similarly, Clooney’s character possesses concurrent vices and virtues. He lies to his fellow convicts and steels a gold watch. Yet, he is determined to win his wife back from a devious suitor. He refuses to slow down in the face of such things as morality and religion. I admire the determination, and the pride, he shows toward these “superstitions.” At the same time, the “superstitions” present in the film (the Christian ethos—particularly apparent in the mass-baptism scene—and the belief that people can turn into toads) are beautiful aspects of his world that I want to root for at the same time. There are “absolutes” in the movie, however, such as the evil of the Cyclopes, the KKK, and the devilish State Trooper. Perhaps this illustrates that within a Christian motif it’s very hard to escape the black-and-white nature of monotheism. Even so, to the extent that O Brother presents a polytheistic view of the world—a world of many powers and opportunities in which an adventurer faces multiple chances to get lost, to follow the straight and narrow, or to play those powers against each other—it breathes a sense of the Homeric that our culture could use a bit more of.

2003-02-13T09:42:00.000-06:00

Party of Jackson, R.I.P.?

Wow, Al Sharpton just might kill the Democratic party. His running for president could not only weaken the Democratic challenger, but cut their numbers in Congress as well.

2003-02-12T20:19:00.000-06:00

The Anti-War Movement: What is it Good For?

I suppose most people on the "Right" are for invading Iraq, but a sizable number of conservatives, classical liberals, and (of course) libertarians are dead-set against it. I am in this boat, yet I feel surprisingly uncomfortable about it. It's not because I secretly fear invading Iraq is a sensible idea. That's the easy part. It's because those who are the most outspoken in their opposition to military action are the crazy left. (I say “crazy” not “far” because there are lots of radical leftists who reason and debate quite sensibly. Then there are leftists who don’t know what the hell they’re doing.) Instead of leading marches against the war that focus on opposing the war, they lead marches against the war that focus on "corporate greed," "globalism," and the continuing imprisonment of Mumiah Abu-Jamal. These are all things I am very in favor of. Hence, the unease.

I know building coalitions is what gets things done, but shouldn't the anti-war coalition try and be more "coalition" oriented? Coalitions for causes like campaign finance, abortion (on either side), or drug legalization generally stay on message, realizing we have differences but that we're all in it together. The folks down at the public park who damn George Bush for turning blood into oil don't seem to understand that.

There's a great (absolutely perfect, in fact) cartoon on Reason by Peter Bagge on the anti-war Right's dilemma. I hoped it would give me guidance on whether to go to an anti-war rally at school tomorrow, but after reading I still don't know. Perhaps the best thing is to help the American Liberty Foundation's anti-war adds. At least they won't oppose the war in one sentence and then call for violent socialist revolution in the next.

2003-02-10T14:20:00.000-06:00

Three Cheers For Awada!

Those familiar with Minnesota politics are at least familiar with the outspoken and iconoclastic State Auditor Pat Awada . Now it seems they'll have to become much more so. As mayor of the Twin Cities suburb of Eagan, Awada fought the anti-growth regional government of the Metropolitan Council. Last year I was very pleased to learn that she was running for Auditor, but I've been a bit cautious in wondering what she might do with her new position.

Well, if today's news is an indication, Awada is going to leave few holds barred in her fight for limited government. She's proposing a 42%(!) cut in local government aid (LGA), the money that the state doles out to cities in its quest to butter-up local special interests. This, of course, is provoked by the looming state budget deficit, but it is in line with Awada's vision of local government.

Without LGA cities would have to compete for residents and businesses by balancing property taxes and services. There'd be an incentive to "hold the line" on spending because taxpayers would leave if cities raised property taxes. LGA masks this by pumping general state funds into city budgets. Instead of using that money to cut property taxes cities simply spend more, building new convention centers or filling libraries with a few more books. Cities end up playing more to the interests of the legislature and less to those of their own residents. There's less competition for taxpayers, and thus less of an incentive for cities to spend wisely.

The counter, of course, is that LGA is simply redistribution from wealthy communities to, well, less-wealthy ones. (The Star Tribune article names Rochester as one of these. Yeah, that Rochester, the one with the multi-million dollar giants of the Mayo Clinic and IBM.) That counter is correct--LGA indeed is simple redistribution--but just like other forms of welfarism, it's redistribution that spurs perverse incentives. Cities can do just fine without LGA, as the fact that it didn't exist (in Minnesota) before 1971 makes evident. Yes, more people do more from rural communities to the urban core without such redistribution, but I thought flight from rural areas was a good thing (less people to develop the land). Well, I guess it depends if you're an environmental leftist or one of the welfare-rights variety.

I think this is just the start of good news from Awada. Sooner or later she'll take on the Met Council. With Peter Bell (a local fiscal conservative) there to work with there might be some interesting developments ahead. We probably won't see its abolition, but hopefully they'll pin some kind of Tenth Amendment on its tail.

2003-02-06T16:02:00.000-06:00

How Drugs Can Save the Constitution

I'm beginning to believe the medical marijuana movement might be a key (perhaps the key) to strengthening the doctrine of enumerated powers. As this week's jury debacle in San Francisco points out, the public is increasingly receptive to the individual non-commercial cultivation of marijuana. Sooner or later the Supreme Court may address the issue of whether a person growing a handful of marijuana plants for her own private use counts as "interstate commerce." The issue unites limited government classical liberals and conservatives, and liberal privacy advocates. I've talked to liberals who in general like the hugeness of our post-New Deal federal government, but who wince at its ability to override state medical marijuana laws.

If the issue does go to the Court, the case on point should be Wickard v. Filburn from 1942. That case basically closed the Court's pre-1937 Commerce Clause jurisprudence. It involved a farmer who merely grew wheat on his own land. As far as the case tells us, the farmer did not intend on selling the wheat, but merely intended it for his own use. Nevertheless, the Court found that because the farmer could have bought wheat from elsewhere (including from out of state) his activities affected commerce, and therefore were subject to Congress' power to regulate interstate commerce.

The case of growing a couple pot plants in one's own home looks quite similar. However, when people can't cultivate marijuana in their own homes, and therefore buy it, the purchase is illegal. Under a modern Commerce Clause interpretation, the government probably does have the power to regulate that sale, as it is an economic activity. “Economic” is a classification the Court emphasized in the recent cases Lopez and Morrison, both of whom produced victories for a narrower reading of the Commerce Clause. But, if the purchase of marijuana is illegal, then how can the government argue that if a private citizen grows pot it means she won't be buying any? If she's "law-abiding" she'll either grow it and smoke it, or not grow it and not buy it. The marijuana laws have created a sphere of private agricultural activity that cannot affect legal interstate commerce.

So, considering Lopez and Morrison (which suggest non-economic criminal laws are beyond Congress’ authority), the government may have trouble justifying the banning of private pot growing. The medical nature of the growing won't help because the Court ruled in 2001 that there's no "medical necessity" opt-out from federal anti-marijuana laws. From the little research I've done, no court of appeals has bought my above argument yet, but they are hesitant to move Commerce Clause enforcement any further without the Supreme Court's guidance. When the question does reach the Court, however, the coalition of support for a narrowing of the Commerce Clause may prove to irresistible for the justices, even some of the liberals. Who knows, maybe Thomas will even convince them to overrule Wickard . . . (in Lopez he said: “At an appropriate juncture, I think we must modify our Commerce Clause jurisprudence.”).

2003-02-04T17:37:00.000-06:00

Pity the Fool!

This isn't exactly "serious blogging material," but this site has always been one of my favorites. It turns web pages into what they would have been had B.A. Baracas designed them. It is categorically the funniest site on the internet.

2003-02-03T11:37:00.000-06:00

He Has That Certain, "I Don't Know What."

Here's an interesting interview of Christopher Hitchens by America's Future Foundation. The only problem is, they don't nail down how he's "become interested in libertarianism" as he said on Charlie Rose about a year ago. I keep looking for more elucidation by him on the subject, particularly in regards economics. He does utter a few particularly delicious lines, however, such as, "The Nation is now just an echo chamber for every kind of moral cowardice."

The closest I've seen Hitchens come to outlining his new views on economics is in this excerpt from a 2001 Reason interview:

"There is no longer a general socialist critique of capitalism -- certainly not the sort of critique that proposes an alternative or a replacement. There just is not and one has to face the fact, and it seems to me further that it’s very unlikely, though not impossible, that it will again be the case in the future. Though I don’t think that the contradictions, as we used to say, of the system, are by any means all resolved."

2003-02-01T17:31:00.000-06:00

Dreams Smashed, Again

For all of those roughly my age, today’s tragic loss of the seven astronauts aboard the space shuttle Columbia brings back still vivid memories of the 1986 Challenger disaster. Of course, older folks remember the pain the country then went through, but for those of us in elementary school it was a key moment in our understanding of the fragilities of our dreams. I don’t feel I can give much of a “report” or “analysis” of what happened today, but for those of you just looking for meaning in a time like this I give my remembrances of that day in fourth grade:

I wanted to be an astronaut since I can remember. Probably around first grade or so I started drawing pictures of men in space-suits, floating around the space shuttle (the only spacecraft I knew of outside history books) and mining the asteroids. I remember in second or third grade NASA successfully tried the first unattached space walk. My teacher let us watch it in class. All of us thought it was something amazing to experience, and something we should aim to eventually do.

I don’t really remember the lead-up to the launch of the Challenger, the whole “first teacher in space” thing. We heard a lot about it afterwards, of course, but I recall the shuttle launch being a, by then, run-of-the-mill shuttle mission.

I went to school on the west coast, so for us the news broke at an earlier time of day than in the rest of the country. Some kid said something about a space shuttle blowing up on the school bus, but I didn’t really believe him. We exited the bus and all filed into our classroom, and just as the day’s events were about to unfold, a parent of one of my classmates burst into the room and yelled that the shuttle had exploded and everyone on board had been killed.

We switched on the small classroom black and white T.V. and saw the news unfold. All I remember us talking about was how long it probably had been before the crew had died. The same parent tried to comfort us by saying the astronauts probably hadn’t had much time at all between when the trouble started and when the cabin blew up into a million pieces. Not much more happened that day, and most kids were pretty subdued. Over the next few days, as many of you probably remember, the T.V. showed the Challenger blowing up over and over again. I must have seen it happen twenty or thirty times. On each occasion I felt a little more squeamish.

I was not alone, of course, in wishing to be an astronaut. The thing is, back then it was the default wanna-be occupation for elementary kids. The tragedy rubbed a lot of the romance off of those dreams. I don’t think the imaginations of children have gravitated towards space flight in the same way ever since.

I continued in my wish to eventually “fly” in zero gravity until eighth grade, when I finally realized the odds of making it just weren’t very high (that is, were basically non-existent). I even set up a fund to raise money for another shuttle (for which, aside from my own contributions, I think I collected about a nickel—thanks to whichever fourth or fifth grader in Mrs. B’s class put that in there). In my pursuit of outer space, however, I was one of the only ones left. Most kids moved on to dreams set on the Earth’s surface—dreams that didn’t involve explosions on national television.

Later, when my libertarian days arrived, I realized that the whole space program is much less a national adventure and more of a make-work program for Texans and Floridians. In my mind I opposed space funding, but in my heart I still got a kick out of watching the shuttle take off, and watching robots roam over the surface of Mars. There definitely is something to giving a child the wish to reach high into their aspirations and picture a life of adventure in the stars. Hopefully the day will soon finally arrive where private citizens fund and venture on their own voyages to the Moon, Mars, and beyond. For now, however, we have another tragedy before us, and the dreams of countless children smashed once again. Just as we remember the dead of the Challenger, we will remember those of Columbia. We will remember them even as we journey to that undiscovered country (ln. 89).

2003-01-30T10:27:00.000-06:00

Sodomy? You know you want some . . .

Check out my piece on the upcoming Supreme Court sodomy case, Lawrence v. Texas, from the Minnesota Daily:

When the Supreme Court rules on the issue of homosexual sodomy this coming spring, it will likely confront one of its favorite devices — the “rational-basis test.” The test is extremely easy to meet. When it isn’t, it’s a sure sign that the justices feel so strongly about an issue that they’re willing to ignore their own precedent on its application.

The Supreme Court uses “rational-basis” in a few areas, the Equal Protection Clause of the Constitution being perhaps the most important. The clause itself is not very helpful. It merely guarantees every “person within (a state’s) jurisdiction equal protection of the laws.” What does this mean? Equal protection of murderers and nuns? Of hairdressers and masseurs? Of men and pregnant women? When is differing treatment of two groups OK and not OK? The Constitution provides little to go on.

From history, however, we can deduce equal protection definitely applies to race. It was, after all, added to the Constitution in response to post-Civil War state-sponsored racism. The Supreme Court has allowed governments to treat people of different races differently only when there is a “compelling interest.” For treating men and women differently the standard is slightly lower, allowing for the (arguably) natural differences that exist between the sexes. For most classes of people, the Supreme Court uses the rational-basis test. If a government has a “rational basis” for treating people differently (such as locking up criminals and letting noncriminals go free) it can do so.

So, you’re probably asking, what does “rational” mean? Good question — so good, that the Supreme Court doesn’t really have an answer. The best it can do is to say differing treatment must further a “legitimate governmental interest.” Examples of this are public safety, health and morality.

The Supreme Court will confront these “interests” head-on in the sodomy case. Homosexuality has never received heightened scrutiny from the Supreme Court, in the equal protection context or elsewhere. In fact, in 1986 the Supreme Court stated that the Due Process Clause, another constitutional battleground, did not give heightened protection to homosexual sodomy. It also argued that the state (in that case Georgia, in this year, Texas) has a rational basis for banning homosexual sodomy — morality. Since the Georgia Legislature had banned sodomy, the will of that “majority” was a sufficient reason for upholding the ban.

With interests such as public safety, health and morality at its disposal, the Supreme Court can uphold, in a rational-basis context, any law it wishes, no matter how crazy or arbitrary. Think about it: Whatever the law, there’s always some reason you can think of to defend it. With this in mind, it’s interesting to note the Supreme Court has on occasion ruled that laws fail to meet the rational-basis test.

One example, in 1985, had to do with residence permits for the mentally disabled. The Supreme Court stated there was no reason related to public safety, health or morality that justified not issuing the mentally disabled a permit. After reading that opinion, however, if you rack your brain you can think of reasons that stand up to the prior extremely deferential rational-basis test standards. The Supreme Court ignored that precedent and ruled to protect the disabled while keeping its cherished rational-basis invention.

Why didn’t the Supreme Court do this for gays? Probably because a majority of justices did not feel for them as they did for the mentally disabled. This demonstrates the bankruptcy underlying the rational-basis test: It masks the Supreme Court’s reasons for protecting certain groups and ignoring others. If the Supreme Court really wanted to use the test as an actual test, it would pay greater attention to the governmental interests it has recognized and the reasons for those interests.

If it gives true “rational” scrutiny to the Texas sodomy law, the Supreme Court will have to make some real-world observations — something the Supreme Court often says it is not worthy to do. It will have to ask whether sodomy laws protect against the spread of AIDS or whether that argument is a joke. It will have to ask whether a majority of a state’s population can dictate what same-sex consenting adults can do in their own bedrooms, or if the law is useless in protecting morality. Are there rational bases for banning same-sex sodomy? You bet. Should they stand up in court? No. They fail so badly you can hear the laugh track. The problem is that the Supreme Court has grown deaf to the laugh track, and its justices instead deliver their own political shtick.

Will the Supreme Court rule in favor of gays? Very likely. Will it clear up the absurdities underlying the rational-basis test? Almost certainly not. It will continue to let law suffer and policy rule. It will continue to dodge applying the test it has created.

2003-01-29T14:02:00.000-06:00

What If They Knew the Truth?

I received some numbers from the Massachusetts-based Small Government News today. They're in response to the question "What is the maximum percentage of a person's income that should go to taxes -- that's ALL taxes, state, federal, and local? Out of every dollar, what's the highest percentage anybody should have to pay?" The question was asked of 900 registered voters by Fox News/Opinion Dynamics. The results were:

53% said: 20% or less of a person's income should go towards taxes.
25% said: 21% - 30%.
6% said: 31% - 40%.
1% said: 41% - 50%.
1% said: "Whatever the government wants to take".
14% said: "Not sure"

Of course, the number the average US taxpayer actually pays is between 40 and 50 percent (depending on who you ask). I am astounded by this poll, but I guess I shouldn't be. Not everyone listens to right-wing talk-radio like I do. But, man oh man, think of what might happen if the "word" got out on the actual cost of taxes. An education campaign on the numbers might do more for liberty than just about any other action.

2003-01-27T22:35:00.000-06:00

Houte Cuisine

And now time for my weekly review of some of the finer dinning establishments in these here United States. This time round we journey to the land of 10,000 lakes for a particularly American, and some might say excruciating, delicacy. I am, of course, speaking of the Hardee’s at 369 Hamline Ave. N between I-94 and University in St. Paul, Minnesota.

Some of the elite in this country, that is those from the western lands (especially California), might object to my “Hardee’s” moniker and wish for the less blue-collar, and perhaps overly-refined, "Carl’s Junior.” Both are basically the same thing (and both, along with La Salsa, are part of CKE Restauants)—each graced by the yellow star, the roast beef variations on the Earl of Sandwich’s invention, and (at one time) the voice of Norm MacDonald (although, maybe not for Carl on the last one . . .).

The funny thing about Californians and their Carl is that they also have the palpitating curves and firm boxes of the Inn-N-Out Burger. My question is, why does anyone in that state eat anywhere other than the Inn-N-Out? They have burgers in ANIMAL STYLE. If you’re going to eat a burger called ANIMAL STYLE you know you’re in good company. It is because of the proliferation of so many non-Inn-N-Out restaurants in the “Golden” State (including some charging the same prices for inferior produce) that all mention of Carl’s Junior now falls by the wayside of my blog.

But Hardee’s, that Midwestern landmark of power, lives on. So, back to my story.

The lobby, as I would expect at 11:15 PM on a Sunday, was closed, or at least not extending an engraved invitation to myself and my companion. As the beaming Edisonian sign told us, though, “Drive-Thru Open 24 Hours.” That was our cue to continue our journey.

No line stood in our way, unlike the McDonalds down at Midway Center on Snelling and University. (That queue stacked up 9 autos deep with some mean-looking hockey mullets in tow.) Up to the menu (or whatever the voice-box ordering-bit of a drive-thru is called) we rolled, when out of the corner of my eye I noticed a word: “Slammers.” “Most disgusting” I thought. “There’s an item I will never try, even for my restaurant review.” It was at this exact instant, however, in which I realized it was imperative upon me to order one of the little devils. Two for a buck. Hard for school loans to argue with that.

The attendant provided her services professionally, if a bit coldly, to us gents. Why, I ask, she did not thank us for the pleasant stay and wish us well on our journey I can only guess. It may have had something to do with my companion asking for her name (can’t remember—began with a “J”?) and then, at my bequest, stating “You’re doing a great job!” when she handed him my bag of curly fries and slammers. I believe her evening was made worse by our presence, but I will leave the question open. If Ms. “J” is a reader of this blog let her tell me in her own way whether she enjoyed my companion’s comments or not. Rest assured, “J,” he was not intoxicated and owns papers purportedly proving that he has received the standard inoculations.

The rest of the story is not exactly a thrilling finish. I ate the curly fries with the wonder that a “strait” fry consumer usually accords the beasts, but then after the novelty wore off I began to tier of their blandness. The slammers I do recommend—not exactly “food” but a darn sight cheaper than tofu.

My conclusion? Well, if you visit the Hardee’s at 369 Hamline Ave. N perhaps do it during what we call “daylight.” Although muggings occur more frequently in other areas of St. Paul, I wouldn’t call it a DMZ either.

2003-01-24T11:20:00.000-06:00

Mr Mugabe Goes to Paris

There's a lot to wonder about the French, but I do think Americans overplay how anti-US they are. I’ve been to French more than a handful of times, and have never received any pent-up “anti-globalist” hostility. However, their government does do a lot of crazy things, and the news today is a bit bizarre. It seems its old rival Britain had objected to the presence of Zimbabwe President Mugabe at a Franco-African summit in Paris next month. Since helping liberate the country over twenty years ago Mugabe has held onto power with an increasingly brutal regime, not only taking away land from the white Zimbabwean elite, but consistently repressing the liberties of all Zimbabweans and rigging election after election. France's only justification for granting continued legitimacy to Mugabe's brutal regime is that "everyone does it." Said a French human rights leader: "Two-thirds of the former French colonies in Africa are run by dictators who are just as bad. If we stopped inviting them, we’d have no one at the Franco-African summit."

That is, we'd have no dictators to give legitimacy to.

2003-01-22T21:15:00.000-06:00

Do I Have To Hate Legislatures?

Roe v. Wade was decided 30 years ago today. As a life-long pro-choicer and a believer in substantive due process I should be happy the decision still stands. Yet, I’m having trouble accepting that the Court was correct in overturning dozens of abortion laws through reliance on a non-textual constitutional interest.

I really do think a first-trimester embryo/fetus is not a human being. I also think pro-life advocates have excellent arguments that a zygote is a living person. In an issue so contested as this is it right for seven (in the case of Roe) jurists to overrule the wishes of state legislatures across the country? If I’m wrong a person dies every time an abortion is performed. I have a hard time dealing with that possibility. The Roe Court dodged the possibility entirely. Instead it spoke of the woman’s liberty interest.

And that liberty interest is insanely important. If the government told me I couldn’t save myself from twenty years of responsibility (or nine months—still a heavy burden—in the case of adoption) by undergoing an easily performed medical procedure, I’ll call it tyranny in the highest degree. If abortion did not involve a potential life, but still involved a burden as heavy as pregnancy and parenting, there would be no question that it should be protected under substantive due process.

But many people believe it does involve a potential life, and that’s where my doubts come in. Some issues are so contentious that even if liberties are involved, perhaps the legislative process is the best method with which to deal with them. Libertarians may reel with horror at the prospect of legislatures making decisions over our liberties, but isn’t there something to be said for open debate and discussion in the political process, instead of in the back chambers of our academic elite? Yes I do think economic substantive due process should be reintroduced to American jurisprudence, and yes the courts should be active in nullifying laws intruding on our liberties, even those not enumerated in the Constitution. However, when so many reasonable people believe there’s another life involved (a life which would have its own liberty interest) perhaps liberties are best left to the political process and the legions of special interests (i.e. people who actually care) protesting across the country today.

But then I remember that I am pro-choice, and that I abhor the power legislators wield over our liberties. I simply don’t know what to do. Any suggestions?

2003-01-22T00:59:00.000-06:00

Kingsfield is Watching You

I finally got around to watching The Paper Chase. After viewing the 1973 horror flick I concluded that I am damn glad I did not view it before or during my first year of law school. (Read: I would have dropped out and joined the French Foreign Legion.) Even in my current status it shocked the woolies out of me.

Law school really is one of various levels of hell. Different levels for different people, but they’re all down there in the inferno. Every hour of every day is full to the brim with case after case, paper after paper, citecheck after freaking citecheck. Not only that, but the competition truly does drive people to vomit. I know of one instance where a student, upon hearing that their Contracts grade was in, threw up THREE TIMES before they actually saw what the grade was. God knows how many times they hurled after that.

As the somewhat true, somewhat charlatanic Planet Law School tells us, a modern American law school education is not designed to teach the law. It’s designed to create nervous wrecks who won’t know what they’re missing when they work for a Wall Street factory firm. The Socratic method does have its benefits—it forces students to think about how the legal rules apply to the facts of the case—but I don’t think it’s the best way to mold legal minds.

There’s gotta be a less painful way to become a lawyer. Lawyering isn’t all that hard. In many countries it’s only a bachelors degree. Why not give students lectures on the law (as you might get if you read from a commercial outline) and then ask them to apply that knowledge in writing assignments? Expand the legal writing requirement (which in most schools is one measly credit) so that students learn to apply the law in regular installments instead of through fear-laden interrogations followed by ulcer-inducing regurgitation rituals (otherwise known as exams).

Its Lovecraftian ethos aside, one thing I really did like about The Paper Chase was how characters were either called by their last or first names. Everyone calls the main character “Hart” throughout the entire movie—even his girlfriend. The one guy who can’t quite make it, “Kevin,” is the only law student blessed with a human-sounding title. I used to think professors who used first names were being a bit too informal, but now I see their point. Sometimes a mark of distinction, like a surname, can distinguish us from who we really are.

2003-01-19T19:59:00.000-06:00

Religious and atheistic bloggers alike should enjoy two inspiring pieces written by Will Wilkinson and Marie Gryphon. Although I thank them for provoking my often-unused philosophical training, I also see them too easily accepting a couple dichotomies—the religious versus the atheist in Will’s, and the common man versus the intellectual in Marie’s (although, as I read her post, I think she rejects the dichotomy in the end). I’m using my new found blog-space to give my, hopefully, unifying thoughts on the subject.

Will speaks of the path of the atheist and the path of the churchgoer. I see these paths as arriving at the same end. The paths may look quite different, but eventually people on each journey are merely trying to fulfill the same human needs.

I’ll get back to the two paths, but first I’ll ask an opening question: Does one need to be “right” to be “happy?” This depends on what “happy” means, of course, but it’s actually not that hard to define. You could say “happiness” equals “pleasure,” in which case people certainly wouldn’t need to be “right” to be happy. (Just take a life-long soma holiday by sticking an electrode into your brain.) This isn’t what most people mean by “happiness,” however. I feel most people would be more comfortable with Aristotle’s conception.

For Aristotle “happiness,” or eudaimonia (“the good life”), is the end of all human activity. We may work a job, start a car, or cook a meal for all kinds of secondary reasons, but if you ask what those reasons are for, in the end the ultimate goal is to be happy. Now, Aristotle thought that the best way, in fact the only way, to get to this goal was by cultivating our virtues. For each person, however, the way we cultivate our virtues will be a bit different. Some require a life as a carpenter, some that of a sailor. Some should eat a whole lot, some just a little.

The point is that everyone wants happiness. If you say “I don’t want happiness, I just want what’s good for my family” or “I just want to be right,” then, if you’re being truthful with yourself, those things, in fact, bring happiness to you. There are certain things that all human beings need in order to be happy. In my opinion this includes the need for a story.

When people go to church, they may not really think there is a God, or that Jesus literally rose from the dead. They may secretly think that we are just random groupings of stardust. What they know, however, is that the story of Jesus inspires them, helps them relate to the world, and gives them faith to keep on acting justly in a world where there is plenty of temptation to do otherwise. They believe in the story as far as it fulfills their deep human need for spirituality.

The most ardent of materialistic atheists go through the same experience. For example, where do Objectivists look for guidance in the choices they make in life? To a syllogism on man’s rational nature? No! They look to how Howard Roark overcame obstacles in order to design the buildings of his dreams. They think about Dominique’s struggle between her love for beauty and her fear for its fragility. They internalize these stories (dare I say these myths) as a way to connect with their spiritual needs.

The devout Christian, the skeptical churchgoer, and the atheist all need to connect with the spiritual, whether the spiritual be a shaft of light from our souls to God, or a component of evolutionarily-created human consciousness. They need the spiritual because it is a required aspect of happiness.

Now, this brings us to the “right” versus “happiness” question. From the perspective of the Christian, they want to be happy. They want to fulfill their spiritual needs, and so they devote themselves to “God.” They may not really care one way or the other if they’re “right” in believing in God, the afterlife, etc. Their religion is a foil (perhaps correct, perhaps incorrect) through which they can self-actualize themselves. In other parts of their lives they might actually want to be right. They might question falsehoods such as the lies of spouses and/or politicians.

But in these matters it makes a difference if they are right or wrong. To ignore whether these are true has a real-world impact (divorce, corrupt government, etc.). In the spiritual side of things, however, many paths may be taken. Maybe the underpinnings of a religion aren’t true. So what? People can accept a bit of falsehood in their lives because the “falsehood” is helping them achieve happiness. The Christian “falsehood” perhaps works just as well as a post-atheistic-conversion myth structure does.

In my life I examined the truth-value of God and rejected it as false. I later came to realize, however, that I had the same needs of myth, beauty, and mystery that believers do. That is why I now call myself a pagan, because in meditating on the classical pagan myths I find my human needs met much more fully than through merely telling myself I have a rational understanding of the world.

I think the best way to conclude this post is to consider Nietzsche’s view of truth. He had a rather Pyrrhonic view of the world—that everything and every argument eventually breaks down. He thought that when we proceed philosophically we should to be true to this view and not refrain when something could be critiqued and argued further. No absolute truths for Nietzsche, and therefore no ultimate objective reality or morality.

He had no problem with this bleak view, however, when it came to one’s own life. (He had many personal problems, but those went beyond any stemming from philosophical doubt.) He thought we have to tell ourselves lies such as “there is good and bad,” or, “there is the beautiful and the ugly,” because we live our lives better when we do so, and that these “lies” are wonderful. We are creating a reality replete with beauty, adventure, and romance—what a fabulous achievement! I don’t know if I agree with Nietzsche’s degree of skepticism, but I do think that EVERYONE, intellectuals included, tells themselves lies in order to get on in the world and create amazing things. The atheist and the churchgoer are doing the same thing—cultivating their souls and engaging with beauty. Both paths are as “right” as they need to be. Perhaps the atheist is a bit more “right” on one question, but that question (whether God exists, whether TM actually raises human-consciousness, etc.) is merely a foil for our spiritual needs. The need to be right is, similarly, a foil for achieving happiness. The intellectual gets her jollies from the pursuit of truth, but if we examine the motivation for that pursuit, we will discover that she does it in order to find happiness, not in order to find truth itself. She, just like the common man, is an artist weaving a path of eudaimoic pleasure.

2003-01-19T11:11:00.000-06:00

The first place I go to in the morning is Drudge. I'm not exactly sure why, as there are all kinds of better news portholes, and you often miss the stories he hasn't latched onto. Plus, whenever I go there I feel as if the end of the world is at hand. He does, however, provide me with a dose of sarcasm that almost always gives me my needed chuckle.