New York Post Online Edition: business
Just a quick thought . . . Gore wants to start a left-leaning channel focused at youth.
This is not the first time that a Democrat wants control over children's education: the NEA, for example.
What philosopher of the 20th century preached similar tenets?
"Our educational policy must enable everyone who receives an education to develop morally, intellectually and physically and become a worker with both socialist consciousncss and culture."
Mao Tse-Tung, On the Correct Handling of Contradiction (1959), quoted in the Little Red Book, chap. 16.
Interestingly, Mao had more interest in teaching facts than Democrats. See Little Red Book.
Tuesday, December 16, 2003
Monday, December 15, 2003
Free speech defeated - The Washington Times: Editorials/OP-ED
Free speech defeated - The Washington Times: Editorials/OP-ED
Should the recent case of McConnell v. FEC be seen by Republicans as a victory for the strict constructionists? Is Justice O’Connor pulling the left wing into understanding that speech is ideas communicated through movement of the lips, tongue, vocal chords, etc. Justice O’Connor has maneuvered the left wing to reading the Constitution as allowing Congress to regulate elections. She has put all this together to show that spending money is not about the movement of lips to communicate ideas.
Since the Warren Court, the left wing has been happily following Justice Brennan’s doctrine of the Constitution as a living document. Brennan believed that the Constitution should be read today with the understanding of the words’ meaning as based on the most recent edition of Webster’s and interpreted to allow that definition to apply. It lead to interpretations of flag-burning and pornography as protected speech. See Scalia’s dissent in McConnell.
This means that the Constitution never means the same thing from day to day, as President Bush discovered in this case. Speech had a fifty year or more precedent of allowing expression. Now expression is limited when it comes to spending money.
Never mind that in reading the rules of the Constitution, the first amendment is more important than Congress’s right to regulate elections, since the first amendment was enacted later. The first amendment is very simple. Congress shall pass no law. If it does, the law would seem to be void on its face. But this is irrelevant in this case because speech is not spending.
But if we look at the actual law more closely, the law does not prevent all spending. Just spending by corporations. This would seem to mean corporations have less freedom of speech than individuals. Strange result, but okay. Individuals vote. Not corporations. Individuals speak. Not corporations.
Maybe if the strict constructionists play their public relations campaign well, they can usurp this decision for their own benefit. They can point out that this is the death of Brennan’s intellectual non-sense. Even Justice Ginsberg sees that reading the Constitution strictly makes more sense than trying to have a string of cases decide without any logical connection to the words of the Constitution. The speech cases have broke free of any reigns controlling the case law. This is the beginning of the end for that string of cases.
That, other happy thoughts, and a little pixie dust will get me to fly.
Should the recent case of McConnell v. FEC be seen by Republicans as a victory for the strict constructionists? Is Justice O’Connor pulling the left wing into understanding that speech is ideas communicated through movement of the lips, tongue, vocal chords, etc. Justice O’Connor has maneuvered the left wing to reading the Constitution as allowing Congress to regulate elections. She has put all this together to show that spending money is not about the movement of lips to communicate ideas.
Since the Warren Court, the left wing has been happily following Justice Brennan’s doctrine of the Constitution as a living document. Brennan believed that the Constitution should be read today with the understanding of the words’ meaning as based on the most recent edition of Webster’s and interpreted to allow that definition to apply. It lead to interpretations of flag-burning and pornography as protected speech. See Scalia’s dissent in McConnell.
This means that the Constitution never means the same thing from day to day, as President Bush discovered in this case. Speech had a fifty year or more precedent of allowing expression. Now expression is limited when it comes to spending money.
Never mind that in reading the rules of the Constitution, the first amendment is more important than Congress’s right to regulate elections, since the first amendment was enacted later. The first amendment is very simple. Congress shall pass no law. If it does, the law would seem to be void on its face. But this is irrelevant in this case because speech is not spending.
But if we look at the actual law more closely, the law does not prevent all spending. Just spending by corporations. This would seem to mean corporations have less freedom of speech than individuals. Strange result, but okay. Individuals vote. Not corporations. Individuals speak. Not corporations.
Maybe if the strict constructionists play their public relations campaign well, they can usurp this decision for their own benefit. They can point out that this is the death of Brennan’s intellectual non-sense. Even Justice Ginsberg sees that reading the Constitution strictly makes more sense than trying to have a string of cases decide without any logical connection to the words of the Constitution. The speech cases have broke free of any reigns controlling the case law. This is the beginning of the end for that string of cases.
That, other happy thoughts, and a little pixie dust will get me to fly.
Friday, November 14, 2003
Crusaders versus Jihadists
Crusaders versus Jihadists
Just a quick thought. I have recently done some study of the early development of Christianity and its literature. With the focus on Al-Qaeda, all Americans have been receiving an education on Islam. From that learning by osmosis and reading many early Suras from the Quran, I have a new understanding of Islam's development. From a number of years studying many periods of history from all but Chinese and Central Asian history, I have a working understanding of many dynamics.
With all that basis for my statement, I have a couple conclusions about are working understanding of Islam and Christianity's historical interaction.
Christianity started as a Jewish movement which grew exponentially largely by persuasion of non-Jews to follow this martyred person named Jesus and nicknamed the Christ. For most of the period of Christianity before the conversion of Emperor Constantine in the 320's, Christianity did not have the ability to use force of arms to force adherence to the Christian doctrine, its orthodoxy.
Immediately after Constantine's conversion, Christianity had the power to coerce through government and force of arms. The Romans had historically used force of arms to enforce compliance. This same government to enforce religious compliance is not all that shocking.
This change in Christianity from an expansion by persuasion and example to an expansion that included force of arms made a huge difference in Christianity's expansion and acceptance. Unsurprisingly, a government that pushed an idea either creates or is supported by propoganda explaining the goodness of the government's actions. This is the experience of Christianity that continued for centuries. It is also the experience that Mohammed could observe during his life.
One of the most important differences between Islam and Christianity is not in its historic action: both used force of arms to expand and convert. The difference is in doctrine. Christianity in its holy book and first days after its "prophet" Jesus did not have an experience of use of force. In fact, it can be argued persuasively that using force of arms to convert goes against the New Testament doctrines and experience.
In comparison, Mohammed being the shrewd operator that he was observed the Christian experience and wrote his doctrine accordingly. Mohammed moved from being supportive of Christians and Jews around his community to being hostile to those religions, in fact building systems to be able to say that he did not suppress religions of the Book, his phrase, yet discourage persons from not converting to Islam.
Mohammed encouraged the use of force of arms and killing to spread Islam. In fact, he lead several military actions to acquire land that we wanted. In Islam, there is no equivalent for "those who live by the sword die by the sword." The counter-example in Islam is encouragement to fight and die to have 72 virgins in heaven awaiting the martyred soldier of Allah.
Those two examples do not define the entire interaction of the two religions, but it does explain the doctrines of force of arms.
In the 400 years before Mohammed's death, Christianity had a history of using force of arms to enforce Christian orthodoxy and conversion, mostly as an adjunct to the Roman 900-year history of enforcing its governing will on its subjects. Mohammed observed the success of spreading Christianity through Roman legions. He turned it into doctrine and add the virgins as persuasive marketing. Being from a merchant family, he apparently knew how to sell and persuade.
As Mohammed's system grew through the use of armies to conquer land, particularly Christian strongholds like Antioch and Alexandria, Christians became nervous about their neighbors.
Most of the fWest or the former Western empire -- that portion that historically was governed through the Latin language -- did not have to consider the threat of Islamic expansion because it had the buffer of the Eastern Roman Empire, also known as the Byzantine Empire. This continuation of Roman history covered the territory governed by the Romans under the Greek language.
The West experienced attacks from the western flank of Islamic expansion from Spain into southern France in the 800's. This made the West aware of the problem. Since the attacks did not continue relentlessly, the West quit worrying about this expansion from this direction after a few decades.
The West's concern from that point mostly focused on the threat to the Eastern Roman Empire. Since Byzantine forces gradually lost Christian land in the Holy Land, the desire of the West to protect the Holy Land for Christendom grew into a desire to bring force of arms to the Holy Land.
The current common understanding in America is that the Crusaders created a desire for use of Islamic use of arms to defend themselves. This is utter non-sense. Islam spread by force of arms. Christian Crusades were a response. This is simply the old territorial fight with religion as a new motivation. By the time of the Crusades in 1032 through 1230 or so, neither side could be considered an innocent party.
Christianity had not ever tried to add territory through force of arms until it tried to reconquer lands formerly within the Roman Empire and now under Islamic rule. Islam learned the value of force of arms from a bygone era of Christianity. Chicken or egg? Newton would tell us in physics that each force is met with an equal and opposite reaction. Newtonian physics do not apply to politics or war. Clausewitz suggests a political corollary to his doctrine that would apply to politics: each application of force is met with a mirror image reaction thatpushes back with greater force.
Every poor politician believes that he can overwhelm his opposition with forceful action because such action works in military conflict. However, this is incorrect, or if correct, short lived. If you attempt to destroy your political opposition and they survive, you should expect them to develop a doctrine that seeks your own destruction at least to a level just greater than what you attempted on them. Macchiavelli's Prince understood this by pointing out that a tyrant needs to apply overwhelming force to prevent this type of back and forth. (Never forget Macchiavelli was a republican that wrote The Prince to show that despotism could never lead to healthy society. It was so successful in describing how despots work that it has become a how-to manual for those despots.)
Between Christianity and Islam, each side has tried to use Macchiavellian force to destroy the other. Since each has failed, they have only accomplished the Clausewitz corollary reflecting a strong, more strident response from the other side.
All of this leads to a simple point. Christianity can more easily move away from force of arms as a tenet of its orthodoxy than can Islam. Once the superimposed doctrines of force that Romans and medieval crusaders invented to support their unChristian action are removed, Christianity does not have any doctrine that supports aggressive warfare for conversion or conquest.
Islam on other hand is an entire religion that frames its own doctrine using vocabulary of struggle, conflict, and warfare. The history of Islam, beginning with Mohammed's own actions, reflects that this is more than mere literary license at work. Struggle against non-Muslims is expected and desired. Specially treatment is given the two Religions of the Book. They are not equals. They are to be protected from attack, but they are like wayward children who need to grow up. They are less than Muslims, but they are sufferable.
Once land become Muslim, once a church becomes a mosque, once a family becomes Muslim, none can return to a non-Muslim state. This is not tolerance. This is conquest preservation.
Crusaders are now seen among Christians as a disgusting and misguided attempt to comply with the Bible. We now see that there is no basis in the Bible for this action. Jihadists create a split in Islam, but it is harder to argue persuasively that military force is not to be used under the plain meaning of the Quran. The Quran is written in just that language. A Muslim must see that as a literary device and not a commandment in order to avoid a militaristic doctrine. This is difficult to do for even the most persuasive imam.
The Crusaders are a part of history that Christianity can disavow with credibility. Can Islam truly do the same with the Jihadists?
Just a quick thought. I have recently done some study of the early development of Christianity and its literature. With the focus on Al-Qaeda, all Americans have been receiving an education on Islam. From that learning by osmosis and reading many early Suras from the Quran, I have a new understanding of Islam's development. From a number of years studying many periods of history from all but Chinese and Central Asian history, I have a working understanding of many dynamics.
With all that basis for my statement, I have a couple conclusions about are working understanding of Islam and Christianity's historical interaction.
Christianity started as a Jewish movement which grew exponentially largely by persuasion of non-Jews to follow this martyred person named Jesus and nicknamed the Christ. For most of the period of Christianity before the conversion of Emperor Constantine in the 320's, Christianity did not have the ability to use force of arms to force adherence to the Christian doctrine, its orthodoxy.
Immediately after Constantine's conversion, Christianity had the power to coerce through government and force of arms. The Romans had historically used force of arms to enforce compliance. This same government to enforce religious compliance is not all that shocking.
This change in Christianity from an expansion by persuasion and example to an expansion that included force of arms made a huge difference in Christianity's expansion and acceptance. Unsurprisingly, a government that pushed an idea either creates or is supported by propoganda explaining the goodness of the government's actions. This is the experience of Christianity that continued for centuries. It is also the experience that Mohammed could observe during his life.
One of the most important differences between Islam and Christianity is not in its historic action: both used force of arms to expand and convert. The difference is in doctrine. Christianity in its holy book and first days after its "prophet" Jesus did not have an experience of use of force. In fact, it can be argued persuasively that using force of arms to convert goes against the New Testament doctrines and experience.
In comparison, Mohammed being the shrewd operator that he was observed the Christian experience and wrote his doctrine accordingly. Mohammed moved from being supportive of Christians and Jews around his community to being hostile to those religions, in fact building systems to be able to say that he did not suppress religions of the Book, his phrase, yet discourage persons from not converting to Islam.
Mohammed encouraged the use of force of arms and killing to spread Islam. In fact, he lead several military actions to acquire land that we wanted. In Islam, there is no equivalent for "those who live by the sword die by the sword." The counter-example in Islam is encouragement to fight and die to have 72 virgins in heaven awaiting the martyred soldier of Allah.
Those two examples do not define the entire interaction of the two religions, but it does explain the doctrines of force of arms.
In the 400 years before Mohammed's death, Christianity had a history of using force of arms to enforce Christian orthodoxy and conversion, mostly as an adjunct to the Roman 900-year history of enforcing its governing will on its subjects. Mohammed observed the success of spreading Christianity through Roman legions. He turned it into doctrine and add the virgins as persuasive marketing. Being from a merchant family, he apparently knew how to sell and persuade.
As Mohammed's system grew through the use of armies to conquer land, particularly Christian strongholds like Antioch and Alexandria, Christians became nervous about their neighbors.
Most of the fWest or the former Western empire -- that portion that historically was governed through the Latin language -- did not have to consider the threat of Islamic expansion because it had the buffer of the Eastern Roman Empire, also known as the Byzantine Empire. This continuation of Roman history covered the territory governed by the Romans under the Greek language.
The West experienced attacks from the western flank of Islamic expansion from Spain into southern France in the 800's. This made the West aware of the problem. Since the attacks did not continue relentlessly, the West quit worrying about this expansion from this direction after a few decades.
The West's concern from that point mostly focused on the threat to the Eastern Roman Empire. Since Byzantine forces gradually lost Christian land in the Holy Land, the desire of the West to protect the Holy Land for Christendom grew into a desire to bring force of arms to the Holy Land.
The current common understanding in America is that the Crusaders created a desire for use of Islamic use of arms to defend themselves. This is utter non-sense. Islam spread by force of arms. Christian Crusades were a response. This is simply the old territorial fight with religion as a new motivation. By the time of the Crusades in 1032 through 1230 or so, neither side could be considered an innocent party.
Christianity had not ever tried to add territory through force of arms until it tried to reconquer lands formerly within the Roman Empire and now under Islamic rule. Islam learned the value of force of arms from a bygone era of Christianity. Chicken or egg? Newton would tell us in physics that each force is met with an equal and opposite reaction. Newtonian physics do not apply to politics or war. Clausewitz suggests a political corollary to his doctrine that would apply to politics: each application of force is met with a mirror image reaction thatpushes back with greater force.
Every poor politician believes that he can overwhelm his opposition with forceful action because such action works in military conflict. However, this is incorrect, or if correct, short lived. If you attempt to destroy your political opposition and they survive, you should expect them to develop a doctrine that seeks your own destruction at least to a level just greater than what you attempted on them. Macchiavelli's Prince understood this by pointing out that a tyrant needs to apply overwhelming force to prevent this type of back and forth. (Never forget Macchiavelli was a republican that wrote The Prince to show that despotism could never lead to healthy society. It was so successful in describing how despots work that it has become a how-to manual for those despots.)
Between Christianity and Islam, each side has tried to use Macchiavellian force to destroy the other. Since each has failed, they have only accomplished the Clausewitz corollary reflecting a strong, more strident response from the other side.
All of this leads to a simple point. Christianity can more easily move away from force of arms as a tenet of its orthodoxy than can Islam. Once the superimposed doctrines of force that Romans and medieval crusaders invented to support their unChristian action are removed, Christianity does not have any doctrine that supports aggressive warfare for conversion or conquest.
Islam on other hand is an entire religion that frames its own doctrine using vocabulary of struggle, conflict, and warfare. The history of Islam, beginning with Mohammed's own actions, reflects that this is more than mere literary license at work. Struggle against non-Muslims is expected and desired. Specially treatment is given the two Religions of the Book. They are not equals. They are to be protected from attack, but they are like wayward children who need to grow up. They are less than Muslims, but they are sufferable.
Once land become Muslim, once a church becomes a mosque, once a family becomes Muslim, none can return to a non-Muslim state. This is not tolerance. This is conquest preservation.
Crusaders are now seen among Christians as a disgusting and misguided attempt to comply with the Bible. We now see that there is no basis in the Bible for this action. Jihadists create a split in Islam, but it is harder to argue persuasively that military force is not to be used under the plain meaning of the Quran. The Quran is written in just that language. A Muslim must see that as a literary device and not a commandment in order to avoid a militaristic doctrine. This is difficult to do for even the most persuasive imam.
The Crusaders are a part of history that Christianity can disavow with credibility. Can Islam truly do the same with the Jihadists?
Tuesday, November 11, 2003
Insidious judicial activism - The Washington Times: Commentary
Insidious judicial activism - The Washington Times: Commentary
As an alum of the Indiana International and Comparative Law Review, I find the study of foreign law and procedure as well as their histoies invaluable. In my recent study of the English system of equity formerly embodied in the Chancery Court, I find the state of lawyer's understanding of their own history woefully inadequate.
What David Limbaugh writes about is another permutation of that inadequate understanding. In my experience on the law review, I found that there is little common methodology of analyzing international law. This means that looking at other countries' laws can be used to reinforce whatever law is espoused as the solution.
Without some methodology, we lose what of the most valuable aspects of the common law system which is its predictability. It is this growing loss of predictability that is destroying our system.
With no methodology and 150 or more different countries in the world, let alone their component states and provinces, a legal essayist or judge can probably point out a good standard for us to follow.
What about security of property? Well, in China, they can prevent terrorism easily because they have little protection of home and hearth. We need more security. Let's be like China.
What about freedom of speech? Well, in England, libel and slander laws are very tight. This prevents famous persons, including the Prince of Wales, from being spoken ill of in some respects. We need less libel and slander, so let's be more like England.
In fact, to make sure that libel and slander is reduced, we should be more like the Taliban . . . .
Clearly, with these examples, we can justify capital punishment for libel and slander and no protection against unreasonable search and seizure.
This debate about whether to consider foreign law is not new. Even professors on the history of equity debate whether Roman law may be considered to reach decisions in equity because the first chancellors (i.e., judges in equity courts) were priests and versed in Canon Law, an outgrowth of Roman law. See C.J.S. Equity sec. 3. There is no evidence of this assertion in the Chancery's records, because chancellors did not explain their decisions for centuries. McClintock on Equity sec. 1-3. They are just inferences. No historian worth his salt can back up this assertion.
This is just a simple example of how this problem of lack of knowledge about our own legal system exists. In future, I will write about why this lack of knowledge is dangerous. But imagine this lack of knowledge of legal systems can start running rampant through our own legal lsystem! What will that do the predictability of our law? Add that to lack of methodology, we have disaster.
As an alum of the Indiana International and Comparative Law Review, I find the study of foreign law and procedure as well as their histoies invaluable. In my recent study of the English system of equity formerly embodied in the Chancery Court, I find the state of lawyer's understanding of their own history woefully inadequate.
What David Limbaugh writes about is another permutation of that inadequate understanding. In my experience on the law review, I found that there is little common methodology of analyzing international law. This means that looking at other countries' laws can be used to reinforce whatever law is espoused as the solution.
Without some methodology, we lose what of the most valuable aspects of the common law system which is its predictability. It is this growing loss of predictability that is destroying our system.
With no methodology and 150 or more different countries in the world, let alone their component states and provinces, a legal essayist or judge can probably point out a good standard for us to follow.
What about security of property? Well, in China, they can prevent terrorism easily because they have little protection of home and hearth. We need more security. Let's be like China.
What about freedom of speech? Well, in England, libel and slander laws are very tight. This prevents famous persons, including the Prince of Wales, from being spoken ill of in some respects. We need less libel and slander, so let's be more like England.
In fact, to make sure that libel and slander is reduced, we should be more like the Taliban . . . .
Clearly, with these examples, we can justify capital punishment for libel and slander and no protection against unreasonable search and seizure.
This debate about whether to consider foreign law is not new. Even professors on the history of equity debate whether Roman law may be considered to reach decisions in equity because the first chancellors (i.e., judges in equity courts) were priests and versed in Canon Law, an outgrowth of Roman law. See C.J.S. Equity sec. 3. There is no evidence of this assertion in the Chancery's records, because chancellors did not explain their decisions for centuries. McClintock on Equity sec. 1-3. They are just inferences. No historian worth his salt can back up this assertion.
This is just a simple example of how this problem of lack of knowledge about our own legal system exists. In future, I will write about why this lack of knowledge is dangerous. But imagine this lack of knowledge of legal systems can start running rampant through our own legal lsystem! What will that do the predictability of our law? Add that to lack of methodology, we have disaster.
Saturday, October 25, 2003
A French Revolution in Iraq?
A French Revolution in Iraq?
This article needs further comment and reflection on the comparative residual attitudes and philosophies arising from the American and Glorious Revolutions against the French Revolution.
Particularly in the American Revolution, an attitude arose and developed of fear of institutions that ultimately leads to stable institutions by creating the institutions natural opposition.
In the French Revolution, the idea of partisan conflict controlling partisan authority created an inherent instability. This lead to five different republican constitutions, two imperial governments, and two installations of monarchs in the same period of time that America had one republic.
The French are very idealistic and found of pure, unmoderated ideas. Reality has little impact in the methodology of analysis taught in French government schools. Pure thought is correct thought.
In the British and American experience thought is empirical, when successful for long periods of time. How else does an idea arise, moderate, and fall without government-destroying revolutions?
The French recent political stability and liberty from Soviet nuclear threats has allowed a natural and almost inevitable philosophical divide between the slow evolutionary change that common law countries exhibit to conflict openly with the revolutionary, idealistic philosophies that the French have perpetuated.
Even so, we are not irreversibly on this course. The Gaullist movement to tear out broken Socialist patterns in employment rules, labor relations, and tax rates shows some evolutionary changes. This is particularly true since Chirac is doing this well into his term and not by sudden, revolutionary changes.
At the same, Chirac's Gaullist psychology (as replete with an inferiority complex -- should I say "Napoleanic complex" -- as it is) is screaming loudly. This is almost the last throes of a dying philosophy.
As the French evolve, may be they change.
This article needs further comment and reflection on the comparative residual attitudes and philosophies arising from the American and Glorious Revolutions against the French Revolution.
Particularly in the American Revolution, an attitude arose and developed of fear of institutions that ultimately leads to stable institutions by creating the institutions natural opposition.
In the French Revolution, the idea of partisan conflict controlling partisan authority created an inherent instability. This lead to five different republican constitutions, two imperial governments, and two installations of monarchs in the same period of time that America had one republic.
The French are very idealistic and found of pure, unmoderated ideas. Reality has little impact in the methodology of analysis taught in French government schools. Pure thought is correct thought.
In the British and American experience thought is empirical, when successful for long periods of time. How else does an idea arise, moderate, and fall without government-destroying revolutions?
The French recent political stability and liberty from Soviet nuclear threats has allowed a natural and almost inevitable philosophical divide between the slow evolutionary change that common law countries exhibit to conflict openly with the revolutionary, idealistic philosophies that the French have perpetuated.
Even so, we are not irreversibly on this course. The Gaullist movement to tear out broken Socialist patterns in employment rules, labor relations, and tax rates shows some evolutionary changes. This is particularly true since Chirac is doing this well into his term and not by sudden, revolutionary changes.
At the same, Chirac's Gaullist psychology (as replete with an inferiority complex -- should I say "Napoleanic complex" -- as it is) is screaming loudly. This is almost the last throes of a dying philosophy.
As the French evolve, may be they change.
Sunday, September 07, 2003
Senate GOP Angles for Federal Marriage Amendment
Senate GOP Angles for Federal Marriage Amendment shows that news coverage of gay marriage is generating Congressional action.
I believe strongly that the definition of marriage should not change. I have struggled to make an explanation that is more than a gut reaction. I have thought through the history of Western marriage, and I understand how the gay activists suggest that marriage should not be limited to heterosexuals based on these legal trends.
Think about it. In medieval England, marriage was a specialized form of property conveyance. The woman was property being exchanged to the groom for hard assets like livestock and land. Add on top of this the political alignments that would follow reinforced the barter aspect. "I will give your son my daughter if you will give me political support and military resources."
In this context, even ignoring the religious prohibitions against homosexual activity, it did not make sense to have man capable of owning property thereby own another legally free man by a marriage contract.
The old notions of women as property have thankfully fallen away. Nevertheless, the religious prohibitions against homosexual activity prevented the issue of gay marriage from arising simultaneous to female freedom.
Only now after the rise of the "gay lifestyle" are we going back to re-examine the full legal ramifications of female equality in the marriage contract.
From the proponents of gay marriage, marriage is nothing but a contract. Why should gays not be able to participate in such contracts? Seems logical, right?
Being Protestant, I don't often get the opportunity to see the "old church" of Catholicism in action. I went to a Catholic wedding yesterday. That ceremony reinforced the old Catholic doctrine that creating and raising children is one of the central parts of marriage in the Catholic tradition.
While this doctrine is "old fashioned," it is practically sound. Without reciting research and practical examples of two heterosexual parent stability, children are better with male and female influence. Does that make it impossible for a gay couple to serve as good parents? No. Is it even necessary to have two parents? No. It is still the optimal solution when comparing healthy heterosexual couples to healthy homosexual couples.
In my observations of successful behavior, work, business, economics, and loving relationships, one common characteristic predominates: systematic and adaptive structure. In any of these cases, systems well implemented do not guarantee success. They merely increase the probability of success. We know from research that the most probable family structure that leads to good behaviour and healthy attitudes is the "traditional stay-at-home mother, father working" system. It does not have universal success. We are human.
Every factor that moves away from that scenario increases the probability of a small problem having increased difficulty in the long term health and success of the children of that household.
Unlike many of my "religion dictates government rules" friends, I believe that we as a society should state what optimal family situation is desirable and structure the society to encourage optimal behaviour and attitudes. If we can set the vision of success, the likelihood of that becoming predominate increases. Laws are written accordingly. However, that does not mean criminalizing other views. To be extreme, law should not prohibit homosexual child raising. It should make it the less favored approach.
Lifelong heterosexual marriage with healthy relationships should receive the benefits of all doubts. It should be treated differently because the wider the application of that method of family building, the greater health of our society. That is is a fact.
Here's a thought exercise: will you as a driver never have an auto accident if you religiously change the oil in your car, rotate the tires on schedule, and replace the brake pads at the slightest sign of wear? Never say never. Other factors are signficant: other people on the road being just one. However, is your ability to avoid likely problems that lead to accidents? Absolutely. Desired systems of behavior make safer roads. The same with marriage and children.
Discussion of the matter without children is a discussion for another day.
I believe strongly that the definition of marriage should not change. I have struggled to make an explanation that is more than a gut reaction. I have thought through the history of Western marriage, and I understand how the gay activists suggest that marriage should not be limited to heterosexuals based on these legal trends.
Think about it. In medieval England, marriage was a specialized form of property conveyance. The woman was property being exchanged to the groom for hard assets like livestock and land. Add on top of this the political alignments that would follow reinforced the barter aspect. "I will give your son my daughter if you will give me political support and military resources."
In this context, even ignoring the religious prohibitions against homosexual activity, it did not make sense to have man capable of owning property thereby own another legally free man by a marriage contract.
The old notions of women as property have thankfully fallen away. Nevertheless, the religious prohibitions against homosexual activity prevented the issue of gay marriage from arising simultaneous to female freedom.
Only now after the rise of the "gay lifestyle" are we going back to re-examine the full legal ramifications of female equality in the marriage contract.
From the proponents of gay marriage, marriage is nothing but a contract. Why should gays not be able to participate in such contracts? Seems logical, right?
Being Protestant, I don't often get the opportunity to see the "old church" of Catholicism in action. I went to a Catholic wedding yesterday. That ceremony reinforced the old Catholic doctrine that creating and raising children is one of the central parts of marriage in the Catholic tradition.
While this doctrine is "old fashioned," it is practically sound. Without reciting research and practical examples of two heterosexual parent stability, children are better with male and female influence. Does that make it impossible for a gay couple to serve as good parents? No. Is it even necessary to have two parents? No. It is still the optimal solution when comparing healthy heterosexual couples to healthy homosexual couples.
In my observations of successful behavior, work, business, economics, and loving relationships, one common characteristic predominates: systematic and adaptive structure. In any of these cases, systems well implemented do not guarantee success. They merely increase the probability of success. We know from research that the most probable family structure that leads to good behaviour and healthy attitudes is the "traditional stay-at-home mother, father working" system. It does not have universal success. We are human.
Every factor that moves away from that scenario increases the probability of a small problem having increased difficulty in the long term health and success of the children of that household.
Unlike many of my "religion dictates government rules" friends, I believe that we as a society should state what optimal family situation is desirable and structure the society to encourage optimal behaviour and attitudes. If we can set the vision of success, the likelihood of that becoming predominate increases. Laws are written accordingly. However, that does not mean criminalizing other views. To be extreme, law should not prohibit homosexual child raising. It should make it the less favored approach.
Lifelong heterosexual marriage with healthy relationships should receive the benefits of all doubts. It should be treated differently because the wider the application of that method of family building, the greater health of our society. That is is a fact.
Here's a thought exercise: will you as a driver never have an auto accident if you religiously change the oil in your car, rotate the tires on schedule, and replace the brake pads at the slightest sign of wear? Never say never. Other factors are signficant: other people on the road being just one. However, is your ability to avoid likely problems that lead to accidents? Absolutely. Desired systems of behavior make safer roads. The same with marriage and children.
Discussion of the matter without children is a discussion for another day.
Saturday, August 09, 2003
Arnold is IN; Conservatives Should Welcome Him
Arnold is IN; Conservatives Should Welcome Him
Arnold may nearly rhyme with Ronald. He is not Ronald. That is wonderful for conservatives!
W. has said that he wants a big tent. Since the decline of the Rockefeller wing of the GOP, the communist wing of the Democratic Party (compare the Communist manifesto to the Democratic Party platform) has easily complained about the radical right.
Arnold can devestate the Communist non-sense. His victory with the support of the White House will help more moderate persons that feel more comfortable with GOP economics can feel more comfortable disagreeing with their new-found party over social issues. That is good.
Recent trends of philosophical communication and debate are showing that the GOP conservative wing is persuading more and more of the population to be conservative. Rush, Hannity, Michael Reagan, and one of my favorites Laura Ingraham are devastatingly insightful. Compared to what the left offers, this is good news for future growth.
The biggest problem in accelerating that growth is psychological reluctance. We are already committed to our ideas. Admitting that one is wrong requires internal struggle. In getting people to admit their error, a classic psychological comfort building technique is to show that the person is not unique. One nationally known sales guru David Sanders used to get up on stage and say, "Last night I was speaking and 20 people did not know how to solve this problem. How many here have the same difficulty?" Sanders could get half the room to raise their hands when most speakers would be lucky to get one.
Sanders demonstrated that you need to make it easy for some one to surrender.
Arnold is what the GOP needs to get more people to surrender their 1960's communist theology in favor what their rationale intellect says is correct.
Arnold is not ideologically pure. But is comfortable, familiar, and inviting. He is the man that you want at the door to your tent party. With him you will need a bigger tent. You will have more people listening to your persuasive policy wonks. You will have greater conservative influence.
Another apparent weakness that is helpful is the building of the legislative center. For Arnold to win what he wants legilslatively, he will have to win over Democrats. That will look bad to conservatives because social programs will grow. I don't like that. However, the current legislative momentum nationally is still strongly New Deal. To control the creek in your backyard, you are best not to put a Toyota in front of it. You are most likely to succeed in using the Toyota to move dirt into place to build a levee to push the water off its course. Nudge it from the side. Slowly you will move the creek as far as you want. You will make a lot of effort that does not seem productive at first.
A moderate Republican with great appeal is helpful to conservative because it is part of the process of moving dirt. Each person persuaded is a necessary step to turn the movement of the political waters.
Arnold may nearly rhyme with Ronald. He is not Ronald. That is wonderful for conservatives!
W. has said that he wants a big tent. Since the decline of the Rockefeller wing of the GOP, the communist wing of the Democratic Party (compare the Communist manifesto to the Democratic Party platform) has easily complained about the radical right.
Arnold can devestate the Communist non-sense. His victory with the support of the White House will help more moderate persons that feel more comfortable with GOP economics can feel more comfortable disagreeing with their new-found party over social issues. That is good.
Recent trends of philosophical communication and debate are showing that the GOP conservative wing is persuading more and more of the population to be conservative. Rush, Hannity, Michael Reagan, and one of my favorites Laura Ingraham are devastatingly insightful. Compared to what the left offers, this is good news for future growth.
The biggest problem in accelerating that growth is psychological reluctance. We are already committed to our ideas. Admitting that one is wrong requires internal struggle. In getting people to admit their error, a classic psychological comfort building technique is to show that the person is not unique. One nationally known sales guru David Sanders used to get up on stage and say, "Last night I was speaking and 20 people did not know how to solve this problem. How many here have the same difficulty?" Sanders could get half the room to raise their hands when most speakers would be lucky to get one.
Sanders demonstrated that you need to make it easy for some one to surrender.
Arnold is what the GOP needs to get more people to surrender their 1960's communist theology in favor what their rationale intellect says is correct.
Arnold is not ideologically pure. But is comfortable, familiar, and inviting. He is the man that you want at the door to your tent party. With him you will need a bigger tent. You will have more people listening to your persuasive policy wonks. You will have greater conservative influence.
Another apparent weakness that is helpful is the building of the legislative center. For Arnold to win what he wants legilslatively, he will have to win over Democrats. That will look bad to conservatives because social programs will grow. I don't like that. However, the current legislative momentum nationally is still strongly New Deal. To control the creek in your backyard, you are best not to put a Toyota in front of it. You are most likely to succeed in using the Toyota to move dirt into place to build a levee to push the water off its course. Nudge it from the side. Slowly you will move the creek as far as you want. You will make a lot of effort that does not seem productive at first.
A moderate Republican with great appeal is helpful to conservative because it is part of the process of moving dirt. Each person persuaded is a necessary step to turn the movement of the political waters.
Monday, July 07, 2003
Quantifying Qualities of Bureaucracy and of Entreprenial Effort
Quantifying Qualities of Bureaucracy and of Entreprenial Effort
I sat in sales class several months ago. The pitch line pushed was about being unique. The theory was that most sales persons are merely selling commodities. Each sales orgnaization must work to make itself unique in order to stand out with its commodity.
The solution proposed was to coin a new phrase, "I am different because I am an intrapreneur." The theme was that an intrapreneur does everything he can within the system to serve his client.
I was reading an article in the Washington Times this morning. The theme was that the State Department is broken because the inmates are running the asylum: the Foreign Service is running the Foreign Service.
At first blush, this seems inherently wrong in a democratic republic: why have elections and officials appointed by the elected if the elected can't run the system. The canned answer is that the system exists to avoid the patronage system that ran amok in the post-Civil War era.
So if I am to understand this argument, in the 21st century, we should keep an answer to 1880's problem. This is wrong.
Government has a very easy measure of good management -- are we stuck with the same people for years? The Washington Times article gives the stats. My conclusion: we are stuck with the same old Foreign Service. Why is this a problem?
Look at any private enterprise and compare. In private enterprise you can look at the system and you will find that the staff changes. Some due to death (yes, foreign service officers do die, this and sickness are about the only similarities), some due to better business offers at other companies for promotion or money or location, some due to the desire to create another new enterprise, some due to firing for incompetence or misconduct or incongruity with the new management. I have not studied enterprise in a systematic manner but I would suggest that the Washington Times is slightly off in comparison. I would bet ththat very few terminations can be explicitly identified as incompetence. Most of those terminations are by forced resignation to "spend more time with my family" or to "pursue other opportunities." Yet the numbers departing are probably far higher than in government service.
The biggest causes of change in personnel are that new management usually wants to seed the system with its own men and women. This seeding process is what is missing in the Foreign Service.
When a new president is elected, too few persons are appointed that want to carry out his agenda and too few can be terminated simply because they are not the new management's men.
This continuity of personnel is not healthy. The Foreign Service and the Civil Service need to have some risk of losing jobs when administrations change so that the president can more quickly and efficiently implement his agenda.
The problem is that the government is run by mostly members of the Civil Service who happen to be members of the largest union in the country, the federal government employee union. Who do you think they vote for and support? Easy, Democrats. Who do you think is going to fight to keep their personnel in place?
The Democrats don't need patronage. They already own the government. And you want to know why government does not work well whether in the Foreign Service or the Civil Service. We need a new system that has greater likelihood of change with new administrations. The greater the change in management, the better the result. Let the clerical and non-decision-makers stay, but be more at risk to termination and management change alone will be effective.
I sat in sales class several months ago. The pitch line pushed was about being unique. The theory was that most sales persons are merely selling commodities. Each sales orgnaization must work to make itself unique in order to stand out with its commodity.
The solution proposed was to coin a new phrase, "I am different because I am an intrapreneur." The theme was that an intrapreneur does everything he can within the system to serve his client.
I was reading an article in the Washington Times this morning. The theme was that the State Department is broken because the inmates are running the asylum: the Foreign Service is running the Foreign Service.
At first blush, this seems inherently wrong in a democratic republic: why have elections and officials appointed by the elected if the elected can't run the system. The canned answer is that the system exists to avoid the patronage system that ran amok in the post-Civil War era.
So if I am to understand this argument, in the 21st century, we should keep an answer to 1880's problem. This is wrong.
Government has a very easy measure of good management -- are we stuck with the same people for years? The Washington Times article gives the stats. My conclusion: we are stuck with the same old Foreign Service. Why is this a problem?
Look at any private enterprise and compare. In private enterprise you can look at the system and you will find that the staff changes. Some due to death (yes, foreign service officers do die, this and sickness are about the only similarities), some due to better business offers at other companies for promotion or money or location, some due to the desire to create another new enterprise, some due to firing for incompetence or misconduct or incongruity with the new management. I have not studied enterprise in a systematic manner but I would suggest that the Washington Times is slightly off in comparison. I would bet ththat very few terminations can be explicitly identified as incompetence. Most of those terminations are by forced resignation to "spend more time with my family" or to "pursue other opportunities." Yet the numbers departing are probably far higher than in government service.
The biggest causes of change in personnel are that new management usually wants to seed the system with its own men and women. This seeding process is what is missing in the Foreign Service.
When a new president is elected, too few persons are appointed that want to carry out his agenda and too few can be terminated simply because they are not the new management's men.
This continuity of personnel is not healthy. The Foreign Service and the Civil Service need to have some risk of losing jobs when administrations change so that the president can more quickly and efficiently implement his agenda.
The problem is that the government is run by mostly members of the Civil Service who happen to be members of the largest union in the country, the federal government employee union. Who do you think they vote for and support? Easy, Democrats. Who do you think is going to fight to keep their personnel in place?
The Democrats don't need patronage. They already own the government. And you want to know why government does not work well whether in the Foreign Service or the Civil Service. We need a new system that has greater likelihood of change with new administrations. The greater the change in management, the better the result. Let the clerical and non-decision-makers stay, but be more at risk to termination and management change alone will be effective.
Saturday, June 28, 2003
To Pack or Not to Pack: Getting Control over the Judiciary
I have little use for many of the innovations that FDR gave us. They innovated in how to steal American republican democracy from the people by legalizing macrobribery.
One of the ideas that FDR had that is usually pilloried is his plan to increase the size of the Supreme Court so that he can appoint new justices to the bench that would support his New Deal agenda. This idea went down in flames.
However, there may be some new value in that old notion. Even if pushing that idea has the same effect that it had in the 1930's -- scaring the Court -- it would be valuable.
Simply put, the Supreme Court could have an additional three members added to it. This would give Bush the ability to name more conservative justices and increase the rate of turnover in the Court. As it is today, our justices can stay on the bench for decades because our healthcare system is spectacular.
This increase in the size of the bench would allow more subtlety in opinions to be aired. It would allow the Congress to have a greater impact on the course of the Court's activities -- reinforcing the check and balance effect. It would force Congress to regularize and control the advise and consent process because higher profile nominations would have to go through more often.
The importance of getting one or two appointments to the bench per presidential term would diminish. As much as I would hate for Clinton to have had a greater impact on the bench, even his appointing more members would have been healthier, since each appointment would be less powerful.
Let's look at this mathematically how appointments to the Court have worked in practice over history. I am going to make some broad generalizations since I have not researched my understandings in depth, but the information is readily available by doing a detailed analysis of the historical composition of the Court.
When John Jay was appointed to the Court by George Washington, life expectancy for the segment of society that was put on the bench (the educated, wealthy, etc.) was better than society at large. I would hazard a guess that it was still only about 65. Persons when appointed were usually well established in the lives. So, ignoring the turmoil of the Court's membership and other neophyte aspects, Court members did not last much longer than 15 years. Even for a 6 member Court you could get a new court appointment every two out of five years -- a ratio of 2:5.
As John Marshall came to dominate the bench for his nearly 35 years on the Court, we probably had an average stay on the bench of 20 years. Effect 6 appointments every 20 years. (Bear with this unscientific approach, please.) Ratio 3:10.
During FDR's term, my recollection of history is that he appointed about 6 members to the 9 member Court over his eleven years in the White House. This is a 1:2 ratio. Since that time, we have entered a period of very long tenures on the bench. The current bench had its first members appointed in 1973 and 1975 or so. Since that time, the entire bench was appointed. (That is only one appointment per seat, if you ignore the technically very significant double appointment of Rehnquist first as associate justice and second as Chief Justice of the United States. In another context, this is not significant to votes since Rehnquist's vote counts either way.) The bench has been replaced been replaced as at a rate of 3:10 or nearly once every 3 years.
Looked at another way, four Congresses have had no voice about the composition of the Court. That is more than one whole Senate cycle that had no voice about the composition of the Court. We are now working our way to completing another Congress with no voice. (This one will likely only have a voice if a retirement is annouced before October 1, 2003, if one of the justices dies or retires due to health issues prior to the next election.)
The checks and balances on this Supreme Court have been woefully inadequate. The argument put forward by Scalia, Thomas, and the Chief Justice are falling on ears tired of hearing them. The middle is soft. The left is devoid of intelligent argument on some of the most important cases of the day (see, e.g., University of Michigan undergrad case).
With Scalia, Thomas, Bryer, Kennedy, and Souter so young, we could see Rehnquist, O'Connor, Ginsburg, and the elder Stevens be replaced in the next 5 to 10 years. Once that cycle is done, we might see the next Court stay together 15-20 years with no change, except by the intervention of God. This is a daunting prospect.
If the immediate need of Bush looks too self-serving, Bush should suggest that that Court size be increased in size to eleven or thirteen over the next two presidential terms -- the current one excluded. The benefits would be many:
1. More justices to cover the increasing number of Circuit Courts of Appeal;
2. More justices to divide the opinion writing between, hence allowing more cases to be heard;
3. More appointment opportunities to increase the checks and balances on the Court;
4. More chances for politicians to voice their opinion on the Court thereby dilluting the intensity of debate over any one appointment;
5. More openings for talented voices to enter opinions on the significant questions of the day;
6. More chance to debate the proper procedure for managing debate on appointments if the number of appointments is known over the transition period;
7. More chance for the debate over the Court to be spread through the grass roots and honestly reflect the opinions of the less political and probably more moderate portion of the country (contrast Schumer and Santorum to the middle of the country).
What was once a political chance to shift the middle of the Court for greedy president may be the answer to our current breakdown and failure in today's system.
One of the ideas that FDR had that is usually pilloried is his plan to increase the size of the Supreme Court so that he can appoint new justices to the bench that would support his New Deal agenda. This idea went down in flames.
However, there may be some new value in that old notion. Even if pushing that idea has the same effect that it had in the 1930's -- scaring the Court -- it would be valuable.
Simply put, the Supreme Court could have an additional three members added to it. This would give Bush the ability to name more conservative justices and increase the rate of turnover in the Court. As it is today, our justices can stay on the bench for decades because our healthcare system is spectacular.
This increase in the size of the bench would allow more subtlety in opinions to be aired. It would allow the Congress to have a greater impact on the course of the Court's activities -- reinforcing the check and balance effect. It would force Congress to regularize and control the advise and consent process because higher profile nominations would have to go through more often.
The importance of getting one or two appointments to the bench per presidential term would diminish. As much as I would hate for Clinton to have had a greater impact on the bench, even his appointing more members would have been healthier, since each appointment would be less powerful.
Let's look at this mathematically how appointments to the Court have worked in practice over history. I am going to make some broad generalizations since I have not researched my understandings in depth, but the information is readily available by doing a detailed analysis of the historical composition of the Court.
When John Jay was appointed to the Court by George Washington, life expectancy for the segment of society that was put on the bench (the educated, wealthy, etc.) was better than society at large. I would hazard a guess that it was still only about 65. Persons when appointed were usually well established in the lives. So, ignoring the turmoil of the Court's membership and other neophyte aspects, Court members did not last much longer than 15 years. Even for a 6 member Court you could get a new court appointment every two out of five years -- a ratio of 2:5.
As John Marshall came to dominate the bench for his nearly 35 years on the Court, we probably had an average stay on the bench of 20 years. Effect 6 appointments every 20 years. (Bear with this unscientific approach, please.) Ratio 3:10.
During FDR's term, my recollection of history is that he appointed about 6 members to the 9 member Court over his eleven years in the White House. This is a 1:2 ratio. Since that time, we have entered a period of very long tenures on the bench. The current bench had its first members appointed in 1973 and 1975 or so. Since that time, the entire bench was appointed. (That is only one appointment per seat, if you ignore the technically very significant double appointment of Rehnquist first as associate justice and second as Chief Justice of the United States. In another context, this is not significant to votes since Rehnquist's vote counts either way.) The bench has been replaced been replaced as at a rate of 3:10 or nearly once every 3 years.
Looked at another way, four Congresses have had no voice about the composition of the Court. That is more than one whole Senate cycle that had no voice about the composition of the Court. We are now working our way to completing another Congress with no voice. (This one will likely only have a voice if a retirement is annouced before October 1, 2003, if one of the justices dies or retires due to health issues prior to the next election.)
The checks and balances on this Supreme Court have been woefully inadequate. The argument put forward by Scalia, Thomas, and the Chief Justice are falling on ears tired of hearing them. The middle is soft. The left is devoid of intelligent argument on some of the most important cases of the day (see, e.g., University of Michigan undergrad case).
With Scalia, Thomas, Bryer, Kennedy, and Souter so young, we could see Rehnquist, O'Connor, Ginsburg, and the elder Stevens be replaced in the next 5 to 10 years. Once that cycle is done, we might see the next Court stay together 15-20 years with no change, except by the intervention of God. This is a daunting prospect.
If the immediate need of Bush looks too self-serving, Bush should suggest that that Court size be increased in size to eleven or thirteen over the next two presidential terms -- the current one excluded. The benefits would be many:
1. More justices to cover the increasing number of Circuit Courts of Appeal;
2. More justices to divide the opinion writing between, hence allowing more cases to be heard;
3. More appointment opportunities to increase the checks and balances on the Court;
4. More chances for politicians to voice their opinion on the Court thereby dilluting the intensity of debate over any one appointment;
5. More openings for talented voices to enter opinions on the significant questions of the day;
6. More chance to debate the proper procedure for managing debate on appointments if the number of appointments is known over the transition period;
7. More chance for the debate over the Court to be spread through the grass roots and honestly reflect the opinions of the less political and probably more moderate portion of the country (contrast Schumer and Santorum to the middle of the country).
What was once a political chance to shift the middle of the Court for greedy president may be the answer to our current breakdown and failure in today's system.
Monday, June 23, 2003
Justice Thomas Hits a Home Run!
In the just-released racial quota in law school admissions case, Justice Thomas sums up the entire problem with the liberal position.
“'[D ]iversity,' for all of its devotees,,is more a fashionable catch-phrase than it is a useful term,especially when something as serious as racial discrimination is at issue.Because the Equal Protection Clause renders the color of one ’ s skin constitutionally irrelevant to the Law School ’s mission,I refer to the Law School ’s interest as an “aesthetic.” That is,the Law School wants to have a certain appearance,from the shape of the desks and tables in its classrooms to the color of the
students sitting at them.
"I also use the term “aesthetic ” because I believe it underlines the ineffectiveness of racially discriminatory admissions in actually helping those who are truly underprivileged.Cf .Orr v.Orr,440 U.S.268,283 (1979)(noting that suspect classifications are especially impermissible when “the choice made by the State appears to redound ...to the benefit of those without need for special solicitude ”)."
Dissenting opinion of Justice Thomas in Grutter v. Bolliner, 539 U.S. __, slip opinion at 6, n. 3 (2003).
He describes the liberal position as being entirely about appearances without regard to impact.
Let's up we can get through the batting line-up quickly. We need another case on this issue soon, so that this slugger can take another shot at the fence. Let's just make sure we have some new justices on the bench that are more likely to get on base than to cry about the pitches being too fast.
If Justice Scalia is to be believed in his dissenting opinion, this case opens up so many new issues for lawsuits that we just need to wait a few short years, then Slugger Thomas will be back at the plate!!!
In the just-released racial quota in law school admissions case, Justice Thomas sums up the entire problem with the liberal position.
“'[D ]iversity,' for all of its devotees,,is more a fashionable catch-phrase than it is a useful term,especially when something as serious as racial discrimination is at issue.Because the Equal Protection Clause renders the color of one ’ s skin constitutionally irrelevant to the Law School ’s mission,I refer to the Law School ’s interest as an “aesthetic.” That is,the Law School wants to have a certain appearance,from the shape of the desks and tables in its classrooms to the color of the
students sitting at them.
"I also use the term “aesthetic ” because I believe it underlines the ineffectiveness of racially discriminatory admissions in actually helping those who are truly underprivileged.Cf .Orr v.Orr,440 U.S.268,283 (1979)(noting that suspect classifications are especially impermissible when “the choice made by the State appears to redound ...to the benefit of those without need for special solicitude ”)."
Dissenting opinion of Justice Thomas in Grutter v. Bolliner, 539 U.S. __, slip opinion at 6, n. 3 (2003).
He describes the liberal position as being entirely about appearances without regard to impact.
Let's up we can get through the batting line-up quickly. We need another case on this issue soon, so that this slugger can take another shot at the fence. Let's just make sure we have some new justices on the bench that are more likely to get on base than to cry about the pitches being too fast.
If Justice Scalia is to be believed in his dissenting opinion, this case opens up so many new issues for lawsuits that we just need to wait a few short years, then Slugger Thomas will be back at the plate!!!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)