July 25, 2005
Carnival of Liberty IV
Carnival of Liberty IV is up at Eric’s site. Owlish Mutterings gets it next week.
When I get a chance, I’ll look over all the links and point out a few of my own favorites, but I suggest you head over there and take a look now…
Happy Birthday to me!
As of today, I’ve officially survived 27 years of life. I’m not entirely sure how I managed it, with my blatant disregard for risk… But I’m not complaining.
But as they say in the financial industry, past performance is not a guarantee of future results.
Owlish Mutterings linked with This Brad Doesn't Suck
July 24, 2005
Redistricting – make it happen
Attention all California readers: Redistricting is in jeopardy.
The amendment was popular. And it would reduce the power of incumbency. So, naturally, the politicians will do everything they can to defeat it, including removing it from the ballot altogether:
That plan was going nowhere, when earlier this month state Attorney General Bill Lockyer, a Democrat and former leader of the state senate, decided to take matters into his own hands by suing to have the Governor’s redistricting proposal simply removed from the ballot on a technicality.
Mr. Lockyer says he’s just doing his job. And there are discrepancies between the redistricting petition circulated for signatures and the version sent to his office for review, which is the basis for the suit. But these are minor by any reasonable interpretation–e.g., using the word “select” rather than “appoint,” or “provided” instead of “specified”–and in no way deceitful.
Mr. Lockyer, who’s running for state Treasurer next year, clearly has his own agenda and a history of using the AG’s office–which titles and summarizes initiatives–to make partisan mischief. His outrage seems more selective than principled, and it’s hard to believe he would be filing lawsuits based on semantics if these discrepancies were attached to a ballot measure for universal preschool or higher taxes for education.
The initiative is now in the hands of a judge, who last week denied a motion by the Democratic Assembly Speaker and Democratic Senate Pro Tem to join Mr. Lockyer’s supposedly nonpartisan suit. A hearing is set for later this month, but in the meantime these actions demonstrate just how far the Sacramento political class will go to preserve its fiefdoms.
All democratic power stems from the voters’ ability to hold representatives accountable. They’re always looking for ways to reduce accountability, but I have to say this is a pretty sneaky and underhanded one, IMHO.
The Simpsons prevails once again!
It seems I’ve really stirred it up this time. Owlish and Robert have both chimed in, after TF Stern offered this post explaining why he believes that society can only function if Christian values are upheld, and thus why it is deplorable that people are breaking God’s laws.
To respond, using the biblical theme of parables, I found a parable that I believe applies closely. Not normally looking to the bible for my parables, I found a source much more consistent with that of my generation, The Simpsons. Conveniently, tonight’s episode was very topical. Titled Home Away From Homer, it chronicles Springfield’s version of TF Stern, Ned Flanders, as he leaves Springfield for the greener pastures of yesteryear.
The summary: Ned is looking to make extra money, and Marge suggests he rent one of the rooms in his house. He chooses two young co-eds who act upset about having to live in dormitories with boys, and proceed to set up the soft-core lesbian porn web site sexyslumberparty.com operating from Ned’s house (real site, owned by Fox, worth checking out). Enraged, he throws them out of his house, and upon finding that the whole town knew about it and was laughing at him behind his back, chooses to move away from Springfield. He leaves for the town of Humbleton, PA, a near-utopia where everyone is happy, moral, and gets along. When there, however, the town requires him to shave his mustache (as with most of these rules, i.e. ‘don’t eat meat on Friday’, no actual justification or reasoning is given). Faced with this mandate, Ned chooses civil disobediance, and is ostracized by the town. He ends up moving back to Springfield, where he is free to be a Christian, and free from intrusion into his personal facial hair choices.
I think this makes an important point. TF, in our society you are free to practice your religion as you see fit, as long as you do not violate the rights of others. And yes, you are free to speak your mind and advise others based upon what you think is right. Although, common decency would require some judicious use of tact whenever criticizing those “deviant carnal members of our society”.
When I stated that I may not be ready for the Brave New World, one in which the vows of marriage no longer contain the affirmation that such was ordained of God, that such is intended to last until the end of days or that such is intended to be a binding of a man and a woman as husband and wife; then the foundation upon which that society is based has been usurped.
But bear in mind, when talking about things like marriage, marriage is a religious arrangement. It just so happens that we also have a civil arrangement, given force by our government, also called marriage. I fully support you and your Church not advocating, supporting, or recognizing same-sex marriages. But I humbly request that you look deep into your soul, and ask yourself whether restricting this legal agreement to heterosexual, monogamous couples is your moral duty or an infringement of personal liberty? You speak of what the “vows” of marriage are? Do you stand before the State and profess those vows, or in front of an altar? We speak in this nation of the separation of church and state, yet any possible thing that changes in governmental laws regarding civil marriage could do to endanger marriage in general is only due to the state being too entwined with religion in the whole matter to begin with.
TF, I understand and accept that you consider all of the behaviors I brought up during that post to be “deviant”. But I caution you that when you grant the power to outlaw that behavior to government, the day may come that someone may compel you to shave your mustache. That will seem just as silly, irrational, and immoral to you as your opposition to same-sex marriage or easy divorces seem to those people who take part in them. Freedom and liberty do not mean that we will not be held to the final judgement of which you speak, but it does mean that it is not our place to make that judgement here on earth.
T. F. Stern's Rantings linked with Made me look like I was 17
Internet problems…
Sorry for the lack of posting. In addition to the time spent with friends this weekend, and the clean-up afterwards to put the house in wife-ready condition, I’ve been having severe internet problems all day, to the point where most of the day I’ve been without service at all. I actually lost service in the middle of writing this very short post.
I’m going to try to get this figured out, but with the traveling I’m doing over the next week, expect posting to be light.
July 22, 2005
Love in the time of Ortho Tri-cyclen
I said yesterday that to some extent, a society can only work if its rules and customs are consistent with the nature of humanity. But what I left out (deliberately) is also crucial. Part of the nature of humanity is linked to the environment man is in, which is highly fluid. None, IMHO, have pointed this out more clearly than author Robert A. Heinlein.
First, I refer to both The Moon is a Harsh Mistress and Time Enough For Love. In these books, humanity is put into an environment of traveling to different planets, different worlds, and different circumstances. Personally, I think that the anarcho-capitalist society of Luna in Harsh Mistress is a close approximation of the old “wild west” in the US. It is a harsh environment, where you get along, or you’ll end up “eliminated”. Law doesn’t really exist, it is more informal custom, enforced by individuals. Did it work? Sure, based on the constraints of the system, it was what would have to be done to work. Would it work in modern-day New York? Probably not (again, my opinion here, obviously it hasn’t really been tried). In Time Enough For Love, Heinlein advances the idea that once a society becomes crowded enough to require ID, it’s too crowded for liberty-loving individuals. It may be a dim view, but acknowledges that at some times, liberty must be infringed to create a system of society that works. Perfect liberty can only be achieved if there is nobody around whose rights you can violate; once rights begin conflicting with each other, complete liberty is no longer feasible. Perhaps the problem with us Libertarians/Anarchists/etc, is that we just don’t have another planet to move to (yet)…
The key point here is that in both books, different circumstances allow different types of political and social systems to develop, based upon what suits the nature of the individual and the environment. Man being a rational and not instinctual animal, can adjust to environments dissimilar to those here on Earth. As such, it is important to understand that political and social systems must adapt to different behavior being natural when the external environment changes. This may be a matter of technological change, or a matter of social change.
One area that I brought up yesterday, with Heinlein in mind, was the fact that humanity has a seemingly inexhaustible capacity for love. But humanity was limited in expression of this fact (through customs and mores rather than law, in many places) due to certain inherent biological factors. 100 years ago, sex had a relatively substantial chance of ending up in pregnancy. Women did not have a reasonable place in the work force. And mortality rates forced people to reproduce at higher rates to further the species in general. Thus, society pushed people into a simple system of celibacy before marriage, monogamous nuclear-family arrangements, where the husband worked and brought home the dollars, and the wife stayed home to raise the children. This was a necessary condition, or society would have ceased to function.
And from TF Stern’s post today (thanks to him for making that point for me), that suits some people just fine:
“Vows like “For as long as we continue to love each other,” “For as long as our love shall last” and “Until our time together is over” are increasingly replacing the traditional to-the-grave vow — a switch that some call realistic and others call a recipe for failure.â€
I can see how this improves society, oh yes, most impressive commitment levels to help our young people understand the sacred nature of marriage. Dang, there’s that word “sacred†mixed in with something common like marriage. I’m sorry, please forgive me, old habit.
“With this ring and my Continental Airlines Frequent Flyer card, I do plan to spend at least one weekend of riotous living shacked up at the local Motel 6.â€; followed by, “I now pronounce you, Jack and George, morally corrupt; but legally bound until Monday morningâ€. I don’t think I’m prepared for this Brave New World.
On a personal level, that suits me just fine too. It’s probably just my midwestern upbringing, but I’m old-fashioned when it comes to family. I’m mighty happy with just a wife, a couple of dogs, and (maybe) some kids someday.
But I see the writing on the wall. We’re in the early stages of a rapidly changing world. Simply put, technology has freed humans from most of the consequences of sex, and as I’ve said before, freedom is messy. We’re going to see some major upheaval in the world, and 10,000 years of conditioning doesn’t change easily. But I’ve always thought that freedom allows people to do what they want, and that this will result in increased happiness and a society which works better in the long run.
In Heinlein’s society, there was a completely different formulation of the idea of family. In the books that I’ve read from Heinlein aimed at an adult, rather than child, audience, there are always very different marital relationships than in our world. It’s not clear, of course, whether these are the sorts of arrangements that are in our future. But it is clear that Heinlein saw that humanity adapts to its environment, and that this new sexual freedom will have far-reaching consequences.
This, of course, is going to ruffle a lot of feathers. Some people are intolerant of any change, and to some people, tolerance is a code-word for “acceptance” or “celebration”. As with most things, my view on this is live-and-let-live. The people that talk about divorce destroying the “sanctity” of marriage don’t understand that other people getting divorced doesn’t mean you are required to at some point. Riled up about some female celebrity flouting tradition to become a “single mother”? That doesn’t mean you can’t raise your kids in a nuclear family. You think homosexuality is wrong? Don’t partake. You think your way is the “right” way and the “moral” way? Follow it, but don’t be shocked when others take a different route.
The “sexual revolution”, as it was called, isn’t anywhere near over yet. And I don’t know where it’s going to end up. For me, I’m that old-fashioned guy who isn’t really taking part in the “revolution” anyway. But I’m more than happy to stand back, watch it develop, and stay out of its way. Because I know what I want out of life, and as long as we still have a free society, the “sexual revolution” isn’t going to take that away.
Owlish Mutterings linked with Thoughts
Libertopia linked with The Individual and Society
T. F. Stern's Rantings linked with A Line Drawn in the Sand
Open Source Amendment Project
Read it. Sign it. Link to it on your blogs. Shout it from the mountaintops. Tell your friends, neighbors, and coworkers.
This is a galvanizing issue, an absolutely immoral and evil destruction of our rights, and we can put an end to it. The time has come to make it happen.
Hat Tip to Hold the Mayo on this. And even more than a hat tip, an enormous THANK YOU for all you are doing on this issue.
July 21, 2005
Natural Rights doctrine – the missing piece
(Welcome Carnival of Liberty and Carnival of the Vanities readers. One note: A commenter responded to this post on his own blog, and I countered his response in a separate post. Check them out after reading below.)
Some of you remember the debate raging a while back about whether property rights are natural rights, and exactly what that means. There were a few things that just didn’t sit right with me, but I haven’t had the time to really collect my thoughts and provide the response I wanted to give, until now.
To sum up, Eric, Robert, and I argued that property rights were a natural right because they exist inherent to man’s nature, and that is why we should push them as a society. Alice and JimmyJ pointed out that whether they exist in a state of nature or not, a right is only as valid as the society surrounding it. And Dada took that line of thinking to the next level and decided that socialism is perfectly valid because a society can define rights as they wish.
The disconnect for me was that I heard what Alice and JimmyJ said, and they are correct. Once you reach the point where you have a society and government, your rights are truly only worth the ability to back them up. America is still pretty well off on that score, but societies throughout history have proved that life, liberty, or property rights are quite easily discarded by an overbearing government. We can call them “natural rights” all we want, but a natural right to life doesn’t stop a corrupt government from putting a bullet in your head. To clear up this disconnect, we need a valid reason for why a society should be set up to recognize and protect those rights. In our debate, neither myself, Eric, or Robert explained why that should be the case. And that’s unfinished business.
The Unrepentant Individual linked with Carnival of the Vanities #149
Owlish Mutterings linked with Carnival of Liberty
Searchlight Crusade linked with Today's Links 2005 07 25 Monday
Eric's Grumbles Before The Grave linked with Carnival of Liberty IV
News, the Universe, and Everything linked with The Unrepentant Individual » Natural Rights doctrine - the missing piece
Back in town…
Finally made it back from the land of fruits, flakes, and nuts. The wife is still there until next week, so I might actually get a lot of blogging done… Except that a bunch of buddies are coming into town for a birthday celebration guy’s weekend, so we’ll see. JimmyJ will be down here, so maybe I’ll get him wasted and sit him in front of the keyboard. Could be interesting.
So expect to see over the next few days, less mindless drivel about poker and more mindful drivel about politics. At least until next week, when I hit Paris for a few days on business. Anyone want to lay odds on how long it takes before I make them surrender?
Oh, and keep your eyes open for Carnival of Liberty IV.
Last but not least, it appears that the attempted suicide bombers in London are incompetent. What, are they doing their recruiting from the Washington civil service system?
Accepting an error
I hate being wrong. DJ posted in a comment a question to this post, where I said that Democracies have never gone to war with each other, a question. He asked, based on the post that I linked here, whether we hadn’t gone to war with Iran based upon the Democratic peace theory. I responded that I didn’t think, based upon the agreed-upon definition of democracy, that Iran fit the bill. And he quickly responded with Wikipedia data that showed, as far as I can tell, that by that definition, Iran is a democracy.
Here are the four points that define democracy, according to the link I provided:
1) The nation must hold competitive elections. To be defined as competitive, there must be at least two formally independent political parties (or similar groups).
2) 50% or more of the adult population must be allowed to vote.
3) Those in legislative and executive power must have been put into place by said elections.
4) There must have been at least one peaceful, constitutional transfer of power between independent political parties.
I haven’t verified #3 or #4, but I think #1 and #2 are satisfied. I think #3 does fit the bill, definitely, because they’ve had several elections since the revolution there. And I know that for #4, one of their recent presidents was a member of their “reform” party, so I think that might be enough to satisfy the conditions. It’s questionable, because their council of mullahs fits a similar (but more powerful, IMHO) position as our Supreme Court, and I don’t know how the turnover there has been, nor whether you can actually consider them to be a legislative or executive body. But if you consider them in the same vein as SCOTUS, they are not legislative or executive, so I’ll not question that part.
As DJ brought up in his post, I claimed that Iran was not a democracy based upon my own personal prejudice and taking the word of the blogger who had originally posted the above criteria. That was a mistake on my part, and I should not have done so. I think DJ was deliberately trying to draw me out with his question, and I proved an easy mark.
When it comes to Iran, my view is that they, at the very least, are not a free society. It is questionable whether they truly hold free and fair elections. While they may fit #1 above, where they have formally independent political parties, the question of who counts the votes is a big one. That, coupled with the fact that the council of mullahs decides who’s allowed to run for the presidency, and that the Supreme Leader controls the press, leaves a lot to be desired. As DJ says in my the comments to my post, neither he nor I would want to live in the system they have in Iran.
I think this is a good point to highlight the many issues I do have with democracy. As I’ve said on several occasions, I don’t consider democracy to be the end-all, be-all, of the world. Democracy needs to be tempered by the rule of law, supporting a system protecting individual rights, to truly create a system that I would want to live under. Iran may be a democracy, but I’d think that violating the Democratic Peace Theory to bring them in line would be a counter-example to the theory that I’d accept.
But either way, by Dean Esmay’s definition of democracy, it looks like I’m wrong. And I can’t explain how much I hate being wrong and having to publicly admit it. But such is life, no?
Real Cases, Real Consequences, Real Bad Idea.
It’s called “The Law Firm” and somehow I just found out about it last night. It’s a new reality show which will have actual lawyers (that should be a warning in itself) trying actual cases in a manner designed to eliminate one contestant each week. There’s only one problem, the verdicts count. How can anyone possibly allow television producers of a reality show access to one of the few American institutions we can still point to and be proud (or atleast not be horrifically embarrased).
How long will it be until the winner of a reality show is awarded a seat in congress?
July 20, 2005
Company poker tournament
Twice a year, my company hosts a sales kickoff meeting for all the field personnel to come back to Irvine. About a year ago, I started the practice of holding a poker tournament the evening after the second day of that meeting. Our first was 13 people, the second was 16, and we had 18 last night.
So how did your humble correspondent fare? Unfortunately, we paid the top 5 seats, and I finished about 8th. Oddly enough, in this company there are about 8 people who are true poker aficionadoes, and by the luck of the draw, only one of that group even made the top 5, so I don’t feel too bad.
We each start with 10,000 in chips, blinds at 100-200, and increase the blinds every 20 minutes (should be 30, IMHO). Throughout the course of the tournament, I never really dropped below 10K, but never really went much above it either. Winning a few small pots to stay ahead of the blinds, but watching as everyone else’s stack grew larger as people were eliminated.
As the blinds hit 1500-3000, with only about 10,500 in chips, I was starting to get pretty desperate. Especially when the blinds passed me without a hand worth moving all-in, dropping my stack to 6,000 chips. I knew my only chance was to try to steal the blinds or double up before the next time the blinds came around.
So I picked K-6, suited in diamonds, as my spot. Moved all-in, to be called by both the big and small blinds. They still had chips, so we didn’t show cards yet. Flop came A-A-7 (one Ace was diamonds). Check-check from the blinds. Turn was the ten of diamonds, opening up the nut flush draw for me. Check-check from the blinds, so they look like they haven’t hit the flop. River was the jack of clubs, so I missed my flush. Check-check from the blinds. We all turn over the cards, the small blind held 6-9 of hearts, so completely missed. The big blind turns over J-9 offsuit, and only hit his jack to beat me on the river.
Move in with the best hand, watch my opponent suck out. Story of my poker career…
John Roberts
Unfortunately, since I’m out of town and have no time for substantive commentary on Bush’s SCOTUS nominee, I highly suggest you peruse the blogs over on the Life, Liberty, and Property blogs (see sidebar). I’m sure they’re already way ahead of me on this one.
I’m still in mourning over him not picking Janice Rogers Brown 
July 19, 2005
Quick Hitters….
$15 Million or Safe Streets?
How about neither. The NRA chooses to pull its 2007 annual convention out of Columbus, Ohio because the city council passed a ban on assault weapons July 12th. The convention was expected to bring 60,000 visitors and $15-$20 million in revenues to the greater Columbus area.
Now don’t get me wrong, I don’t advocate allowing special interest groups to hold legislative agendas hostage, but at some point you have to look out for the interests of you constituents. Banning assault weapons is not (regardless of what the council thinks) going to make Columbus a safer city to live in. Folks in the surrounding area are still allowed to have them, and if you owned one before the ban, all you have to do is register it. Not to mention, in all of the shootings I’ve read about this year, I don’t remember a single one that involved assault weapons. Congratulations Columbus, you’ve cost yourself $15 million in revenues to pass a gun law that has little chance of lowering gun crimes.
Wie should have to qualify.
Despite a convincing argument by SI writer Roy Johnson, Michelle Wie has not earned an invitation to play in next year’s Masters. His point by point argument of why he thinks she has “qualified†actually reads as a point by point explanation of why she has not. Let’s take a quick look.
“she certainly qualified by simply emerging this summer as the most engaging, intriguing, wanna-root-for golfer since Tigerâ€
Engaging, intriguing, and “wanna-root-for†are certainly qualities possessed by the 15 year old phenom, but they are not qualifiers for the Masters field.
“She qualified by hanging with the best women golfers in the worldâ€
So perhaps she has qualified to play with the LPGA, but again, “hanging with the best women†certainly does not qualify you for a men’s major.
“by pretty much holding her own against the best men in the world.â€
If missing the cut at a men’s tournament qualified you for the Masters, Annika Sorenstam would have played in this year’s event.
Last week’s U.S. Amateur Public Links championship was exciting because Michelle Wie was there. But she was there because she earned it. Nobody gave her a sponsor’s exemption in order to drum up interest. She went out, qualified for the tournament, played two good enough rounds to advance to the match play portion, and advanced past three competitors before getting blown out, 5 and 4, in the quarterfinals. Had she won the event, she would be playing in next year’s Masters, but she would be playing because she deserved to be playing, not because she has created a buzz in the golf world.
Michelle Wie is a 15 girl with one of the finest golf swings in the world, and she very likely will qualify for a men’s major someday. I look forward to that day, and will cheer her on when she does it, but let’s not diminish that day because we want a cheap thrill now.
Let’s Get Ready To Rumble.
Everybody get ready, the battle is set to begin at 9:00 PM EDT when President Bush announces his selection for the recent opening on the Supreme Court. This promises to be a big debate across the nation just in time to wipe other discussions from the public’s attention.
When the appointment is all over, we will still have a top White House aide who slides through loopholes in our treason laws, troops left in harm’s way with no end in sight, record debt with no action so much as suggested, and the Yankees will still likely be in first.
Schadenfreude takes a hit.
The collective “oh no, here we go again” you may have sensed late last night and this morning stem from the fact that for the first time since April 9, the New York Yankees lead the American League East.
For the first half of the baseball season, fans everywhere (but especially in Boston and Baltimore) have been taking pleasure in the struggles of the mighty Yankees. Their “bad” season is a regular topic on Sportscenter, talk radio, and all manners of sports related websites.
Well, that time has passed. No longer can the Yankee haters happily open the sports paper to see the evil empire sitting out of playoff position. No longer can baseball analysts everywhere drone on and on about how the aging Bronx Bombers just don’t have what it takes this year. No longer will the New York media wait anxiously for George Steinbrenner’s next firing binge.
Oh well, as the Cubs fans would say, “there’s always next year.”
« Previous Page — Next Page »
Well Brad, Happy Birthday! You are just a few months younger than Bonnie, who turned 27 on April 20th. TF and I had our 34th wedding anniversary on the 23rd and our new Granddaughter was born yesterday, the 24th, and now it’s your birthday, on the 25th. We’re on a roll here. TF and I wish you many more, I wonder how many that will be? Have a good day and blow out all the candles.
Comment by Lucy Stern — July 25, 2005 @ 9:12 am
Blantant disregard for risk, huh? Does that include setting small fires at a young age? You crazy man, you. Being ubercompetetive, I of course have to point out that I’ve been 27 for 6 whole months now. Not sure what all that means…but hey, in six more years you can make a run for the House (legislative OR executive…)
Warbs in ‘12!
Comment by Mark A. Hutchison — July 25, 2005 @ 12:33 pm
Whoo-Hoo!…happy b-day, Brad.
I feel so old. ;-(
Comment by Robert — July 25, 2005 @ 2:01 pm
Mark,
Might I remind you that you were there for the fires? And that you should know that they were all small and not involving any method for them to grow? Not like when we were college-age and would light our bonfires with gasoline!
Me, I blame my parents. When you and I got caught with fireworks, I only got 3 days of grounding, you got a month (although I think you were paroled for good behavior)…
Comment by Brad Warbiany — July 25, 2005 @ 7:13 pm
This Brad Doesn’t Suck
Go wish him a happy birthday. We need lots of stories about how you’re celebrating: booze, motorcycles, and strippers would be a good start….
Trackback by Owlish Mutterings — July 25, 2005 @ 10:14 pm
happy birthday to you!!
Comment by ArmyWifeToddlerMom — July 26, 2005 @ 1:17 am