The advertising above is just a source of revenue. If the ads get offensive enough, I may drop them.
Clayton Cramer's BLOG |
|
|
Clayton's commentary on news and events of the day. Broadly speaking, I'm a conservative with libertarian sympathies (getting more conservative as my children get older).
 Never forget! I ran for Idaho state senate in 2008--didn't win I've written a number of history books, as well as scholarly and popular articles, (see my web page). Relocating to Boise? Use my realtor, neighbor, and friend, Cindy Smith csmith@1realtyone.com.
Magazines for cheap!
PayPal members: to make a contribution
Email me at blogmail at claytoncramer dot com. Sorry to be so indirect, but all spambots must die! But they haven't died yet! Include the word spamIamnot in your subject line to make sure that my spam blocker lets you through. |
Friday, February 10, 2006
The Lawsuit Claiming Christianity Is A Con Job... You recall a few weeks ago that I mentioned an Italian atheist who was suing the Catholic Church, claiming that Jesus Christ was a lie, and using a law intended for suing conmen. (This was the posting in which an off-hand remark of mine about the ACLU caused Professor Volokh to start frothing at the mouth.) The judge hearing the case not only threw it out of court, but suggested further legal action: But instead of granting Cascioli his request to bring the case to court, the judge recommended magistrates investigate him for slandering priest Enrico Righi, Righi's lawyer, Bruno Severo said.Cascioli seems not to be aware that it is easier to prove Jesus's existence as an historic figure than it is to prove that he was not an historic figure. This is true for just about any historic figure--proof of existence is far easier than than proof of non-existence. Even one contemporary or near-contemporary reference is evidence for; evidence against would have to be a contemporary or near-contemporary reference that states, "Jesus did not exist." Clueless Fanatics I'm sorry, but if you want to win a political battle, you take the loaf of bread one slice at a time, until you get the whole loaf--or at least until you get to make a triple decker sandwich: The South Dakota House has passed a bill that would nearly ban all abortions in the state, ushering the issue to the state Senate.I understand that opponents of abortion regard it as a great evil, and I certainly agree that it needs to be reined in very substantially. But a law like this is far more likely to produce a resounding victory for pro-choice advocates in the courts than a less aggressive strategy. If the goal is to make yourself feel good, or to stir up your base, then an extreme law like this probably makes sense. If the goal is to substantially reduce the number of abortions (which should be the primary objective of every pro-life advocate--and a goal of even reasonable pro-choice advocates), you need a law that is going to survive court challenge. Labels: abortion The Mohammed Bombhead Cartoon T-Shirt This is really tacky: (PRWEB) February 8, 2006 -- To see the latest creation from conservative t-shirt maker MetroSpy some would think the Muslim world had every right to be upset. MetroSpy's new t-shirts depict an unflattering caricature of the prophet Mohammed with a bomb on his head.Their website, however, is reporting that the servers are too busy to take orders right now, and suggests that you try back again later! My only question is: does it come in Kevlar, and is it fireproof? Mean, Nasty, And Right On The Money! Ann Coulter once again demonstrates that she has to use a computer to write her articles--otherwise, the paper would catch fire from the acid. She gives a little background on the cartoons that have set the Islamic world on fire: One showed Muhammad turning away suicide bombers from the gates of heaven, saying "Stop, stop — we ran out of virgins!" — which I believe was a commentary on Muslims' predilection for violence. Another was a cartoon of Muhammad with horns, which I believe was a commentary on Muslims' predilection for violence. The third showed Muhammad with a turban in the shape of a bomb, which I believe was an expression of post-industrial ennui in a secular — oops, no, wait: It was more of a commentary on Muslims' predilection for violence.Here is where she sticks the blade it, and makes it spin 360 degrees in all three axes! The rioting Muslims claim they are upset because Islam prohibits any depictions of Muhammad — though the text is ambiguous on beheadings, suicide bombings and flying planes into skyscrapers.Go and read it all. She's often unfairly cruel, and it is true that most Muslims aren't running around blowing things up, or committing mass murder. But I'll tell you, if there was a movement equivalent to al-Qaeda that claimed to be Christian, it would not only earn the condemnation of every organized Christian church, but we would be all working hard to turn them over to the police, just to make them stop contaminating our religion with their absurd claims. Islam's condemnation of al-Qaeda and related movements has been late, weak, and far stronger on words than acts. An Interesting Controversy I think it is a good thing when people of different faiths manage to find common ground and work together--and there are often areas where this is possible. But remember that most religions--and certainly the ones to which the vast majority of Americans belong--have certain core values that are non-negotiable. There may be a lot of fine details that are subject to internal dispute, or that aren't critical to the religion, but the cores aren't open for debate, and trying to paper over those differences in the name of ecumenicalism is stupid. For Jews (at least those for whom it is a religion, not a culture), it is the Shema: Hear O Israel, the Lord is our God, the Lord is One.For Christians, it is the Nicene Creed: We believe in one God the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth, and of all things visible and invisible.For Muslims, it is Mohammed's statement in the Ka'bah: "There is no god but Allah and Mohammed is His Prophet."Feel free to argue that one of these views is right, and the others wrong, but if you truly believe one of these, you are going to regard the others as wrong, with one rather interesting exception. This isn't one of those cafeteria things; you aren't a "Christian Muslim" or a "Jewish Muslim" or a "Jewish Hindu." (You can be a Jewish Christian, and several churches that I have attended had Jewish Christians in them--including the pastor, at one church.) Religious eclectism is very fashionable in some circles. Where we lived in Sonoma County, we knew people who did see religion as a cafeteria. We knew one couple where he was a Buddhist; she had grown up Jewish, and had assembled her own New Age religion with components of Judaism, liberal Protestantism, healing crystals, and lots of other odds and ends that she had gathered along the way. There are people out there who recognize a need for a religion that comforts them--but they aren't too sure that they want a religion that tells them what to do. Religion Light: Comfort, without obligations or duties. Anyway, what prompted this discussion is an article in today's Idaho Statesman about a tempest in a teapot: Some Idaho religious leaders say they will boycott the upcoming Idaho State Prayer Breakfast because the guest speaker is a former Muslim who now leads a ministry aimed at converting Muslims to Christianity.Now, I can see why Muslims would not be comfortable with this speaker. He is a reminder that Islam does not satisfy the needs of every Muslim. So what? This isn't a cafeteria line. If you believe that Islam is right, and Christianity and Judaism are corruptions of God's truth (which is Islam's position on these two "religions of the Book"), then I can see why wouldn't be pleased about this guy speaking. If you believe that Christianity is correct, I can see why you would be pleased to see him there. An Interfaith Alliance of Idaho makes as much sense as something called the "Atheist Agnostic Theist Alliance of Idaho," or the "Democratic Socialist Marxist Maoist Libertarian Alliance of Idaho." If you can make some common ground with groups that otherwise disagree with you, it it is possible that you might be able to work together on something that all agree upon--but to expect a single-issue action to form a permanent alliance is absurd. Trying to hold it together is even more absurd. Idaho Marriage Amendment (State Senate Committee Hearings) There were more hearings this morning in a State Senate committee considering HJR2, which puts a definition of marriage onto the ballot for addition to the state constitution. It was a very interesting experience. There were people that fit stereotypes just perfectly--and I don't just mean the gay people! There were people that didn't fit stereotypes at all, of course. I don't know too many people that hate homosexuals, but I suspect that standing in line to sign up to testify with many of the homosexuals would have to be a good thing for the haters. The deranged activists who defend NAMBLA, and think dressing all in leather and feather boas is so fabulous, weren't there--perhaps that bunch was too hung over from partying the night before. I didn't catch her name, but there was one speaker in favor of HJR2 who described herself as a stay at home mom (and from the state of her waistline, very close to having yet another child), and a licensed attorney, who gave a nice presentation about how courts in other states have abused the equal protection clauses of the federal and state constitutions. It was a presentation that fit into three minutes, without being oversimplified. One rather interesting comment was from an older gay man who admitted that it still makes him uncomfortable to see a wedding cake with two groom figures on it. He still opposed HJR2 (no surprise), but he at least was prepared to see why a lot of people are not comfortable with same-sex marriage, rather than just call us knuckle-dragging homophobes. Rep. Nicole LeFavour, D-Boise, the state's only openly gay legislator, addressed the State Senate committee as well. She made one remark that really captures what happens when national organizations decide to stick their nose into state politics. She pointed out that Idaho gays would not have tried to get same-sex marriage. She knows full well that this would never get past the legislature, and indicated that if Idaho gays had their way, they would rather put the energy into antidiscrimination laws instead. I can understand Rep. LeFavour's upset. Unfortunately, there's no assurance that the ACLU won't file suit here in Idaho to attempt to impose same-sex marriage on this state. HJR2 is a prophylactic measure--something that ordinarily wouldn't be needed, except for the ACLU's history. Yes, perhaps it won't be needed--but when there are so many dangerous judicial viruses on the loose, why engage in unsafe law-making? One thing that just irritated the heck out of me were people who were ostensibly there to tell us how they felt about HJR2--but as near as I can tell, were there to promote their own little organization. Someone from the Humanists of Idaho was there, and while he did speak to HJR2, I found myself thinking, "This is mostly a speech designed to attract people to this organization." Amy Herzfeld, Executive Director of the Idaho Human Rights Education Center, gave the same little speech that she gave to a House committee last week--and about 85% of it was a puff piece for what her organization did. Only at the very end did she get around to the topic at hand. Ms. Herzfeld's three minutes took me from having a neutral to slightly positive impression of her organization, to a fairly negative one--and that was before she expressed an opinion about HJR2. The Idaho Human Rights Education Center has the Idaho Anne Frank Human Rights Memorial, which is located near Boise State. I must confess that I scratch my head whenever I pass by it. If this memorial were in the Netherlands, or at a concentration camp in Germany, or in Israel, the location would make perfect sense. But in Boise? This makes as much sense as putting a memorial to the Challenger crew in the middle of the Amazon rainforest. I had always assumed that the motivation was to counteract the bad press that Idaho received from the small number of ex-Californian neo-Nazis up at Hayden Lake some years ago. You would be hard pressed to find anyone in Idaho whose reactions to the Nazis wouldn't be, "Just a moment, while I reload." After listening to Amy Herzfeld's presentation, I am inclined to think that this is more a device for leftists to assert their moral superiority over everyone else. There's a quote from Anne Frank that is on the side of the memorial to the effect that in spite of everything, she still believes that people are good. It is both touching and painful for me to read that--the innocence and naivete of a little girl. If there is anything that the Holocaust, the Gulag Archipelago, the Killing Fields, and dozens of other genocides has taught us, it is that there is no intrinsic good in people. It takes very little to return human beings to the most savage of states, and fantasies about human nature (as typifies most leftist attempts to restructure our institutions) usually reduce humans to their worst instincts. UPDATE: The committee voted 5-4 to send it to the State Senate floor. The End of Freedom of the Press Michelle Malkin has a long list of examples of governmental action to make the temper tantrum set happy--banning possession of the offensive cartoons, arrests of editors, shutting down of newspapers. Many of these are in Muslim countries, so I can't claim to be surprised. But even the European Union is considering a "media code" to prevent further problems like this: LONDON: The European Union may try to draw up a media code of conduct to avoid a repeat of the furore caused by the publication across Europe of cartoons of the Prophet Mohammad, an EU commissioner said today.Let's see, some of the British tabloids have their "Page 3 girls," and most European nations have sizeable pornography industries (as does the U.S., of course). These materials are offensive to Christians--and yet there is no way that the EU would consider a "media code" to make us happy. Why is that? I guess we aren't taking enough hostages, burning enough embassies, or threatening to behead anyone. It is apparent that Euroliberalism doesn't really believe in freedom of the press, except as a method of promoting its values. Giving in to what is effectively extortion only encourages more of the same. Treasury Yield Curve Inversion It turns out that part of what caused the Treasury yield curve inversion--two year notes having a higher yield than thirty year bonds--is that the Treasury has started selling thirty year bonds again, after a hiatus of several years--and demand was so strong that it bid up prices--which knocks down effective yields: The yield on the benchmark 30-year bond fell almost 3 basis points, or 0.03 percentage point, to 4.48 percent at 11:30 a.m. in New York, according to Cantor Fitzgerald. The price of the 4 1/2 percent bond due in February 2036 rose almost 1/2, or $5 per $1,000 face amount, to 100 5/16.The article goes on to explain that there are several possible explanations for the yield curve inversion. The obvious one is that there is an expectation of a coming recession, which will drop interest rates. Buying long bonds makes sense, both because the bonds will increase in value (a capital value play) and because if you need a steady income for the next 30 years, you won't be able to buy bonds with this high of a return (a long-term payments play). Another possibility is that federal deficits are coming down (which they are), and therefore these opportunities won't be available indefinitely. I think this is probably true, but I don't expect those deficits to evaporate overnight. The third possibility is that a lot of pension funds need to have something reliable from which to make payments to pensioners, and while there is the possibility that interest rates will rise again in the next few months, these pension funds can't wait--they need to get the income stream flowing shortly to cover their anticipated payments. I've noticed that some of the government agency bonds (Fannie Mae, for example), have yields above 6%--and a few are above 6.5%. Now, these are generally callable bonds, so even though they have a maturity of 15 or 20 years, there is a strong possibility that these bonds will be called as the mortgages are paid off that these bonds are covering. Be careful when buying callable bonds to make sure that the Yield to Worst Call is something that you can handle. A number of these agency bonds right now are selling below par value, and the Yield to Worst turns out to be the same as Yield To Maturity--but you can still find yourself with a pile of money five years from now, and nowhere very attractive to reinvest it. Glad To See A Frivolous Lawsuit Punished I'm not happy that I have to pay part of the costs, however: LOS ANGELES – The U.S. Equal Opportunity Employment Commission must pay more than $1 million to a Pasadena law firm that it sued unsuccessfully last year for sexual harassment and pregnancy discrimination, a federal judge has ruled.Yeah, we, the taxpayers, need to demand accountability from our workers, but it would be nice to see the private sector get stuck with the bill for frivolous lawsuits occasionally. Thanks to Overlawyered for the link. Starving Yourself to Death For the Sanctity of Human Life I understand that opponents of abortion believe very strongly that abortion is murder, and it should be opposed--but this shows a distinct lack of respect for human life: A Canyon County anti-abortion activist and father of 16 says he's more than a month into a hunger strike that will end either with his death or the state adopting a law saying that human life begins with conception.There are more effective (but less dramatic) ways to show opposition to the taking of human life. Labels: abortion Thursday, February 09, 2006
Fair Housing Laws I've long been of mixed feelings on this subject. What consenting adults do in private should be none of the government's business--and it doesn't matter if that is sodomy, employment, or renting a place. At the same time, I have a bit of sympathy for those who argued (and still argue for) laws prohibiting housing discrimination. I used to go to church with someone who couldn't even get a hotel room for the night in Sonoma County because he was black. (This was obviously a long time ago.) When my wife and I first moved to Sonoma County in 1982, we went looking for an apartment, and we ran into an apartment manager that I would not have believed could exist in 1982--not because she was a racist, not because she was discriminating in who she rented to, but because she was so blatant about it. This woman didn't know us; for all she knew, we could have been a test couple sent over by the NAACP. At one point, a few minutes into looking at the apartment, she said, "We don't rent to niggers, slopes, or Mexicans." (If you aren't old enough to recognize the term "slope" to refer to Asians--lucky you!) My wife and I were so startled that we said nothing at all--at first I thought it was very poor attempt at humor, and then I realized that she was dead serious. Anyway, we didn't rent from her. Now, there's a strong theoretical argument that discrimination that is irrational in nature will bear significant economic costs to the discriminator. If you immediately discard 11% of your potential market, you have reduced the effective demand for your good or service, and this will reduce the price that you can charge for it. Similarly, someone who is willing to do business with all legitimate customers has increased their effective demand relative to the discriminator, and will enjoy higher sales and profits as a result. In this theoretical model, an economic actor engaged in irrational discrimination will eventually suffer the consequences of this irrational behavior, losing market share. Okay, so why didn't this work in the real world with respect to discrimination against blacks? One reason is that there were all sorts of governmental actions taken to reduce the costs of irrational discrimination. For example, state governments often required private firms to discriminate--thus preventing any company from gaining market advantage by treating all customers on an equal basis. Plessy v. Ferguson (1896) is one such example, but there are a lot of others. Southern states in particular imposed separate waiting room requirements on bus companies, for example. Sometimes, governments took steps that while not intentionally racist, had the same net effect. Thomas Sowell makes the claim that into the 1930s, the Federal Housing Agency (I think the predecessor to FHA) required developers, as a condition of federal loan guarantees, to write racially restrictive deed restrictions. Now, I doubt that the federal government's goal was to create racial segregation across the land. More likely, they were trying to protect property values (the original motivation for racially restrictive housing developments early in the twentieth century), and in a society where racism was widespread, keeping a neighborhood white would preserve property values, wouldn't it? Unfortunately, individual stupidities, when multiplied by the power of the government, become much larger stupidities. That woman in Sonoma County who wouldn't rent to "niggers, slopes, and Mexicans"? By her own admission, the vast majority of her tenants were elderly woman whose rent was largely paid by the Department of Housing and Urban Development's section 8 rent subsidy program. HUD's section 8 program was not implemented with this in mind. I am sure that if HUD had realized where their money was going, they would have taken steps to deal with this--but while the night has a thousand eyes, the federal government does not. I am sympathetic to fair housing laws, largely because there's a long history of government encouraging discrimination. But like my sympathy for affirmative action (at least for blacks) based on generations of government (at all levels) actively encouraging discrimination, there's a time limit on this. We now have two generations of black people that have grown up in a world where governments were not allowed to discriminate, and for the last generation, governments at all levels have worked aggressively to end discrimination. There comes a certain moment when you have to ask, "When is this enough?" What has me irritated today is this lawsuit filed by the Chicago Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under Law against Craigslist, one of the online classified ad services. (Thanks to Overlawyered.com for the pointer.) Their complaint is that Craigslist accepts discriminatory ads. Some of the ads that they point to (a very small number, by the way), might well qualify as violating the law--and remember that you can put up an ad on Craigslist without it necessarily being reviewed by anyone. But many of the examples involve roommates seeking compatible people. I can see why some women really don't want to share a place with a guy--sexual tension, and perhaps a little less comfort using the common areas in sleepwear. I can see why if you are a devout Christian, you wouldn't particularly want to share a place with a party animal who is constantly bringing over people for drug abuse, alcohol, and orgies. And some of the ads that have them upset--running on for more than a page, simply mention the proximity of various amenities--like a church, or a temple. Look, if there's a church across the street, why is that a problem? Plaintiffs' lawyers should be forced to pay costs of the defendants on frivolous suits. There might well be a couple of these ads that are legitimately questionable--but proximity to a church or a temple is a problem? Come on. The Employment Crisis I mentioned recently how sad it was that a Scrappleface satire about Howard Dean was not immediately obviously satire. I read a news report like this, and do I sense a certain amount of, "Oh, this may be bad news" in what should otherwise be good news? WASHINGTON (Reuters) - U.S. jobless claims rose less than expected last week in the latest sign of tightening labor markets, which may prompt the Federal Reserve to hoist interest rates to 5.0 percent before pausing.There's no question that rising inflation caused by tight job markets would not be good, and rising interest rates to prevent that inflation would be a bad thing, also. But when the big problem is, "Darn, there aren't enough unemployed people out there," that's a pretty good sign. Interesting & Widespread Error: Maryland's 1664 Law About Interracial Marriage Everywhere I search on the web, I find articles, sometimes by historians, asserting that Maryland banned interracial marriage in 1664. Yesterday I posted the text of the 1664 law from Archives of Maryland, 1:533-4--and you may have noticed that while it severely punished white woman marrying slaves (but not free blacks), it did not prohibit those marriages or refuse to recognize them. (And before you ask, there were free blacks in Maryland, Mathias de Sousa being one who was actually elected to the legislature in the 17th century, before free blacks lost the vote.) Nor did the 1692 statute at Archives of Maryland, 13:546-9, which simply repeated in longer and more complex form the punishment for white women marrying slaves. This statute also clarified that slaves and their children were slaves for life. The statute also claimed that white women were being encouraged to marry slaves or have children out of wedlock with them, by masters. I'm scratching my head trying to understand this, unless the goal of the masters was to keep the slaves happy. Because the supply of slaves in Africa was heavily prisoners of war, and the demand in the New World was primarily for backbreaking physical labor, male slaves outnumbered female slaves about 2:1 among imports, creating serious sexual imbalances. The earliest Maryland statute that I can find that clearly prohibits interracial marriage, is also the first one that applies not just to slaves, but to free blacks, and applies to both white men/black women and white women/black men, and that is the 1717 statute in Archives of Maryland, 33:112. If anyone is aware of an earlier Maryland statute prohibiting interracial marriage (and not just a ban on free or white persons marrying slaves), please let me know. UPDATE: It occurs to me that the problem may be that the 1664 statute refers both to "Negroes & other Slaves" in some places, but with respect to the punishment for white women, it is specific to slaves: to the disgrace of our Nation doe intermarry with Negro Slaues by which alsoe diuers suites may arise touching the Issue of such woemen and a great damage doth befall the Masters of such Negros for preuention whereof for deterring such freeborne women from such shamefull Matches[.]The 1692 statute also uses the phrase "intermarry with any negro or other Slave" which would seem to refer specifically to slaves, either black, Indian, or (not likely, but possibly) white Muslim. Wednesday, February 08, 2006
Polygamy: The Television Series Just in case you were wondering whether the ACLU's expressed willingness to defend polygamy in court was just an abstract concept, or part of the larger campaign to destroy traditional values: HBO has a new series: Big Love: He has three wives who willingly share him between their three adjoining houses, but Bill Henrickson is about to find out just how challenging life as a modern-day polygamist can be. Don't miss the bold new series that Time magazine says "may prove to be... the next cool thing on TV."It is just a coincidence, of course. Somehow, I rather doubt that this polygamous relationship will be portrayed like the Colorado City, Arizona crowd--and of course, they couldn't show an Islamic polygamous situation. I doubt that either would create the right image of polygamy as cool and sophisticated. Labels: polygamy Idaho Is Rather Harsh On Punishment Here's an example of someone whose plea bargain is a minimum of 25 years in prison before he can apply for parole--and this was much better than going to trial, where he might have been seriously punished: Harlan Hale, involved in a jail escape and two shootouts with police last year, has pleaded guilty to multiple charges including attempted murder of a police officer. Fat In Diet: Don't Worry So Much This is startling news--and somewhat comforting, for those of us who find a low-fat diet almost unbearable: The largest study ever to ask whether a low-fat diet reduces the risk of getting cancer or heart disease has found that the diet has no effect. Environmentalists For Nuclear Power No, no, it's not a variant on the most clever bumper sticker of the 1970s: "Mutants for Nuclear Power," with the yellow smiley face sporting only one eye. Glenn Reynolds' column at Tech Central Station mentions that at least two prominent environmentalists ("former antinuke protester G. Pascal Zachary" and James Lovelock ) are now arguing for nuclear power--at least as part of a move away from fossil fuels. I'm surprised that he didn't mention Greenpeace co-founder Patrick Moore: Moore said he broke with Greenpeace in the 1980s over the rise of what he called "environmental extremism," or stands by environmental groups against issues such as genetic crop research, genetically modified foods and nuclear energy that aren't supported by science or logic. Labels: global warming Looks Like Another Lawsuit Opportunity for the ACLU How dare a local government impose its narrow-minded morality on its employees! Sheriff's deputies who get caught cheating on their spouses or sleeping with another person's spouse in Pinellas County, Fla., will be suspended from work for the behavior, according to a Local 6 News report. The ACLU & A Constitutional Right to Polygamy I've mentioned that the ACLU's national director intends for the organization to sue states to overturn bans on polygamy. I didn't realize that local chapters also seem keen on the idea: Dani Eyer, executive director of the ACLU of Utah, which is not a party to the case, said the state will "have to step up to prove that a polygamous relationship is detrimental to society."If the ACLU wants the government to have to prove that each and every law that it passes is necessary, well that's fine with me. The vast majority of laws that liberals love will go away as well. But something tells me that the ACLU's enthusiasm for this very high standard of necessity will evaporate rather rapidly once they are required to prove that: 1. Laws banning discrimination are necessary. Perhaps there's some other, less intrusive method by which the government can achieve the same desired ends? 2. Laws regulating gun ownership are necessary. Keep in mind that proof of efficacy for laws that most Americans agree upon--bans on convicted felons possessing guns--might be rather difficult. 3. While we are at it--how can the ACLU prove that laws penalizing "hate crimes" are necessary or effective? Labels: polygamy Is This An Equal Protection Violation? If disapproval of homosexuality has no rational basis--why the Supreme Court overruled the people of Colorado's amendment to the state constitution in Romer v. Evans (1996)--then certainly this ban must be irrational as well: Public employees in San Bernardino County are being asked to cover up tattoos and remove visible facial piercings in the workplace.So, will the ACLU be filing suit on this? Promoting Diversity on College Campuses Oh dear. Someone is pushing for more diversity on South Dakota college campuses, and the usual suspects are concerned about this dangerous trend: The measure's main sponsor, Rep. Phyllis Heineman, R-Sioux Falls, said HB1222 is needed to make sure students are exposed to a diverse range of ideas.Oh yeah, good instructors will be terrified by the prospect that the universities are supposed to promote diversity. "You mean that I have to teach at the same school as those sorts?" (You know, the ones that might occasionally vote for Republicans.) The article goes on to quote someone who thinks that diversity is a good thing: Anne Neal of the American Council of Trustees and Alumni said universities should encourage an exchange of ideas from a variety of political and ideological viewpoints.I would put myself in the "nearly a third," based on my experiences as an undergraduate. Let me emphasize that in my major, history, I never felt any pressure to agree with my professors. Nor was this ever an issue in science or math classes, where the subject matter is verifiable. Myths About Marriage Licenses I mentioned a couple of years ago about this emerging myth that state involvement in marriage was created to enforce bans on interracial marriage. It being a very convenient falsehood, it is appearing here in Idaho, in the letters section of the Idaho Statesman: The Legislature is back in session considering a new ban on gay marriage. Marriage through the ages was a union created between loving couples. The state didn't get involved until licensing marriage was an effective way to prevent interracial couples from marrying.This is simply false. Maryland is believed to be the first colony to ban interracial marriage, in 1664, from Archives of Maryland, 1:533-4: An Act Concerning Negroes & other SlauesNotice that even this law doesn't actually prohibit such interracial marriages; it only puts severe consequences on the woman--effectively making her a slave. But Maryland has laws regulating and licensing marriage well before this point, and the language is clear that the objective is unrelated to slavery or interracial marriage. For example, this 1640 statute at Archives of Maryland 1:97: An Act touching MarriagesThis 1658 law at Archives of Maryland, 1:374, seems to be the first that involves the government issuing a specific license or "certificat" authorizing a marriage: An act for the Publication ofOf course, Christian Europe has had a system of regulation of marriage since at least the second century, intended to prevent invalid or illicit marriages. "Reading of the banns" was a practice started in the twelfth century, by which the community was informed at church that a particular couple planned to marry--so that if anyone knew a reason why the marriage should not happen, they could confidentially state the reason. Obviously, one problem would be if the bride or groom was already married, but the problem of consanguinity was also an issue--especially because it was not unknown for people to be born "on the wrong side of the sheets" (as illegitimacy used to be called in Britain), and not know who their actual father was. The Church had become increasingly concerned about this in the medieval period; read here for a tremendously complex discussion of the hows and the whys, especially if you are having trouble sleeping. Not surprisingly, in a society where state and church were one and the same, the government was naturally involved in regulating marriage. Tuesday, February 07, 2006
Sometimes, Courage And Being Right Are Enough Sometimes you aren't properly armed for the situation, but you don't feel like you have any choice in the matter: WARNER ROBINS - Cres Dorough was sound asleep when the screams of his 21-year-old daughter propelled him out of bed and into the living room where he tackled an armed intruder.I don't encourage attacking armed intruders, but it is worthwhile to note that the bad guys obviously believed that they had more to lose by using their guns than the good guy thought he would lose if he didn't put a fight. This is one of the reasons that so many confrontations with criminals, even armed criminals, work out surprisingly well. The bad guys really don't want to draw attention to themselves by firing a gun (which usually causes the neighbors to call the police). There is an asymmetry of desires at work. The bad guys wanted money. The good guy wanted to protect his family. You can tell which desire was stronger. Homosexual Couples: Alternatives to Marriage in Idaho There are a number of claims made for why Idaho should recognize same-sex marriage. One of them is that a married couple has certain rights with respect to hospital visitation and taking care of financial affairs. Well, guess what? You don't need to be married for this. Click here to download the Idaho Durable Power of Attorney form specifically for health-related questions. The Idaho Attorney-General's office has a web page discussing how to do this, and you will see that there's nothing preventing same-sex couples from using this form: Who can I appoint to be my Health Care Agent?The law changed last year so that you no longer even need to have the form notarized. So what happens if you are just passing through Idaho with your partner, and get into a traffic accident? What if I have a living will that was created in a state other than Idaho?What about financial matters? Idaho (and I presume every other state) has something called a "durable power of attorney" which provides for one person to take care of the financial affairs of another--and there's no requirement that you be married to that other person. Yes, you now have two forms to fill out, instead of getting married. But if this seems like a hassle, you don't realize that getting married isn't exactly free of paperwork. When I got married in 1980 in California, my wife and I both had to get blood tests. We had to provide birth certificates. We had to go to the city hall (or perhaps the West Los Angeles county courthouse--can't remember now) and fill out at least one page for the marriage license. Now, there are certainly other benefits to being married--but aside from the tax issues, most of these are pretty easy to take care of without governmental recognition of your marriage. Remember that straight people have been living together for several decades now, and have had to figure out ways around the traditional structure. What Happened to the WMDs? What troubles me is how little coverage this is getting. This is one of the major news stories of the year--and the news media are ignoring it. Guess why? The House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence is studying 12 hours of audio recordings between Saddam Hussein and his top advisers that may provide clues to the whereabouts of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction.You remember that I mentioned that Hussein's vice air marshal (number two in the Iraqi Air Force) says that the WMDs were flown and driven to Syria? Well, the news story mentions him, also: Mr. Hoekstra has already met with a former Iraqi air force general, Georges Sada, who claims that Saddam used civilian airplanes to ferry chemical weapons to Syria in 2002. Mr. Hoekstra is now talking to Iraqis who Mr. Sada claims took part in the mission, and the congressman said the former air force general "should not just be discounted." Mr. Hoekstra also said he is in touch with other people who have come forward to the committee - Iraqis and Americans - who claim that the weapons inspectors may have overlooked other key sites and evidence. He has also asked the director of national intelligence, John Negroponte, to declassify some 35,000 boxes of Iraqi documents obtained in the war that have yet to be translated.This gets worse. Sada isn't the only one giving information about the WMDs--and it appears that our intelligence agencies are refusing to pursue this: He added, "Right now, it's not my job to investigate the specific claims. We are doing this a little with Sada. But we still don't fully understand what happened in Iraq three years after the invasion, three years after we control the country. There are enough people coming to the committee, Sada is not the only one, saying, 'you really ought to look under this rock.' This gives me cause to take up the issue again."I can't figure out if the problem with the intelligence agencies is that their political motivations are driving this (remember that CIA has long been a hotbed of liberal intellectuals, which explains why they missed the collapse of the Soviet Union--see Harry T. Rositzke's Managing Moscow for an example of this), or if it is simple incompetence. The Jawa Report points out that just because these recordings indicate that Iraq had WMDs does not mean that they actually had them. As I pointed out in September of 2003: Fox News this evening interviewed a Newsweek reporter named Weisskopf who said that it appears that it may not have been that Hussein was misleading the rest of the world, but that the heads of some Iraq's WMD programs were misleading Hussein! Why?A Time magazine article of the time (which has, unfortunately, gone into the "premium content" zone) pointed out: Saddam's underlings appear to have invented weapons programs and fabricated experiments to keep the funding coming. The Mukhabarat captain says the scamming went all the way to the top of the mic to its director, Huweish, who would appease Saddam with every report, never telling him the truth about failures or production levels and meanwhile siphoning money from projects. "He would tell the President he had invented a new missile for Stealth bombers but hadn't. So Saddam would say, 'Make 20 missiles.' He would make one and put the rest in his pocket," says the captain. Colonel Hussan al-Duri, who spent several years in the 1990s as an air-defense inspector, saw similar cons. "Some projects were just stealing money," he says. A scientist or officer would say he needed $10 million to build a special weapon. "They would produce great reports, but there was never anything behind them." Labels: Iraqi WMDs Global Warming I wish that there was a bit more information in this news story--for all I know, this Russian astronomer is making his predictions from reading Nostradamus: ST. PETERSBURG, Russia, Feb. 7 (UPI) -- A Russian astronomer has predicted that Earth will experience a "mini Ice Age" in the middle of this century, caused by low solar activity. Labels: global warming Monday, February 06, 2006
Idaho Marriage Amendment It passed the Idaho House of Representatives. As I mentioned last week, this isn't exactly the text that I would want. I would prefer simply reserving the power to define marriage to the voters, or the legislature. Still, I can't imagine a circumstance that would require the legislature to revise the definition of marriage as "one man, one woman" that is likely to come up in the near future. UPDATE: The vote was 53-17, and predictably, all but one of the 13 Democrats voted against it. (Yes, we do have Democrats in the Idaho legislature.) Bryan Fischer reports that the Republicans "No" votes came from representatives Jana Kemp of Boise (Dist. 16), Janet Miller of Boise (Dist. 17), Bob Ring of Caldwell (Dist. 10), Kathy Skippen of Emmett (Dist. 11), and Tom Trail of Moscow (Dist. 6).If you live in their district, you might want to let them know how you felt about this, and suggest that if they want to sit in a legislature and argue for same-sex marriage, they might want to move to Canada. Again quoting from Bryan Fischer: This means that the next step is for this bill to be heard in the Senate State Affairs Committee this Friday, February 10 in the Gold Room (4th floor of the Capitol) at 8 AM.I wouldn't be too overconfident of it passing--we lost last time in the State Senate. Here's a list of the Republicans who voted against this amendment last session: John Andreason, Boise (Dist. 15)You might want to call them up and remind them that a statute isn't enough, if the Idaho Supreme Court decides to behave as badly as the supreme courts of Hawaii, Vermont, and Massachusetts, and recognize that there is a constitutional right for same-sex couples to marry--or for that matter, a man and three women to marry, or three men, one woman, and Lester's pet goat. Any argument that makes same-sex marriage a constitutional right applies equally to polygamy--and it only takes a bit of stretching to make it apply to men marrying ten year old girls, or Lester's pet goat. Click here to get contact information for your legislators. Click here for a map that lets you find out which district you are in. Labels: polygamy |
