Author: Tony

“I don’t even need to.”

I agree with almost everything in Andrew Sullivan’s entry titled “Obama’s Cowardice On Marriage”. Marriage equality is not a “far left” position when the core principle is considered. Any dismissal based on such a belief is at least partially an attempt to avoid uncomfortable analysis that might reach an “incorrect” outcome. I’m not as certain that it’s possible to minimize the federal implications of equal rights in favor of federalism given that our reality (14th Amendment, DOMA, etc.) is what it is. But Mr. Sullivan quickly gets to the point of why this “far left” charge is mistaken.

Still, I must qualify my agreement as incomplete because of this:

I should add that Obama’s position strikes me as transparently flimsy. … Marriage is the one issue where Obama is still politically afraid, intellectually vacuous, and a moral coward.

His position is transparently flimsy because he’s a politician and marriage is a “tough” that politicians don’t want to address as long as there are voters who treat equal, individual liberty with the same approach used by children being asked to eat foods they don’t like. I’m loathe to compare politicians to parents because they already act that way too often, but it fits here. Proper parenting involves telling the child that she must eat broccoli instead of the candy she wants. The same applies here. Politicians Leaders must tell voters that some parts of American life are not up for a vote because they involve more fundamental principles of individual liberty. Majoritarianism on issues of how many rights society should respect for certain groups is the nutritional equivalent to liberty of serving only M&M’s for breakfast, lunch and dinner.

But is this really the only issue where Obama is “politically afraid, intellectually vacuous, and a moral coward”? He is a politician, right? As I see it, pandering on free trade to win votes is hardly a sign of bravery, especially when it’s apparent that the only way he will back his pandering with action is if he handcuffs himself too tightly into the position to weasel out of it later. He wouldn’t pander if he trusted voters to support the difficult truth rather than the pleasant lie. And I trust that he understands the value of free trade and the hollowness of his anti-NAFTA rhetoric in Ohio.

As I’ve said before, I think Senator Obama is the least bad of the three two options we now have in this race. That’s not enough for me to vote for him, but I can acknowledge that my analysis suggests his superiority over Senator McCain as the next president. Still, we shouldn’t pretend that Obama is anything more than a politician until he demonstrates a longer string of statesmanship when it’s politically inconvenient.

Note: The title reference is an inside joke.

Baseball and Labor Markets

Numerous Major League Baseball teams have signed young players to long-term deals recently. Yesterday the Milwaukee Brewers signed Ryan Braun to an eight-year, $45 million deal by the Milwaukee Brewers. At under $6 million per season, that’s a bargain if Braun merely puts up similar numbers (.313 with 44 homers and 127 RBI in 153 games) to his first full year in the majors, which he won’t reach until late next week. Baseball contracts are guaranteed, so the contracts to players whose career busts will be a significant mistake (e.g. Pat Burrell’s contract with the Phillies). But the upside is more than defensible.

(Braun is also an interesting example because he developed in the Brewers’ minor league system as a third baseman. His copious errors last year, his rookie season, forced the Brewers to convert him to left field this year. Do 41 games and spring training constitute sufficient evidence that he can be a competent major league outfielder?)

Squawking Baseball discusses the incentives involved :

But there’s another dynamic that is in play here: as more and more players sign these deals, the supply of premium players on the free agent market will continue to drop. That, combined with the growing war chests many teams have already put together, will create excess demand for whatever talent ends up on the open market.

In fact, this has likely already happened in the past few years. Teams have a certain amount of money they can spend on payroll; as revenues rise and each win becomes more valuable, those budgets increase. With a limited supply of free agents, there will inevitably be high demand for some mediocre players (i.e. Carlos Silva).

The real question is this: at what point does the potential reward of becoming a free agent outweigh the risks of turning down $30+ million when you have nothing in the bank? If supply continues to dwindle, free agency may simply become too rational a choice to pass up.

I think that is the real question. This is just basic economics. The intersection of supply and demand fluctuates over time. In the early to middle portion of the next decade, we could see some very interesting outcomes in the baseball labor market. It appears we’re going to see flatter incomes across players, while the players on the high end of the extreme will be distinct solely for their salaries rather than their merits as on-the-field talent.

I assign no judgment to this, of course. Participants on both sides of the baseball labor market are experimenting with new ideas to meet their individual, subjective needs. Good for them. This refining is an outstanding attribute of any free market.

For me, the more interesting questions are how will fans react to this when the results are known rather than speculated, and how will teams react to this reaction? Looking at the Pat Burrell example mentioned above, there was significant praise for then-Phillies General Manager Ed Wade’s decision to sign Burrell for a cheap $50 million after his breakout season. Yet, hindsight has proven that an unfortunate burden on the team for years. (In his defense, Burrell has been spectacular for much of the last calendar year.) Phans have booed Burrell regularly, and the team has since been quite reluctant to invest money in players. Until Chase Utley’s recent long-term deal, the free agent signing of Jim Thome was the lone commitment longer than 3 years.

An apprehension to buy out arbitration and free agent years from Ryan Howard has become a prominent discussion for Phillies phans. His salary jumped from $900,000 last year to $10 million this year, through arbitration. No long-term deal appears likely, for multiple reasons. (Fear, greed, animosity – pick two) But this may not be a bad outcome. Only now does Howard show signs of emerging from his devastating slump to start the season. A player who will predictably inhibit the middle of a team’s lineup for the first quarter of every season is a huge risk. If the Phillies had Howard to a long-term contract in 2006, when he was in his MVP campaign, they would’ve acted before Howard fully revealed the player he would become. That does not necessarily disparage Howard, but it does reveal that teams won’t always have a complete understanding of a player’s developmental trajectory after one year.

Long-term, I suspect we’ll see this trend of locking up players early continue. But I think we’ll see more deals for third- and fourth-year players rather than second-year players. It’ll mean a bit more money to those players, but I suspect the team executives will figure out that the total money paid will change little. Individual commitments will reflect merit more than the current mixture of merit and potential. The NFL rookie salary structure demonstrates the risk involved in offering high rewards for potential rather than long-term performance. I doubt Major League teams will veer much closer to that, or stay as close as a few now appear to be heading.

Via Baseball Musings.

Post Script: I think the Chase Utley deal was the correct move, both then and now. He’s shown in-season consistency and a general improvement over several years. The core indicators for long-term success are there, shining as brightly as they could for any player in baseball.

Bob Barr on Same-Sex Marriage and Federalism

Here is Bob Barr’s statement on the California Supreme Court ruling regarding same-sex marriage:

“Regardless of whether one supports or opposes same sex marriage, the decision to recognize such unions or not ought to be a power each state exercises on its own, rather than imposition of a one-size-fits-all mandate by the federal government (as would be required by a Federal Marriage Amendment which has been previously proposed and considered by the Congress). The decision today by the Supreme Court of California properly reflects this fundamental principle of federalism on which our nation was founded.

“Indeed, the primary reason for which I authored the Defense of Marriage Act in 1996 was to ensure that each state remained free to determine for its citizens the basis on which marriage would be recognized within its borders, and not be forced to adopt a definition of marriage contrary to its views by another state. The decision in California is an illustration of how this principle of states’ powers should work.”

I’m not distracted by the potential implications of Barr’s view of federalism. This isn’t nearly enough to assume he holds the same flawed understanding of federalism espoused by Ron Paul, so I won’t assume that. But, if not for the second paragraph, I might consider such a possibility harder.

About that second paragraph… First, this from The Liberty Papers:

Constitutionally speaking, of course, Barr is entirely correct. If states like New York, New Jersey, and California want to legalize gay marriage, they should be allowed to do so. The problem with the DOMA, though, is that it would seem to be a direct violation of the full faith and credit clause of the Constitution. With very limited exceptions, states are required to recognize the validly passed laws of their sister states, including laws about issues like marriage, adoption, and inheritance.
…

More importantly, though, Federalism simply doesn’t mean the same thing that it meant before the Civil War. The passage of the 14th Amendment, and the Supreme Court case law that has grown from that Amendment, forever changed the relationship between the people, the states, and the Federal Government, and one of the things that changed is the idea that you don’t lose your rights as an American citizen simply because you move from one state to another.

That’s my understanding of this issue. Given how the full faith and credit issue with regard to DOMA is much stickier than just a “leave it to the states” position implies, Barr’s second paragraph is more an indication of how I should evaluate his approach to governing. Is he suggesting that we should behave as if simplicity is sufficient where facts demonstrate complexity? Is the stated intent behind legislation more important than the outcome of (poorly-worded) legislation? Does it matter if the negative consequences of simplifying the complex are predictable?

What Barr wanted to ensure with DOMA is worth discussing, but how he wanted to prevent states from “being forced” to accept valid laws of other states indicates a disagreeable approach to governing.

Do a child’s eyes belong to the child’s parents?

As a thought experiment, consider:

LASIK surgery in children.

AIMS: To report success in the treatment of high myopia in children with LASIK. To report the visual results, complications and postoperative management of children with high myopia. METHODS: Six children (seven eyes) with high myopia were included in this series. Preoperative and postoperative refraction, visual acuity, and pachymetry were compared. RESULTS: Six children with high myopia ranging from -5.00DS to -16DS were treated. There were three males and three females. Five children had improved refraction and visual acuity post-LASIK. Age ranged from 2 to 12 years. Five of the children had unilateral amblyopia preoperatively. One had bilateral high myopia. CONCLUSION: High myopia in children may be treated safely and effectively with LASIK.

Now consider this story, via Amy Alkon:

Most Lasik recipients do walk away with crisper vision, and the American Society for Cataract and Refractive Surgery reviewed studies showing about 95 percent of patients say they’re satisfied with their outcome.

But not everyone’s a good candidate, and an unlucky fraction do suffer life-changing side effects: poor vision even with glasses, painful dry eyes, glare or inability to see or drive at night.

How big are the risks? The FDA agrees that about 5 percent of patients are dissatisfied with Lasik. How many struggle daily with side effects? How many are less harmed but unhappy that they couldn’t completely ditch their glasses? The range of effects on patients’ quality of life is a big unknown — and the reason the FDA help a public hearing Friday as part of its new move.

“Clearly there is a group who are not satisfied and do not get the kind of results they expect,” said Dr. Daniel Schultz, the FDA medical device chief. The study should “help us predict who those patients might be before they have the procedure.”
…

Doctors advise against Lasik for one in four people who seek the surgery, said Dr. Kerry Solomon of the Medical University of South Carolina, who led a review of Lasik’s safety for the ASCRS. Their pupils may be too large or corneas too thin or they may have some other condition that can increase the risk of a poor outcome.

Solomon estimates that fewer than 1 percent of patients have severe complications that leave poor vision.

Should parents have an unchallenged option to choose Lasik surgery for their children for any reason?

Bonus question: Should they have that unchallenged option for only their children of one gender, with the exclusion based on a societal belief such as the (non-)desirability of glasses?

The Best Paragraph I’ll Read Today

Mark at Publius Endures provides the perfect reaction to yesterday’s ruling by the California Supreme Court:

But first – after all the claims of the Religious Right over the last few years that same-sex marriage would destroy marriage as an institution, I’ll admit my commute home from work this evening was filled with fear. Would my wife and child still be home, waiting for me? Would my wife still be wearing her wedding ring? Would my wedding ring begin to fade away, as if it were a photograph in the hands of Marty McFly? By the time I was home, I was in a cold sweat. When I walked in the door, my worst fears appeared to be coming true – my wife wasn’t wearing her wedding ring! I immediately broke down into tears, begging Chri….err, the Ghost of Jerry Falwell for forgiveness. My confused wife then informed me that she had just taken her ring off to take a quick shower. In other words: California now allows same sex marriage, but my marriage didn’t fall apart! Shocking, I know. But also true.

That’s the reality when religious extremists offer their doomsday scenario for the private, religious institution of marriage if the public, civil institution becomes fully equal as an individual right rather than the silly notion of a collective right between only one man and one woman.

The rest of Mark’s analysis is good, too. For example, this is the second best paragraph I’ll read today:

As many libertarians are quick to point out democracy is a means, not an end in itself – democracy without freedom is meaningless; freedom without democracy is not (think Monaco here, for example). Moreover, we do not live in a pure democracy, but in a constitutional republic; a republic which, according to Madison’s Federalist #10 (you knew this was coming), is set up to prevent any one group from gaining dominance over any other group. The constitutional republic that is the United States, and which forms the template for many, even most, state constitutions (including, I think, California’s, despite its bad habit of direct democracy), is specifically intended to prevent the tyranny of the majority. In other words, our system of government is supposed to distrust mob rule every bit as much as it distrusts the rule of a king. Indeed, the authors of the Constitution viewed the legislature as the most dangerous branch of government precisely because it was susceptible to the tyranny of the majority.

Despite its bad habit of direct democracy, indeed. For further consideration, read Ed Brayton’s dismissal of the Family Research Council’s predictably unprincipled response.

**********

With the current discussion of judicial activism, the corresponding arguments about legislative activism (mostly noted by libertarians) are also relevant. Sometimes that activism takes the form of abdication of duty, to the point that it’s probably more appropriate to call it legislative “inactivism”.

I’m on record that legislatures must protect male minors to the same extent that female minors are currently (and correctly) protected from medically unnecessary genital surgery. (Most recently in the comments here.) Many disagree with that, basing their opinion on the traditional and cultural justifications for the non-medical circumcision of male children. Yet, it’s just as much a tyranny of the majority when a legislature fails to act in defense of rights¹. When it stands idly by while rights are violated because the violation is based on tradition, the legislature allows the perceived majority opinion to justify inaction. Just as prohibition based on mob rule may be improper, permission based on mob rule may be improper. The legislature’s approach must be based on first principles of individual rights. Majority opinion does not supersede the rights of the minority, even if that minority is a lone individual.

¹ The Congress intentionally ignored basic human rights principles by invoking a bizarre mental jujitsu to permit continued male genital mutilation during debate on the Female Genital Mutilation Act in 1995. I’m working on a separate entry on this. I’ll update this with a link when I post it.

Judicial activism and Individual Rights

Obviously I think the California Supreme Court’s ruling on same-sex marriage is the correct outcome. I’ll leave the legal analysis of how the Court got there for others to judge. Still, this is an interesting, positive development.

I wish to comment on one factor that will appear in the coming weeks, and will probably quickly grow within the presidential election. Many will claim judicial activism, as if that’s a valid claim. Our courts do not exist to rubber stamp any and every rule a legislature can dream up. Enforcement is the Executive’s job. The Judiciary must interpret. Bowing to the mythical “will of the people” gets us no closer to the truth than waiting for a new constellation to appear in the sky with the correct outcome spelled in the stars.

An Andrew Sullivan reader wrote this to Mr. Sullivan:

…

The decision is an arrogant, impatient one. My gay friends are impatient, and I understand their impatience. But the Court should have trusted the people.
…

It was only a matter of time. A democratic consensus, based on reason and persuasion, is much better for everyone, in all the states, in the long run.

Mr. Sullivan responds with the perfect rebuttal:

Yes, and it has been building. But a republic is not just a democracy. It is a confluence of constitutions, laws, legislatures, executives and courts. In 1948, the California court ruled against miscegenation bans. It took three decades for that act of “judicial activism” to gain consensus nationally.

Exactly. And constitutions are first. Where the laws of the legislature violate that, the courts must reject the laws. Anything else is mob rule.

**********

This fits into the discussion on how civil law should treat medically unnecessary circumcision of male children in America. The procedure is ethically and scientifically flawed. It should not be permitted. Legislatures have already shown an willingness to exclude male children from this protection acknowledged for every other American. Democracy (i.e. mob rule), with a nod to social and religious justifications before individual rights protected by constitutions, should prevail, some say. What parents want is worth defending because altering the healthy genitals of their male children is their choice. It is a right that supersedes the rights of the child, both in individual religious freedom and bodily integrity/freedom from harm.

The political side of the issue is an unprincipled, anti-constitutional mess in America. The concept of individual liberty is lost. The court’s role is to uphold constitutional protections for every individual. It is critical to defend the rights of the minority against the tyranny of the perceived majority. Where tradition and social expectations conflict with individual rights, tradition and social expectations have no merit. The role of the court is to set these legal excuses aside in favor of individual rights. This is not activism.

Courts are not infallible. Yet, as Mr. Sullivan’s example shows, society has a way of catching up to the “activism” of courts, with an eventual understanding that wisdom and logic demanded the outcome. History will show that with same-sex marriage. It will show that with medically unnecessary child circumcision. The former before the latter, but the day for both will arrive.

The ABC of HIV prevention means “Always Be Cutting”?

I don’t know which is more frustrating, stupid “science” articles or the reporting on those articles. Last week, my news world was filled with various regurgitations of this nonsense:

According to a new policy analysis led by researchers at the Harvard School of Public Health (HSPH) and the University of California, Berkeley, the most common HIV prevention strategies-condom promotion, HIV testing, treatment of other sexually transmitted infections (STIs), vaccine and microbicide research, and abstinence-are having a limited impact on the predominantly heterosexual epidemics found in Africa. Furthermore, some of the assumptions underlying such strategies-such as poverty or war being major causes of AIDS in Africa-are unsupported by rigorous scientific evidence. The researchers argue that two interventions currently getting less attention and resources-male circumcision and reducing multiple sexual partnerships-would have a greater impact on the AIDS pandemic and should become the cornerstone of HIV prevention efforts in the high-HIV-prevalence parts of Africa.

Hold off on assessing the validity of such claims. Wouldn’t it be appropriate if they put the two key words – voluntary, adult – in front of male circumcision? That’s all that the studies being cited as gospel looked at. The press release does later invoke voluntary, so I wonder if the omission of adult implies that children consent. Perhaps a look back at past writings from one of the studies authors, Daniel Halperin, might reveal anything:

As Holbrooke noted, circumcision has indisputably been proven to prevent HIV. It reduces the risk of male infection during intercourse by at least 60 percent and, unlike a condom, cannot be forgotten during a moment of passion. Nearly all of 15 studies conducted throughout Africa found that most uncircumcised men would want the service if it were affordable and safe, and even more women prefer it for their partners and children.

Excerpted from Halperin’s essay referenced in my original entry.

How convenient. Even more women prefer it for their partners and children. Regarding the former, I don’t care what influences or reasons adult males use if the decision to undergo circumcision is voluntary. But with the latter, that simply isn’t the case. And how is it sexually relevant to (male) children what their mothers prefer regarding their genitals? (Also notice how nearly all of the studies revealed that most intact males would want circumcision. Contradictory evidence is still evidence.) Obviously I don’t come to this report with any pre-established respect for circumcision promoter Daniel Halperin. But continuing from the new article.

The AIDS pandemic continues to devastate some populations worldwide. In most countries, HIV transmission remains concentrated among sex workers, men who have sex with men and/or injecting drug users and their sexual partners. In some parts of Africa, HIV has jumped outside these high-risk groups, creating “generalized” epidemics spread mainly among people who are having multiple and typically “concurrent” (overlapping, longer-term) sexual relationships. In nine countries in southern Africa, more than 12% of adults are infected with HIV.
…

For example, condom use is widely promoted as an HIV prevention measure and is effective in countries such as Thailand, where the epidemic is spread primarily through sex work. However, studies have found no evidence that condom use has played a primary role in HIV decline in generalized, primarily heterosexual epidemics, such as those in southern Africa, the authors note. This is mainly because most HIV transmission there occurs in more regular sexual relationships, in which achieving consistent condom use has proved extremely difficult.

I want to pound my head on my desk until I can’t think any more. Where HIV transmission occurs, it occurs because the couple is engaging in unprotected sex where one partner is HIV-positive. If a condom is not used, that is not an indictment on condoms as a prevention technique. It’s not even about condom use in a relationship. It’s obviously about unsafe promiscuity. It does not take a genius to figure out that, if behavior remains consistently immune to logic, circumcision will not matter. HIV will spread. The only potential difference under discussion is the rate at which the disease spreads. Have unsafe sex with HIV-positive partners and you will become infected. It may take an extra encounter, but it will occur.

Circumcision also has the potential to encourage “just this once” disregard for safe sex practices. “I’m circumcised, so just this once, I’ll ignore the condom.” How many times will be “just this once”?

Under this focus on the rate, though, the true implication becomes clear. This is best shown in the poor reporting regurgitation of articles like this. For example:

In western Africa, were male circumcision is high for cultural and religious reasons, the prevalence of HIV is low and controlled trials have shown that the operation can stem the rate of infection, said Professor Malcolm Potts, of the University of California, Berkeley. “It is tragic that we did not act on male circumcision in 2000, when the evidence was already very compelling,” he said. “Large numbers of people will die as a result of this error.”

Because we didn’t implement mass circumcision of males in Africa, large numbers of people will die. As opposed to saying that, because many individuals¹ aren’t engaging in safe sex practices, large numbers of people will die? Which is more accurate at portraying a direct cause? Which advocates speculation that can’t be verified? Which is scientific?

Individual actions matter. If We&#153 are going to intervene, we must provide nothing more than the tools for individuals to choose for themselves. Where individuals ignore known risks and engage in dangerous behavior, there will be consequences. Suggesting that we shift from truly voluntary prevention techniques such as ABC (Abstinence, Be Faithful, Condoms) and voluntary, adult male circumcision to involuntary male child circumcision is little more than an indication that We will save Them. Because They do not partake of the known methods to protect themselves as individuals, we must do it for them.

Of course, there’s the giant elephant in the room. “Reducing multiple sexual partnerships” sounds a lot like Be Faithful. So we’re left with only one different approach the authors believe should receive more funding. New articles and studies like this always have the goal² of pushing mass male circumcision, voluntary and involuntary, adult and child. Always.³

¹ I know that the issues of consent in sexual relations are more complicated than assuming every sexual encounter is voluntary and free from any pressure. Conceded. But that does not change the point that involuntary circumcision is not an answer to this problem. Correcting a wrong with a wrong is not valid. Individuals have rights, not collective groups.

² If you look at what the article is saying, you’ll also note that the validity of ABC instead of a collectivist, utilitarian perspective on male circumcision applies to the United States. Our HIV problem is not caused by what circumcision is supposed to protect against. That hasn’t stopped circumcision advocates from promoting (infant) male circumcision in
the United States as a way to reduce the risk of female-to-male HIV transmission.

³ It would require its own blog entry, but I don’t think any of this is some mass conspiracy by any group or profession. A mindset closed to a full set of facts, maybe, but not groups. Still, the point remains: it’s always about circumcision first, even if the stated justification is “public” health or some other goal perceived to be noble.

There is one outcome that can’t be corrected.

Heartland Regional Medical Center in Marion, Illinois had a problem recently where two babies were mixed up after being circumcised. Both sets of parents consented to violating their sons, so there wasn’t much to blog about beyond the obvious point that no one should be surprised at any incompetence found in a hospital that routinely performs unnecessary surgery on the genitals of healthy male children. That alone is sufficient proof of incompetence.

Still, the hospital felt the need to implement solutions to prevent the mistaken identity. If you’re going to violate a child, you should do it as few times as possible, I suppose. Part of the solution:

  • Only one baby, one doctor and one circumcision at a time. …
  • The RN whose mother/baby couplet requires a circumcision will be the same RN who does the time out, accompanies the baby to the surgery and assists the physician with the surgery. That RN is also responsible for band verification and the time out.

Concerning operating room policies, Lang said surgical services must be consistent with needs and resources. Policies governing surgical care must be designed to assure the achievement and maintenance of high standards of medical practice and patient care.
…

Thirty circumcisions a month will be observed for the next four months to insure time outs are performed according to the hospital’s policy and procedure.

Concerning patients’ rights, Lang stated that the patient has the right to receive care in a safe setting.

All that attention, and the only concern for the actual patient’s rights is that the patient has the right to receive care in a safe setting. How about the more fundamental right to receive “care” only when it’s medically necessary and indicated? Is that not a right? Would it be okay to amputate a child’s arms, as long as it’s done in a safe setting? Have rights really regressed to the point that we view a clean scalpel as the ceiling of a patient’s rights?

Does Bob Barr hurt Obama’s chances?

This entry by John Scalzi on Bob Barr’s announcement that he is officially running for the Libertarian Party nomination for president is one of the better takes I’ve read on the prospects of Barr’s candidacy.

But let’s be real, here: the question [sic] not really whether I put Barr ahead of McCain in my voting queue, since I had no intention of voting for McCain in the first place. The question is whether some folks who might otherwise vote for McCain will do so, and whether there will be enough of them to constitute a genuine drag on McCain in the election. …

That’s certainly the case to an extent, but I wonder why no one seems to be talking about the other possibility, that Obama’s vote totals will also fall. I know I’ve encountered libertarians who are considering voting for Obama because they’d never vote for McCain. If they now vote for Barr if he wins the LP nomination, how much will that matter to Obama’s chances? I don’t have the answer, but it’s a question at least as worthy when considering the possibility that McCain is auditioning for a third Bush term. I know of few libertarians who would consider that for a moment, so Barr just isn’t stealing votes from there.

The liberaltarian meme is mostly policy crap designed to push libertarians to embrace a progressive agenda rather than a (classical) liberal approach to government. But it has adherents. How will they vote?

For what it’s worth, the quick link Mr. Scalzi provides to Barr’s policy positions reminds me why I’m very skeptical of Barr. The anti-immigration stance is troubling, at best, but throwing his support behind the Fair Tax as a “well-researched alternative” leaves me cold. Well-researched, maybe, but accurately marketed? Not so much.

It’s time to step into the confessional.

I left the W2 world and became an independent consultant more than four years ago. Professionally, these have been the best four years, although I haven’t gained significant new skills or progressed higher. As an independent, that’s difficult to begin with because you’re hired for a role with a defined boundary. It’s possible to get more, of course, but you have to be proactive because no one is pushing from behind, or pulling from above. (Pick one.) I wasn’t overly proactive in the roles I had because I didn’t want to be.

I like that, personally. I jumped out of the W2 world because I’m not interested in the “Up or Out” career path. Lateral moves are fine because I like the behind the scenes tasks and mental challenges. Digging in code to find mistakes suits me much better than managing people who will dig in code.

Blogging is a perfect example of this. You don’t see me on YouTube and only a select few of you even know my full name. I don’t blog anonymously because I’m ashamed of my ideas. I just like my ideas more than I care for accolades. There is also the desire to block out my professional life from Rolling Doughnut, although I clearly give enough personal information that anyone who knows me even remotely could place the two together.

Before I go too far on this tangent, let it suffice that I like the mind more than the mouth. That’s probably the most pithy-yet-accurate way to assess my interests. It’s why I intend to be a professional writer at some point. I’m working on it. but I’m not ready. Not because of my words. I know I’m good enough there. I’m still looking for the entryway into a published gig, but that’s also not the problem. More on this in a moment.

This has been the long way of saying that I finished up my last consulting project in April 2007. I took a little bit of time off because I could. And then I took a lot of time off because I couldn’t find a new role. I had a few leads that seemed to die right before fruition. I had another that died a very strange death, though hindsight left me unsurprised. (This is the role that allowed me to buy my MINI before I should have. Rather than a dearth of intelligence, it was an overabundance of faith. Lesson learned.)

So, bottom line: the $40 I earned for my day of jury duty is my sole income in the last 13 months. Don’t fret for me because I saved well enough in the preceding years. I haven’t had to sell blood or possessions or cancel luxuries like Netflix. My mortgage is not delinquent, and my revolving credit card balances are $0. Nor should you read this as an indictment of the economy. I am not caught in that, directly. (Indirectly, probably.) There are market forces at work in my industry that started long before trouble in the economy. I won’t bore you with details.

Unfortunately, and perhaps usefully instructional, I must redirect my career in the short-term. I’ve accepted a W2 position. I can’t say I’m overjoyed at the prospect. The opportunity is good because, apart from providing income (!), I will learn new software skills. My software methodology skills are excellent and will always be marketable, but as good as my software skills are, they won’t be marketable forever. Creative destruction is at work. I can’t champion capitalism and not expect to get the (alleged) short end of it. But apart from having to go back to being an employee, calling this the short end would be nothing more than whining that change happens. No, thanks.

Now, back to writing. As I mentioned, that’s where I want my career to go. I’m already working in that direction. But I learned something in the last 13 months. I’m scared. I know I can write, but I don’t know if I can write professionally. While I had free days and nights to toil away at making the blank page not blank, I surfed the Internet. I blogged, which is useful, but not completely. I played video games. I watched television. I did everything but write.

Before I convey too much self-loathing, I’ve enjoyed the last 13 months like no other time in my life. I bought a year of retirement and it was wonderful. I loved not reporting to anyone for anything. I learned not to apologize for being who I am. I learned that I could explain a 13 month absence from the workforce and not feel the least bit of concern for how that truth is received. That will be useful.

I also learned I could live on less money than I thought. I learned where I need to focus my pursuits to be the kind of happy I want. A friend of mine is also unemployed right now. He is a workaholic. I can’t imagine how much the time off is messing with his head. I have no such misfortune. Not because I don’t like to work, but the work matters more than working. And 13 months of being disengaged taught me that in a way I didn’t comprehend before.

What does this all mean? First, the obvious. Blogging here is going to be disrupted for a bit while I readjust to a structured schedule and my new employer. I haven’t posted in a week and I’m telling you that when I have somewhere to go every day, I’ll have to figure out how to make this work. Duh. Seriously, though, Rolling Doughnut isn’t going anywhere. Without it, I wouldn’t have written more than 100,000 words on circumcision in the last three years. That matters to me.

Second, my blogging will probably change a little once I’ve readjusted to having a job. I want to write for publication. I’m interested in policy questions and political theory, for example. I also have a book on circumcision tumbling around in my brain. It needs to get out.

But I also want to write fiction. I have no idea if I can write a novel worth publishing. That can no longer deter me. I listened to that for the last 13 months. Years, really, but I can’t excuse away the last 13 months. I had the time. I have the ideas. The two must meet. Again, I don’t know how to do this, but I will in the coming weeks and months. Perhaps I’ll write nothing but shit. Probably I will. But I can’t edit the blank page.

Finally, as to my career, it bums me out a little. I love the freedom that comes with being independent. The money is great, sure, although Congress takes away much of that gain directly through taxes and indirectly through stupid policies like incentives for employer-based health insurance. But dictating when I take a vacation, within professional bounds, is better than asking. Not worrying about accumulated vacation time is also nice, even though vacation was just unpaid time off. That’s a better-than-fair trade in practice.

Still, I’m not worried. I’ll get back to independent eventually. Not in the short-term because my reputation in my industry is important, so I’m not going to screw over my new employer by treating them as a place-holder. However, it would be silly for anyone to assume I’ll eventually retire from this company. Until then, I’ll learn new skills while providing a valuable service in return for a paycheck. As much as I love independence, I’m not interested in losing my house.

I’ll probably return to independent consulting. But maybe not. I’m going to attempt to pull off a writing career. I doubt I’ll make as much money if when I become published, but I don’t care. The money didn’t drive me before, I thought, but I was wrong. It did. Through the last 13 months, it doesn’t now, at least not to the same extent. Not being able to spend money frivolously has been frustrating. I get the urge to spend just to spend. But material things don’t hold the same sway over me now. I need less. (Last night I went to Best Buy to celebrate my new job with a minor shopping spree. I spent $10 on the new Jason Mraz cd. Hey, big spender.)

That’s what’s up with me, and what will be up with me in the near future.