Author: Tony

I’m free!

It’s time for one last update (for now) on jury duty.

I have no idea how I would’ve done under examination for either side’s attorneys during voir dire. I didn’t get that far. Within an hour I managed to get myself excused from involuntary servitude service. I even managed it with the truth. (Some of you know the easy claim I had.) I didn’t have to get into any bizarre scenarios of shouting down The Man, bolting for the door and outrunning the bailiff to live strong in my principles. I talk a good game, and I’m willing to walk it, but I’m not stupid. Lose the battle but win the war is a common refrain. I’m inclined to win both, when possible. Yesterday, the winning the former was easy.

That said, the case would’ve been interesting, I think. I don’t know of any restrictions on saying what I know of the case for which I was considered, but I’ll just say that it was a criminal case involving wire and mail fraud. I would be intellectually inclined to explore that as a juror, but under mutually-agreed terms. My complaint is not about being a juror or the burden imposed by that possible occupation. It’s only the terms.

**********

In thinking about the case as the judge explained it, I tried to imagine a libertarian argument against my ability to be impartial in this particular case. I could think of none. And pondering the general topic of mail and wire fraud, I had a minor insight.

I tend to the libertarian view against hate crime legislation. It’s easy to think of it as thought crime. Although the general concept is still important to remember, I’ve learned that such a view is far too simplistic. Intent can (and probably must) matter.

With what little I know about wire and mail fraud, I can think of two basic scenarios. The defendant is either a crook or a bad business person. Beyond being immoral to prosecute the latter, it would also be complete folly given the prevalence of that in the marketplace. If a transaction was built on trust in everyone involved, from customer to business to suppliers to […], it’s possible for the chain to be broken for unexpected reasons.

But it’s also possible to realize that the same result can occur from different intentions. If a business person fails to deliver because his supplies never arrived, we expect the customer to seek restitution in civil court. If the business person never intended to deliver because he never purchased supplies, we consider that fraud, which we prosecute as a crime. Same result, different response.

As Kip argued in this chain, I’m inclined to accept the idea that an assault may be punished differently based on the offender’s intent.

Another benefit from forced duty.

My pregnant sister-in-law’s water broke last night, so I’m going to miss the family gathering surrounding the birth of my niece today by approximately 12 hours. If she’s lucky, my niece can have the same opportunity should she dare to exercise her constitutional right to vote in 2026.

Have I mentioned that I’m in favor of professional jurors, individuals who would be competent and paid a market wage to voluntarily work?

Who wants to post bail for me? The $40 won’t be enough.

To review:

Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.

That’s the 13th Amendment to the United States Constitution. Tomorrow, my government intends to violate that amendment by requiring me to report for jury duty under threat of fine and/or imprisonment. It has charged me with no crime. It has convicted me of no crime. Yet I am being forced into involuntary servitude. I must accept the revocation of one liberty to avoid the revocation of another liberty. This is supposedly my duty in exchange for exercising my Constitutional right to vote. That is immoral.

I love the United States Constitution. Tomorrow appears to be the day I finally grasp that my country does not.

Denial versus Rejecting Sociological Science Experimentation

Filling in for Andrew Sullivan, Jim Manzi writes about conservatives and science:

The debate about evolution is a great example of the kind of sucker play that often ensnares conservatives. Frequently, conservatives are confronted with the assertion that scientific finding X implies political or moral conclusion Y with which they vehemently disagree. Obvious examples include (X = the Modern Synthesis of Evolutionary biology, Y = atheism) and (X = increasing concentrations of atmospheric CO2 will lead to some increase in global temperatures, Y = we must implement a global regulatory and tax system to radically reduce carbon emissions). Those conservatives with access to the biggest megaphones have recently developed the habit of responding to this by challenging the scientific finding X. The same sorry spectacle of cranks, gibberish and the resulting alienation of scientists and those who respect the practical benefits of science (i.e., pretty much the whole population of the modern world) then ensues.

In general, it would be far wiser to challenge the assertion that X implies Y. Scientific findings almost never entail specific moral or political conclusions because the scope of application of science is rarely sufficient. In fact, for the two examples that I provided, I have tried to show in detail that X does not come close to implying Y.

This maps to the circumcision debate perfectly. Too many advocates against medically unnecessary, routine circumcision of male children make the exact same fallacy. Many Americans, with the unquestioning aide of nearly every mass media outlet, has already made the connection: X = voluntary, adult circumcision reduces the risk of HIV infection, Y = we must circumcise all males, adult and child, willingly or unwillingly. We’re losing intellectual ground that need not be ceded.

Regardless of what advocates for the rights of children as individual human being state, the battle for X in the example above is already lost. It will be lost for a generation or more. That does not mean X is true. But to pretend that we’re going to win through mere denial is counter-productive. It’s possible to qualify any such recitation of X with a challenge to possible methodological flaws, for example. That should be done. It’s just not going to change the public perception that X is true.

The key, as Mr. Manzi demonstrates, is that any validity in X does not require Y. This is our strength. Logic demands that we leave healthy children intact. Individual rights demands that we leave healthy children intact. Medical ethics demands that we leave healthy children intact. Easy access to condoms demands that we leave healthy children intact. Until the child can consent or needs medical care, his (and her) healthy body is the only proof we need that proxy consent must be limited.

The facts are what they are. We cannot change that, to the extent that the findings are valid. Although it’s useful to remind anyone who misinterprets the scope of those findings that all benefits from genital surgery on healthy children are merely potential, with a very low likelihood of ever being necessary, we do not need to change that. Every study surrounding HIV and male circumcision already involves the two key components we need to demonstrate our case: voluntary and adult. Going beyond those two words requires our reason and intellect to figure out the appropriate application of those facts. We must demand that society use them.

Empty promises are a political guarantee.

Today’s column from Charles Krauthammer examines the messianic fervor surrounding the Obama campaign and how those promises of hope and change may ultimately be empty. It’s an interesting, if not terribly original, column. I think he hurts part of his supporting argument by ignoring the difference between American and Canadian politics, as well as the difference in time periods between Sen. Obama and Prime Minister Trudeau. Still, he’s effective in raising the correct basic questions.

His conclusion:

Democrats are worried that the Obama spell will break between the time of his nomination and the time of the election, and deny them the White House. My guess is that he can maintain the spell just past Inauguration Day. After which will come the awakening. It will be rude.

I agree, because our government is set up in order to create that reality. And I hope it happens when Sen. Obama is inaugurated. It can’t happen fast enough, given the conflict-avoidance we have now in Congress to the advancing hostilities of the Bush administration.

Of course, willful partisan blindness is not unique to Obamaniacs. For Mr. Krauthammer: In the face of all the evidence from the last seven years, how much would it help if the Bush dead-enders would come to the same rude awakening he expects of Obama’s supporters?

**********

I have a minor quibble over how Mr. Krauthammer’s establishes his foundation.

There’s no better path to success than getting people to buy a free commodity. Like the genius who figured out how to get people to pay for water: bottle it (Aquafina was revealed to be nothing more than reprocessed tap water) and charge more than they pay for gasoline.

Leaving aside the silly notion that water is free as most people consume it, the entrepreneur doesn’t see bottled water as selling a commodity. The entrepreneur sells convenience.

When I’m away from home, I need not bring my own water or even my own container. If I have a dollar, I’m freed from carrying either. It also meets my preference for cold water by allowing me to buy it from refrigerated storage, an additional convenience for me, given what I’d have to do to have that when and where I want it.

I have a different example of a free commodity. When I toured Wrigley Field many years ago, I took a pinch of infield dirt. I could clearly get a pinch of dirt almost anywhere. But I wasn’t getting the free commodity. I “purchased” something other than dirt. The mythical benefit that dirt gained by virtue of being placed in a specific plot of land on Chicago’s North Side mattered to me. Value is not always in what a product is, but what’s been added to it, as judged by the subjective preference of the consumer.

We can’t question because it’s for the children.

Speaking about the need for critical thinking in media, here’s another scare story [emphasis mine]:

At least 82 children have died in recent years as a result of playing the “choking” game, a bizarre but increasingly common practice, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

The game, which involves intentionally trying to choke oneself to create a brief high, has been around for years, but it appears to be spreading. …

The deaths identified by the C.D.C. are based on media reports of the game over the past decade, but more than 60 of the deaths have occurred since 2005. The agency says the number of deaths is probably understated, and other experts agree, noting that choking game deaths, which involve accidental strangulation with a rope or belt, often look like suicides.

Anecdotes do not necessarily equal statistics. Did this data comes from a C.D.C. press release? And it’s also plausible that deaths ruled a choking game accident are actually suicides.

I’m not suggesting that kids engaging in this type of activity isn’t serious or that there isn’t a cause for concern. I never heard of this as a kid, but I know others who did. I’m also smart enough to realize that kids are incredibly short-sighted and possess under-developed skills at considering consequences. But going into speculative hysteria will not protect kids.

From the C.D.C. press release the journalist clearly used as the source, two teen deaths linked to the choking game:

Case 1. In February 2006, an adolescent boy aged 13 years came home from school in a good mood and had dinner with his family. He then went to his bedroom to do his homework. Approximately 1 hour later, his mother went to check on him and discovered him slumped in a corner with a belt around his neck. His face was blue. The mother began cardiopulmonary resuscitation while one of the other children called an ambulance. The boy died at a local hospital 1 hour later. No suicide note was found. The county medical examiner ruled that the death resulted from accidental asphyxiation by hanging. In the weeks following his death, multiple teens told the director of a local counseling agency that the choking game had been played at local parties.

Case 2. In April 2005, an adolescent girl aged 13 years was found dead, hanging from a belt and shoelace made into a noose on the door of her bedroom closet, after her brother went to her room to see why she had not come down for breakfast. No suicide note was found. The medical examiner determined that the teen had died at 9:30 p.m. the previous night. After the teen’s death, the family learned that the girl had confided in a cousin that she recently had played the choking game in the locker room at school and that a group of girls at her school had been suspended for playing the choking game.

Both deaths involve speculation. I’m comfortable that the conclusion from case 2 is an educated guess with a high probability of accuracy. I’m not so sure about case 1. It has signals that may be reasonably interpreted as the choking game, but are those signals enough to merit inclusion as a statistic? Even the more solid case 2 raises that question.

Reporting with journalistic caution seems the most appropriate choice here. Reading through the press release and the article suggests only that the latter is a regurgitation of the former. The ability to organize an argument into a concise package is not journalism.

The definition of “semantics” mentions political propaganda.

Here’s a headline from yesterday’s New York Times:

Waterboarding Not Legal Now, Justice Dept. Lawyer Says

I opened the article with a twinge of optimism.

Steven G. Bradbury, the acting head of the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel, seemed set to shake up one of the fiercest debates in Washington today by offering a clear and concise statement about the controversial interrogation technique known as waterboarding, which simulates drowning.

‘’There has been no determination by the Justice Department that the use of waterboarding, under any circumstances, would be lawful under current law,’’ he says in prepared remarks for a House hearing today that were obtained in advance by The Associated Press.

Bradbury proffered all the words necessary to reach the conclusion stated in the headline, but only if you’re anxious to accept the assurance you’re looking for at any hint of its existence. Sadly, Bradbury is not stating that waterboarding, or any other torture technique, is illegal. He left open the government’s option to later make the determination of whether or not current law permits torture. (I weep for my country that I must write that sentence.)

Non-answers like this are a fundamental aspect of politics. The Bush administration is only the current, flagrant example. It is why rules restricting government should be as specific and as clear as possible. Such rules should be as extensive as necessary to prevent any uncertainty.

Only waterboarding three detainees is still three human beings too many. The Bush administration is populated by war criminals. They must be prosecuted. And every excuse-peddler in government who helps to support such crimes must be shown the door.

A hard-hitting question or twenty from journalists wouldn’t hurt, either. Lapping up the Bush administration’s persistent line of crap is damaging.

“They will always disappoint” isn’t exclusively cynicism.

I share Andrew Sullivan’s disdain for Hillary Clinton. Many, many people around the blogosphere are tired of his constant drum-beating on this point. I don’t care how often he raises the topic. His site, his rules. I already agree with him, so I just skim those posts. And while I don’t get his appreciation for Sen. Obama because – as he states – he disagrees with much of Obama’s policy recommendations, I understand his reasoning. But his appreciation for John McCain is simply irrational and not based in facts. He needs a jolt like the newsletters gave him about Ron Paul’s candidacy. Perhaps this is it:

I’m heartbroken. Torture is illegal and immoral whether it is conducted by the military or the CIA. That was McCain’s original position. It appears it is no longer.
…

So McCain reveals himself as a positioner even on the subject on which he has gained a reputation for unimpeachable integrity. …

Read the rest, if you feel compelled. But I’ll point you to what John Cole said. It’s the eyes-open view of politics that realizes that all politicians are merely politicians, no matter what line they sell.

Obfuscation of the Day

New York Governor Eliot Spitzer makes an inarguably incomplete argument regarding the subprime mortgage problem:

When history tells the story of the subprime lending crisis and recounts its devastating effects on the lives of so many innocent homeowners, the Bush administration will not be judged favorably. The tale is still unfolding, but when the dust settles, it will be judged as a willing accomplice to the lenders who went to any lengths in their quest for profits. So willing, in fact, that it used the power of the federal government in an unprecedented assault on state legislatures, as well as on state attorneys general and anyone else on the side of consumers.

I wonder if he gave the essay its title – “Predatory Lenders’ Partner in Crime” – or the Washington Post’s editors added it.

Regardless, the only fact he has correct in his sanctimony is that what he’s selling is a tale. Its height is impressive. I can’t wait to see what he shovels when he runs for Congress or President.

Question of the Day

From A Stitch in Haste, Kip asks a useful question based on the Fifth Circuit Court’s ruling (pdf) that overturned a Texas statute banning the sale of sex toys [emphasis in original]:

Wouldn’t it be nice if, rather than perpetually litigating, re-litigating, appealing, re-appealing, circuit-splitting and certiorari-petitioning the question of what the right to privacy (i.e., sexual substantive due process) does and does not mean, we instead recognized the right of property and simply allowed individuals to buy or rent a plot of land, build or rent a store on it, and sell whatever he pleased, at least to competent consenting adults (i.e., economic substantive due process)?

Indeed.