Gower Talley

Grandpa Saw it All

Sun, 19 Mar 2006 15:45:01 GMT

When we think about the passage of time and changes in the human condition, we most often see it as a slow methodical march. We see the past inching forward, gradually becoming the future. We see a slow movement from the way things were � step by step - inching toward the way things are. We often use the clich� "the slow march of progress" to describe this seemingly glacial movement.

A little historical perspective will show us that this isn't true at all.

My Grandfather, Leonard Duane Talley, was born in 1903, and he passed away in 1997. My grandfather saw everything that we understand to be modern or technological come into being. Grandpa saw an increase in the standard of living of average people that was absolutely unprecedented. The changes that happened in his single lifetime were the most dramatic and remarkable in the history of the world. In a manner of speaking, my grandfather saw it all.

When my grandfather was born, the principal form of locomotion was animal power. At age twelve, my grandfather was the head of a large farm household. He farmed every day by hitching the team (of horses). My grandpa used agricultural methods that would not have been considered especially advanced by the ancient Egyptians or Romans. Until age 15, my grandfather had never moved any faster than an animal could carry him. Neither had his father, his father, or his � back for thousands of years. At age 15 Grandpa bought a Model T Ford � traveled at a rate of 45 miles an hour - and made a quantum leap past his ancestors.

When Grandpa wanted to light a room in the evening, something had to be burned. Grandpa's oil lamps would not have technically overwhelmed the builders of the Parthenon. Edison's creation of a workable electric light bulb had only happened 26 years before grandpa got here. It would still be several years before electric homes were common in the rural Midwest. Yet in his later years, my grandfather, like most of us, owned many devices that used lasers.

The first long distance phone connection was established in 1884 (only 19 years before Grandpa's birth) yet before grandpa passed away, he and I talked; he in Illinois, me in Europe and the call was digitally bounced off an object in space.

The concepts of computers didn't exist in any significant form until my grandpa was in his 40s (as a part of the WWII Manhattan Project). Yet my grandpa's final bank account was managed using the Internet.

The very year my grandfather was born, the Wright Brothers made their famous first flight in Kitty Hawk North Carolina. A mere 66 years later, my grandfather and I watched men fly to and walk on the moon. We went from the first - single person flight on a wooden and canvas craft constructed with bicycle parts to computerized space flight � landing people on another celestial body and returning them safely home � in only 66 years.

So you see my friends, every thing we have, the comforts that we couldn't live with out, our society and our technology � our medicine, our communication, our transportation and our prosperity - are not the result of a slow methodical march through history. Everything was quite the same � for literally thousands of years. And then, all of a sudden, in a historical blink of an eye � everything changed. We went from an agrarian society dependant upon animal power to scrape an existence from the earth to a technological people capable of space travel in the span of one human lifetime. I do not mean to say that there was no progress at all throughout the millennia, but an ancient Egyptian transported 5000 years into the future to the 1600s would be subject to far less culture shock than an American of the early 1800s would that he were transported a mere 200 years forward into the United States of today.

The question here is why. And perhaps more importantly � why now? Why has this remarkable period of progress just taken place? Athens was every bit as advanced as colonial New York. Why were there no electric lights in the Parthenon? No city in the world of the 1700s was as advanced as Rome of 200 B.C. Why didn't gladiators fight on motorcycles? Why couldn't Caesar visit the outlying provinces on his private aircraft? Why has this century or so of incredible progress just happened now?

I believe that there is a one-word answer to all these questions. That word is freedom. Until very recently (from a historical perspective) the world believed in the divine right of kings. Up until only a few generations ago, every poet every painter, every scientist, architect, every builder, every creator of every type worked to fulfill the vision of some nobleman, emperor or king. The great 15th century painters and scientists we know of today � we have records of not because of their great creations. We know who these people were in large part because of the importance of their patrons. If the king didn't like or understand your work � it had no value. And obviously, these noblemen/patrons were not perusing progress for its own sake � they were seeking their own glory. If you were cutting edge and the king didn't understand your work � your work was disregarded. There is no way to know how many things and ideas have been invented, discarded and reinvented hundreds of times over the years because the ruler wasn't impressed. If one's discovery proved the king's beliefs on the subject wrong� well history has often had special rewards for those who sought to correct conventional wisdom. Galileo recanted his discoveries to save his life.

If you will look carefully, you will see that the concept of excellence for it's own sake, the idea that people could, and in fact should pursue their own agenda for their own benefit, the idea that the principal unit of sovrenty is the individual human being, all these ideas are very new indeed. Freedom � the ability of each human to focus on what is best for themselves and their family � is the basis for all we have and is the basis for this remarkable period of progress. This type of freedom, that which is so critical to our way of life and which we take so much for granted is (from a historical perspective) brand new. The freedom that has existed in the human heart since the beginning of humanity had existed as a way of life only as long as the Great American Experiment. If you will look, you will see that almost all great 19^th and 20^th century creations came either from the United States or from some country that followed our successful example and converted to a U.S. type government based on individual freedom. Show me the great innovation created inside a monarchy. Point to the greatest contribution to the progress of the world created inside a communist or socialist country.

A tiny impoverished backwater English Colony became the greatest Nation State ever to exist on the planet Earth in just a few short generations because of this freedom. Not only has almost everything new been created here or because of what we did here, but through this freedom - we Americans have achieved a material prosperity undreamed of a century before. We have the largest total Gross Domestic Product in the world by far. We have absolutely no competition in that statistic at all. Even if you look at per capita GDP (GDP divided by population) we are second only to Luxembourg, an old money principality with about the population of Oklahoma City. No nation even joins us on the per capita GDP top ten list with a population greater than New York City. The first major industrial Nation on the per capita GDP list other than the United States is Japan, who at #14 has a per capita GDP a full 31% less than the U.S.

We have to continually redefine the terms "hunger" and "poverty" for them to have any meaning here at all. No one starves in the United States. No one. The United States Department of Agriculture has defined "living in hunger" as missing more than one meal a month. (I miss several meals a week just because of work and scheduling � the Department of Agriculture would count me as part of the "Americans Living in Hunger" statistic) Statisticians fiddle with the poverty line every year to keep it from going completely away. No longer does "poverty" mean lacking basic life necessities. There are people "living in poverty" in the U.S. who own two cars, their own home and a big screen T.V. The Department of Agriculture lists the greatest health problem among children living in poverty in the U.S. as obesity!

Do you have any idea how amazing this is to the rest of the world? Do you know that the average household income of an American who lives below the poverty line is greater that the average household income of any person living in Paris?

There was a joke in Soviet controlled Eastern Europe about our standard of living. It goes something like this � America: the only place in the world with fat poor people.

Incidentally � I am not saying that there is no need at all in the United States. Drug abuse, mental illness, illegitimacy and poor decision-making - take their toll here as elsewhere. My point is that in the United States, need is almost never based on lack of opportunity. My point is that two parent households (where both parents completed the free secondary education available to them, where neither parent has a criminal record and neither parent abuses drugs) who cannot find the means to scrape together life necessities -long term- are so rare as to be statistically non-existent.

The absolutely wonderful thing about our prosperity is that we have not achieved this greatness at the expense of any other nation. We take nothing and we give much. That which has made us great is free for the taking to any nation who would take it. Any country in the world could have what we have if they would only do what we do. Many nations have taken freedom, and have joined us in this incredible prosperity. Other nations confused the prize as being our wealth � missing the fact that freedom created our wealth. Some of these nations have challenged us militarily � seeking that wealth. These nations we defeated militarily � yet we did not conquer. After defeating these nations, we freely gave them the true prize � one they did not even understand that they were seeking. Today, countries such as Germany, Japan and the countries of the former Soviet Union join the family of free nations � creating prosperity for themselves that their grandparents could never have imagined.

No monarchy has ever created such innovation or such wealth. No socialist or communist country ever created such a high minimum standard of living. It appears that we have stumbled upon the right formula. Perhaps more accurately � a group of people 200 years ago stumbled on the right formula and gave it to us as a gift. That gift was freedom � accompanied by a governmental form with specific limits. We are a very young country � but we have the oldest continually used Constitution on the planet. (Dozens of other countries have used our Constitution as the basis for developing their own.) Our Constitution is not a list of goodies that government will provide for us. This wouldn't have occurred to our countries founders. Our Constitution is a detailing of the structure of our government and a list of specific limits on that government. The limits are the key. Government is not omnipotent here. The true power lies in every individual. The key to our success is freedom � first, last and always. Freedom has brought us to where we are. Our government and our constitution exist only to provide structure to that freedom.

So what now? As of this writing I have a two-year-old daughter. What if her granddaughter sits down to write about her? Will she see the world of her grandmother as impossibly poor and primitive � or will she look back 100 years and see very little change, or even maybe even a decline. That, my friends, depends in large part on us. Will we remember how we got to where we are? There is a growing tendency to want to trade our freedom for some imagined minimum level of government guarenteed material security. It is an easy thing to consider for people who have never known anything but freedom. This tendency scares me. This tendency scares me because in the history of the world it has never worked. Those who would trade freedom for security eventually have neither. Our freedom comes complete with the right to choose to do the wrong thing and fail. Protecting people from their own poor decisions would require that we take their freedom to succeed away from them. Too many Americans would make that bargain. They have no idea of what they would give up. The have no frame of reference for this decision. They have never been without freedom � they do not know what it means to live without freedom. Perhaps we should ask people in former Soviet Georgia or the Iraqi Kurds if they wish to trade their new freedom for their old security, their old guarantees. Freedom seems to mean more to those who had to earn it themselves.

Life has shown me that through the pursuit of excellence, security is assured, but in the pursuit of security, excellence is impossible. Our history is replete with figures who risked tomorrow's lunch for the chance, just maybe, to achieve greatness. We must not forget how they achieved their successes. All achievement comes with risk. If we demand to be completely insolated from risk � we are offering to give up our chance to achieve. This is not a trade I will make.

If we can remember the lessons of liberty given to us by this country's founders, if we can retain our spirit of adventure, if we teach these lessons to our children, then just maybe my great granddaughter will be writing about us while she is on vacation on another planet. If she remembers these lessons, if she seeks excellence for its own sake, if she takes joy in life � just because � and if she, in turn, teaches these lessons to her children, then perhaps she will lead her children and their children, to the stars.

Gower

If ye love wealth greater than liberty, the tranquility of servitude greater than the animating contest for freedom, go home from us in peace. We seek not your counsel, nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you; May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen.

�Samuel Adams

"The Constitution only gives people the right to pursue happiness � you have to catch it your self"

- on a Hershey bar wrapper.

Robed American Emperors

Sat, 09 Jul 2005 16:47:08 GMT

The (extra constitutional) Evolution of the Role of the U.S. Judiciary

I believe that the Constitution of the United States is the most important and most remarkable document ever written in the English Language (Just for the record � the Holy Bible was not written in the English language). The Constitution of the United States became the foundation for the most powerful, most wealthy and most advanced nation state ever to exist on the planet Earth. We are a relatively young country (in terms of our history) but we have the oldest continuously operating government still in existence in the world. Many believe that when George Washington handed the reigns of power to John Adams � that was the first time that power had peacefully and amiably been passed from one administration to another, in a major country, in the history of the world. Our Constitution is the world�s oldest governing document that is still in effect. Much of the �free world� used our constitution as a model to create their own.

Our constitution is amazing on several levels. Our constitution created the first frame work for �self governance� to ever work. It created a way for a people to govern themselves while addressing the �ternary of the majority issues� that destroy all unregulated democracies. (A �true� democracy is three wolves and two sheep voting on what to have for dinner. In our constitutional republic � those two sheep have rights that can not be taken no matter how the three wolves vote. In our constitutional republic, the majority makes most collective decisions � but the individual is paramount and has rights that are sacred and can not be voted away.)

In my opinion, the three constitutional keys to our successful republic are checks and balances, the separation of powers and the rule of law. We have three distinct branches of government. The role and mandate of each are clearly defined, clearly separated and clearly limited by the constitution.

The legislative branch is the branch that makes law and it is the branch that is most directly responsive the �we the people�. Even in the legislature there are two distinct houses, each with different responsibilities and each accountable to the voters in different ways and at different levels.

The house of representatives is structured to be more directly responsive to the voters. There are many more house members (about 1 per 650,000 Americans), and their terms of office are only two years. The house is designed to do the people�s bidding. You send your house member to Washington with a mission. You get to evaluate job performance every two years.

The senate, on the other hand, represents the states (as opposed to the people directly). There are two Senators per state no matter the state�s population. The term of a senator is six years. The senate is designed to be somewhat less directly responsive to the people. The United States senate is designed to be the greatest deliberative body in the world. A senator is sent to Washington to do what he/she believes is right without facing removal next week because of that decision. While you send your house member to Washington with a mission � you send your senator to Washington with a vision. The house is to be selected because of what they will do � the senate is to be selected because of how they think. This is a function of the difference in the lengths of their terms. The six year term of a senator allows their actions to be evaluated as a set � as a pattern of decision making. A house member�s two year term allows their actions to be evaluated one at a time.

For law to be passed, these two houses must come to a consensus. The people we send to deliberate extensively and the people we send to represent us directly must agree that a prospective law is a good idea before it is imposed on us. The house can not pass laws on a whim because the senate checks the house�s power. The senate can not decide they are smarter that the people and impose laws on us because the house checks the senate�s power. Each house of congress is regulated by the other.

The President of the United States is the chief of the executive branch. He is elected by all the people of the United States through the Electoral College. He has the power to veto laws passed by both houses � placing yet another check on the power of Congress. The President, however, has no power to make law (that power is separate and reserved for the congress). Even the President�s veto power is not unlimited. If the majority support in both houses is great enough (2/3 of each house) the house may then �over ride� a Presidential veto � placing a check even on the president�s power to veto.

Both the legislative and executive branches are ultimately checked at the ballot box. Representatives who do not represent are sent home to seek other employment.

The final check is perhaps the most important one. The rule of law trumps all � and the Constitution is the supreme law of the land. Even if both houses of congress and the President of the United States agree, they may not do something that is unconstitutional. Even the Constitution itself is subject to change � but the process of changing the Constitution is the most safeguarded process in our entire government. A super majority of the legislatures of the several states must agree on a proposed change to the United States constitution. Changing the Constitution is time consuming and complex by design. This process often takes a period of years. The Constitution can not be changed on a whim or in response to a single situation. The Constitution has only been amended 26 times in our entire history.

The uniformed referees of this system are the judicial branch. The judiciary is charged with applying the law to specific situations, applying superior law to subordinate law and ultimately ensuring that the entire system is constitutional. There are the fewest checks and balances applied to the judicial branch because their mandate is the most limited and most clearly defined. They are charged with knowing the law, applying the law and understanding the varying priority of differing types of law so that they can resolve apparent conflicts within the law. They have no constitutional power at all to make law (that power is reserved for the legislature and is subject to the checks and balances we have discussed above). The judiciary is much like officials at a football game. They are all powerful on the field but their only mandate is to use the rulebook that is provided to them. All judgeships are (supposedly) non partisan. The political bent of a judge should not matter at all. Judges are not given the latitude to bring their personal views to work. Judges should not be selected because of their personal beliefs because the constitution does not give the judges an opportunity to apply their personal beliefs.

Our founders considered the judiciary to be the least dangerous branch of government. As such, there are the fewest checks and balances applied to the judiciary. Because our judges are only tasked to interpret and apply the law as it is given to them and that law has already been through an extensive �check and balances� process before it becomes law, our founders sought to insulate the judiciary from the political arena. Most judges are appointed � not elected. Many judgeships are lifetime appointments. Neither Congress nor the Executive branch is empowered to check the power of a judge as it applies to specific rulings. Our elected officials are empowered to write the rule book. The power to �make the call on the field� is in the exclusive purview of the judicial branch. The judiciary is given the rule book, they are given a very narrow and specific mandate to apply the rule book but they are given almost completely unregulated powers in executing their mandate.

We are beginning to discover that this may be the single major structural flaw in our constitution. This may be the Achilles� heel in our entire form of government.

Picture this: You are watching a football game. The quarterback throws a long pass. The receiver catches the ball� five yards completely out of bounds.

Referee: �Good catch � First Down!�

You: �What? He was completely out of bounds!�

Referee: �Yep � that�s right � First down!�

You: �Are you blind? He was completely outside the side line. He knocked over a peanut vender to get the ball! Are you saying he was in bounds?�

Referee: �That�s not what I am saying at all. I really liked that catch. So... for that play only, I am extending the sidelines ten yards that way. The catch is good. Resume play.�

You sit there in stunned silence for a moment. Fortunately, you just happen to have an NFL rule book in your pocket. You begin to thumb through. There is absolutely no provision for moving the sidelines. You even find the section on making new rules. You learn that referees have no power at all to do so. You find that the referee has absolutely no power at all to do what he just did.

Guess what you won�t find in the rule book? You will not find a provision for addressing officials who completely violate or ignore the rules and do anything they want. The book clearly says the referee can not do what he just did. There is not, however, any provision for �what if he does anyway?� This situation did not occur at all to the writers of the rule book. They assumed that people given only the power to enforce the rules would in fact enforce the rules.

This, my friends, is what has happened to the American judiciary. The Judiciary has, and continues to, step far outside its Constitutional mandate. The Constitution clearly and specifically says that Federal and Supreme Court judges may not do many of the things that they have done and continue to do. The Constitution, however, makes no practical provision for checking judges who step far outside their constitutional mandate.

One of the challenges in addressing this issue is that it takes an incredible amount of political courage to oppose judicial power grabs when you philosophically agree with the outcome. For example: Roe vs. Wade is extremely bad and convoluted constitutional law. This has nothing at all to do with whether one is pro life or pro choice. This has nothing to do with whether or not the Supreme Court Justices are pro life or pro choice. The issue here is only whether or not the constitution addresses the issue. The issue here is not �abortion � pro or con� (we aren�t even going to discuss that in this work). The issue here is �whose call is it?�. It takes a lot of political courage to evaluate this issue without wanting your �side� to win. (To the reader: I ask that you have that courage if only for 5 minutes. Forget for a moment whether you are pro choice or pro life. It really has no bearing at all on the issue we are discussing. This is ONLY a discussion of �where within our government does the mandate to make the abortion decision lie�.)

Judges (to include Supreme Court Justices) are not given the authority to impose their own world view on their decisions (those powers are reserved for the legislative and executive branches). Judges are only empowered to apply the rules as they are given to them. Judges are not given the mandate to decide what is good or bad, what they like or don�t like, what they believe or do not. Judges are supposed to tell us only what the law says. They are supposed to do this impartially � even if they personally disagree. They are only referees � not rule makers. When a judge makes a decision � they must show us where in the rule book there decision comes from. My friends, in recent years � this process has become a comedy. Judges have begun to do absolutely whatever they want, for any reason they want. Then � they attempt to feed us some extremely convoluted nonsense, call it the Constitutional justification for their decision and dare us not to see it.

To illustrate this concept � let�s play a little game of �Constitutional Where�s Waldo�. I�ll show you where the Supreme Court found the constitutional basis for Roe vs. Wade. You see if you can find it too. Ready? Here is it:

Amendment IV

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Do you see it? Maybe of you keep looking it will pop right out at you like one of those pictures with all the dots that was popular a few years ago.

Maybe it will help if I give you the hint that the Supreme Court game us. (I still didn�t see it even using their hint � maybe you will). They tell us that we must infer within the constitutional protection against unreasonable searches � a constitutional right to privacy (just for the record � the word privacy does not appear in the constitution). Having established that, it is only reasonable to assume that the right to privacy extends not only to our homes � but to within our bodies as well. Therefore, the right to have an abortion is a constitutionally guaranteed right. Get it?

The obvious flaw in this logic is that it says that anything one does in private is automatically a constitutionally guaranteed right. This logic, carried to its natural extension would include drug use, prostitution and essentially anything that isn�t done in the middle of a public street.

Does this make any sense at all? Of course not � but it doesn�t have to. The Supreme Court decided it was, collectively, pro choice. It chose to legislate from the bench. It made a decision it did not have the mandate to make. Because it did not have the authority to make this decision subjectively (it can only rule on the constitution) it had to make this a constitutional issue. It then thumbed its nose at the rest of the government by producing the absolutely ridiculous constitutional argument we have just discussed. It doesn�t matter if their argument seems convoluted in the absolutely ridiculous extreme because there is no provision for anyone to do anything about it. Because there is absolutely no mechanism to challenge this, Row vs. Wade is now considered constitutional law.

And folks, it just keeps getting better.

Just in case you think our robed kings only jump off the left side of the constitutional cliff, here is one of the more recent pieces of �judicial legislation�:

11 states in our country have classified marijuana as a prescription drug. It is used to treat chronic pain, the side effects of chemotherapy for cancer and glaucoma. From what I have seen, the science of using marijuana as a prescription drug is rather dubious. I believe that the prescription marijuana issue is principally a first step toward legalizing recreational use. I am personally extremely opposed to that. I intend to express my displeasure at the ballot box when I vote for my state level representation. HOWEVER - I am far, far more opposed to the efforts of the federal government to over rule those 11 state governments efforts to do as they see fit. It simply is not a federal call. There is no constitutional provision for the federal government to over rule state governments on this issue. As you may have guessed, the United States Supreme court found a constitutional justification for the federal government to prosecute people who have a prescription for marijuana. Its time for another game of constitutional �Where�s Waldo�. Here is the Constitutional justification for the feds to overrule the states on this issue (maybe you should try squinting this time):

Congress shall have the power to�

� Clause 3: To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;

Yep, there it is folks. The Supreme Court cited the interstate commerce clause as the power of the federal government that gives the federal government the right to over rule states on the medical marijuana issue. �Wait a second,� (you might say), �in all 11 of the states who have this program, the marijuana is grown, distributed and used completely within the state that has the program. In most cases, no money even changes hands. How the heck does this become interstate commerce?� Don�t argue with the Supreme Court when they are legislating from the bench. What do you think you are� a citizen or a voter or something? Remember � the formula is this: 1. The Supreme Court gets to do anything it wants, 2. they have to produce a Constitutional justification, but it does not have to make any sense at all and 3. There is absolutely nothing you can do about it.

As in Roe vs. Wade, it takes a great deal of political courage to oppose the process and the judicial power grab � if you happen to agree with the specific outcome � this time. If we cede the power to the courts to do something we want - we (in effect) remove the checks and balances that were supposed to be constitutionally attached to decisions of that type. When we ask, and allow, the courts to make and enforce a decision because we have not gotten the results we wanted elsewhere in the government, we permanently assign to the courts the right to make that type of decision. This process has already made the courts far more powerful than our founders intended. If we continue on this trend, soon the legislative and executive branches will be reduced to the role of an advisory panel for the judicial branch.

United States Supreme court Justice Ruth Bader Ginzburg has made several comments to the effect that she believes it to be ridiculous to think that a 18^th century document (our constitution) should rule our lives unaltered, in the 21^st century. I would not completely disagree with her statements � if they could be taken at face value. While our Constitution is timeless in design, there have been 26 revisions (the amendments) and I am certain that as we move forward into this new century they will be other necessary amendments that do not even occur to us now. The thing that scares me about Justice Ginzburg�s statements is the implicit part two. Her reference to constitutional change is not referring to the amendment process and the checks and balances associated with it. Justice Ginzburg believes hat she and her peers on the court should have the unchecked power to modify the constitution (based on any criteria she wants � to include foreign law and her personal preferences and whims) before applying the constitution. The issue is not that the Constitution is not ever subject to change � the issue is where the power to change the constitution lies. I believe that one of the most important keys to our entire form of government is the separation of powers. The power to interpret and apply law � and the power to change and modify law does not lie in the same place. Even if and when the constitution requires modification � the power to make that modification does not lie with the courts. That power lies with the people of the United States through their state legislatures � not with nine, unelected judges.

In the next decade we may well replace half of the Supreme Court. Many justices are in their 70s and 80s. As of this writing, Sandra Day O�Conner had just retired and Justice Rehnquist was expected to follow shortly. Many of our elected officials are making a vocation of controlling the make up of the court. Most of these people have political agendas that would never survive the legislative process. These guys see the court as their last hope to enforce their will on the American people. The battle lines have been drawn. Legislators on the political left and right have established litmus tests, based in judicial philosophy, establishing what nominees would be considered acceptable. In recent days, I have been asked who I would support for the court. Believe it or not - I don�t really care. There are dozens of qualified candidates. The Court should NOT be considered a policy making position. All that should matter is that someone is technically qualified for the job. My focus is NOT who gets appointed to the court. My focus is that it matters so much who gets appointed to the court. Rather than lobbying for a specific selection for the Supreme Court � I hope we can re-focus on returning the entire judiciary to its constitutional limits. Doing so is going to take a lot of political guts. People (to include elected private citizens and elected officials) are going to have to oppose Court decisions that the Court doesn�t have the mandate to make � even if they agree with the specific outcome this time. I hope we can find this courage. The long term survival of our republic depends on it.

The Terri Schiavo Case

Tue, 12 Apr 2005 14:28:44 GMT

The Terri Schiavo case has brought to the forefront some of the key questions that surround the right-to-die / euthanasia debate. Before the world forgets about the whole sad case of Terry Schiavo, let�s revisit a few of the key questions that surround the entire issue.

Question One: Is these a quantum difference between �heroic, artificial life support� (combined hart-lung machine, dialysis, artificial blood pressure support and body temp support � essentially keeping fluids moving though an otherwise dead body) and a feeding tube provided to someone who�s only physical malady is an inability to chew and swallow? I believe that there is a clear difference, but that is not to say that someone should not be able to have their feeding tube removed if that is truly their wish.

Question Two: Is there a quantum difference between a �true� vegetative state (in my laymen�s view that would be marked by a long term, flat-line coma with no hope of awakening) and a severely impaired state like Terri�s which is marked by a normal sleep cycle and at least the appearance of responsiveness? I believe that there is a difference, yet that is not to say that anyone should be compelled to exist in any state that they find to be intolerable if it is truly their wish to end their life.

Question Three: Is there a quantum difference between ending the life of someone who is in horrible, untreatable pain from the final stages of an incurable disease and ending the life of someone who, while perhaps severely impaired, is not in pain and not terminal. I believe there is a difference, yet again, that is not to say that anyone should be required to endure anything they do not wish to if they truly wish to die.

Question Four: This is by far the most important question. How do we truly know what someone�s wishes are? How can we really know? How do we determine the actual wishes of someone not able to respond (or for that matter of someone able to respond)? How do we as a people (through our government) execute those wishes? If we have decided that government is going to have a role in implementing the final wishes of United States Citizens in the most final and absolute way possible, how can we be absolutely sure that they are the actual and current wishes of the person involved?

This case that we have been examining as a nation pushed the envelope in all of these questions. Terri was merely being fed. She was demonstrably active at some level; many argued that she was responsive at some level. No one even tried to make the case that she was in any pain and her condition, in and of itself, was not life threatening, let alone terminal. I believe, however, that question four is the key question in the entire Schiavo case. I believe that this case stretched the �how do we know� question to the absolute, ridiculous, extreme.

Terri�s feeding tube was removed solely based upon the (court enforced) wishes of her husband. Terri left no living will or other document detailing her wishes. Michael Schiavo �remembered� two casual conversations with Terri (one after a movie, one after a family funeral) and was successfully able to convince a court that these two hearsay conversations had the legal status of a living will. Terri was killed. I won�t use the euphemism �allowed to die� because she did not die of anything related to her condition � she died of starvation and dehydration and that would have killed you or I just as quickly. Terri was killed because her husband said so. Period.

Philosophically, I support carrying out someone�s final wishes as expressed by their next of kin. The key issue here, however, is that Michel Schievo�s credibility was stretched far beyond the logical ability to take him seriously. The fact that a court was willing to accept his uncorroborated word in a life or death matter escapes me completely

Terri�s husband did not remember his wife�s wish to die until after he had won a seven figure sum from a malpractice jury to pay for her care and rehabilitation. When he was actively seeking the award, he was seeking it for her �care and rehabilitation�. Almost immediately after receiving the award he �remembered� that she would never want to live like this. Michael Schievo became a millionaire at Terri�s death.

Terri�s wish to not live like this was not expressed to anyone other than her husband. Absolutely every member of Terri�s biological family, church family and circle of personal friends testified that she would have never made such a statement.

Michael had a common law wife (other than Terri) and two children from that common law marriage at the time of Terri�s death. He had long previously ceased to act as Terri�s husband yet retained the legal rights as next of kin. Terri�s continued survival (and potential recovery) was a continuing inconvenience and source of embarrassment for Michael.

Please do not misunderstand me. I do not consider these factors to necessarily constitute an indictment of Michael Schiavo. We have no way of actually knowing what was discussed between husband and wife in the privacy of their marriage. Michael might be a skumbag. But then again he may well have fought against all odds to implement Terri�s wishes. Who am I to say? But then again, I don�t have a say in this matter � our courts do. My problem with this issue is far less the actions of Michael Schiavo and far more the actions of our courts. I am far less concerned with the words and actions of Michael Schievo than I am with the ability of one Florida based federal judge to believe him and to then unilaterately make that belief United States national policy. You have been told through the media that this case has been hashed and re-hashed though more levels of judicial discussion than you can shake two sticks at. That is not true. The �finding of fact� (1. Terry is a vegetable and 2. Terri wants to die) was made by a single judge. All subsequent hearings revolved around whether that initial �finding of fact� could be challenged or reevaluated. The answer was always no.

The Florida state legislature, the Governor of Florida, the United States Congress and the President of the United States all directly sought to effect this situation. The final act was the passing of a law that allowed another judge to evaluate the finding of fact (as opposed to being required to accept the original finding of fact and just looking at procedural issues). All these efforts failed. In most cases, the judges just ignored them. Whether or not the state and federal legislature and the Governor and President should have become involved in this is a matter that is open to debate. The fact that they were unable to effect the situation scares the heck out of me. The fact that one appointed judge was able to enforce his will in opposition to the entire body of elected officials representing Terri Schiavo is just one example of the changing relationship between the judiciary and the entire rest of the United States government. (This issue, by the way, will be the topic for a future rationalist paper).

I like to conclude these papers with my solution. In this case I don�t have a good solution. I philosophically believe that people should have control over their own end of life decisions. But with this issue, as with many issues, the devil is in the details. While most believe that people should be in charge of their exit, the final decision (and the action that consummates that decision) is almost always in the hands of others. Even with a living will, (which may be years old at the moment of a serious illness or injury) how can we be sure that a person does not take some degree of pleasure from a friendly face or the changing from day to night? How can we be absolutely sure that the person in that bed actually wants to die? Without that absolute degree of certainty, how can we (as a family member or as a society) presume to take an action on their behalf that is absolutely final?

Grandpa saw it all

Sun, 10 Oct 2004 11:52:56 GMT

When we think about the passage of time and changes in the human condition, we most often see it as a slow methodical march. We see the past inching forward, gradually becoming the future. We see a slow movement from the way things were � step by step - inching toward the way things are. We often use the clich� �the slow march of progress� to describe this seemingly glacial movement.

A little historical perspective will show us that this isn�t true at all.

When Grandpa wanted to light a room in the evening, something had to be burned. Grandpa�s oil lamps would not have technically overwhelmed the builders of the Parthenon. Edison�s creation of a workable electric light bulb had only happened 26 years before grandpa got here. It would still be several years before electric homes were common in the rural Midwest. Yet in his later years, my grandfather, like most of us, owned many devices that used lasers.

The first long distance phone connection was established in 1884 (only 19 years before Grandpa�s birth) yet before grandpa passed away, he and I talked; he in Illinois, me in Europe and the call was digitally bounced off an object in space.

The concepts of computers didn�t exist in any significant form until my grandpa was in his 40s (as a part of the WWII Manhattan Project). Yet my grandpa�s final bank account was managed using the Internet.

So you see my friends, every thing we have, the comforts that we couldn�t live with out, our society and our technology � our medicine, our communication, our transportation and our prosperity - are not the result of a slow methodical march through history. Everything was quite the same � for literally thousands of years. And then, all of a sudden, in a historical blink of an eye � everything changed. We went from an agrarian society dependant upon animal power to scrape an existence from the earth to a technological people capable of space travel in the span of one human lifetime. I do not mean to say that there was no progress at all throughout the millennia, but an ancient Egyptian transported 5000 years into the future to the 1600s would be subject to far less culture shock than an American of the early 1800s would that he were transported a mere 200 years forward into the United Stated of today.

The question here is why. And perhaps more importantly � why now? Why has this remarkable period of progress just taken place? Athens was every bit as advanced as colonial New York. Why did electric lights not get built into the Parthenon? No city in the world of the 1700s was as advanced as Rome of 200 B.C. Why didn�t gladiators fight on motorcycles? Why couldn�t Caesar visit the outlying provinces on his private aircraft? Why has this century or so of incredible progress just happened now?

I believe that there is a one-word answer to all these questions. That word is freedom. Until very recently (from a historical perspective) the world believed in the divine right of kings. Up until only a few generations ago, every poet every painter, every scientist, architect, every builder, every creator of every type worked to fulfill the vision of some nobleman, emperor or king. The great 15th century painters and scientists we know of today � we have records of not because of their great creations. We know who these people were in large part because of the importance of their patrons. If the king didn�t like or understand your work � it had no value. And obviously, these noblemen/patrons were not perusing progress for its own sake � they were seeking their own glory. If you were cutting edge and the king didn�t understand your work � your work was disregarded. There is no way to know how many things and ideas have been invented, discarded and reinvented hundreds of times over the years because the ruler wasn�t impressed. If one�s discovery proved the king�s beliefs on the subject wrong� well history has often had special rewards for those who sought to correct conventional wisdom. Galileo recanted his discoveries to save his life.

If you will look carefully, you will see that the concept of excellence for it�s own sake, the idea that people could, and in fact should pursue their own agenda for their own benefit, the idea that the principal unit of sovrenty is the individual human being, all these ideas are very new indeed. Freedom � the ability of each human to focus on what is best for themselves and their family � is the basis for all we have and is the basis for this remarkable period of progress. This type of freedom, that which is so critical to our way of life and which we take so much for granted is (from a historical perspective) brand new. The freedom that has existed in the human heart since the beginning of humanity had existed as a way of life only as long as the Great American Experiment. If you will look, you will see that almost all great 19^th and 20^th century creations came either from the United States or from some country that followed our successful example and converted to a U.S. type government based on individual freedom. Show me the great innovation created inside a monarchy. Point to the greatest contribution to the progress of the world created inside a communist or socialist country.

We have to continually redefine the terms �hunger� and �poverty� for them to have any meaning here at all. No one starves in the United States. No one. The United States Department of Agriculture has defined �living in hunger� as missing more than one meal a month. (I miss several meals a week just because of work and scheduling � the Department of Agriculture would count me as part of the �Americans Living in Hunger� statistic) Statisticians fiddle with the poverty line every year to keep it from going completely away. No longer does �poverty� mean lacking basic life necessities. There are people �living in poverty� in the U.S. who own two cars, their own home and a big screen T.V. The Department of Agriculture lists the greatest health problem among children living in poverty in the U.S. as obesity!

There was a joke in Soviet controlled Eastern Europe about our standard of living. It goes something like this � America: the only place in the world with fat poor people.

No monarchy has ever created such innovation or such wealth. No socialist or communist country ever created such a high minimum standard of living. It appears that we have stumbled upon the right formula. Perhaps more accurately � a group of people 200 years ago stumbled on the right formula and gave it to us as a gift. That gift was freedom � accompanied by a governmental form with specific limits. We are a very young country � but we have the oldest continually used Constitution on the planet. (Dozens of other countries have used our Constitution as the basis for developing their own.) Our Constitution is not a list of goodies that government will provide for us. This wouldn�t have occurred to our countries founders. Our Constitution is a detailing of the structure of our government and a list of specific limits on that government. The limits are the key. Government is not omnipotent here. The true power lies in every individual. The key to our success is freedom � first, last and always. Freedom has brought us to where we are. Our government and our constitution exist only to provide structure to that freedom.

Life has shown me that through the pursuit of excellence, security is assured, but in the pursuit of security, excellence is impossible. Our history is replete with figures who risked tomorrow�s lunch for the chance, just maybe, to achieve greatness. We must not forget how they achieved their successes. All achievement comes with risk. If we demand to be completely insolated from risk � we are offering to give up our chance to achieve. This is not a trade I will make.

If we can remember the lessons of liberty given to us by this countries founders, if we can retain our spirit of adventure, if we teach these lessons to our children, then just maybe my great granddaughter will be writing about us while she is on vacation on another planet. If she remembers these lessons, if she seeks excellence for its own sake, if she takes joy in life � just because � and if she, in turn, teaches these lessons to her children, then perhaps she will lead her children and their children, to the stars.

Gower

�Samuel Adams

�The Constitution only gives people the right to pursue happiness � you have to catch it your self�

- on a Hershey bar wrapper.

I Plead the 10th

Wed, 06 Oct 2004 14:40:24 GMT

The 10^th amendment of the constitution of the United States is one of the most important, and without exception, the single most ignored amendment in our bill of rights. For those of you not intimately familiar with the 10^th, here it is:

Amendment X

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

What this means is that if something is not specifically listed in the constitution as a power of the United States government, then it is NOT a power of the United States government. The constitution is not just a list of things that the United States government can�t do. It is an all inclusive list of what the United States government may do. If a proposed federal government action is not specifically authorized by the constitution then that action is automatically unconstitutional. The 10^th amendment is the foundation of the concept of limited government. The 10^th amendment is our insurance policy against the United States ever evolving into a totalitarian state. The 10^th amendment (in recent years) has been almost completely ignored by the judiciary in charge of upholding the constitution.

We did not always hold the 10^th amendment in such contempt. We used to recognize that if we wished to do something through federal government that was not specifically enumerated in the constitution as a power of the federal government, we had to amend the constitution to allow it. The Constitution of the United States did not have a provision for an income tax. Income tax legislation required an accompanying constitutional amendment to make it valid (the 16^th amendment). When the country wanted to prohibit alcohol consumption, that required a constitutional amendment. Bringing back booze required repealing that amendment.

You will hear it said that the 10^th amendment was just a concession to the original 13 colonies necessary in the 1700s to get the constitution passed. Many will try and tell you that the 10^th amendment is archaic and that it has no place in our current government. I could not possibly disagree more. I don�t think it is overstating the case to say that a return to observing the 10^th amendment is critical to the long term survival of our republic.

The 10^th amendment � it�s not just the law � it�s a good idea!

If the 10^th amendment to our constitution did not exist � I would propose creating it. A specific set of limits is absolutely critical for the highest governmental body in the land. Understand, this set of limits does not (nor should it) apply to any other level of government or to any other type of human activity. These constitutional limits are not necessary anywhere other than in the federal government. All other forms of human activity (outside of the federal government) are self regulating. All other human decisions and actions (from an individual deciding what to have for lunch � to a state governor deciding whether or not to sign a piece of legislation) can be evaluated by comparing it to similar neighboring decisions. Every action outside the federal government is naturally held to the standard �does it work�.

If you order the chicken for lunch � and it isn�t the best � you can look to your friend who ordered the fish and observe how that is working for him. Perhaps you can ask to taste the fish. Maybe you will send the chicken back and get the fish. At least you can consider having the fish next time. The fact that there are multiple alternatives and multiple choices taking place within your view allows you to continually refine your decisions and allows you to make the best possible decisions over the long term.

Suppose the only thing on the menu is chicken. Suppose the only thing available in the city is chicken. Just suppose that rather than you deciding what you are going to have for lunch, the national restaurant association has decided what they are going to serve � and that is chicken. Someone (other than you) decided once, a long time ago, that the chicken was good, so now everyone gets chicken for lunch. You have two choices � take it or leave it. (But if you leave it � you are still going to get charged for the chicken.) In this case � it really doesn�t matter if you like chicken or not. You don�t decide what you want for lunch � chicken is lunch. You have no basis on which to evaluate whether the chicken is good or not. �Is the chicken good?� becomes a completely meaningless question. Whether or not you like chicken is as irrelevant as whether or not you like the fact that night time is dark.

The state of California almost bankrupted itself through its fiscal policy and its large and complex beaurocracy. California�s anti-business tax code was systemically running jobs out of the state. California was an economic mess.

California was saved by the fact that there were other nearby states doing it better. California was saved by comparative analysis. The people of California could say, �We know it doesn�t have to be this way because we can see other places where it is not this way.� The people of California demanded changes of their leaders. The leaders refused. The people of California successfully implemented the changes on their own at the ballot box. If that would have failed, as a worst case final option, the individual Californians who wanted to, could have voted with their feet and gone to a neighboring state that was not in the process of economic self destruction.

In all decisions, (from personal whims to state level legislation) comparison (and choices based on that comparison) is possible. There are always alternatives. People always have options available to extricate themselves from the poor choices made on their behalf by others. The individual American always has the final say.

At the federal level, all these things cease to be true. There is no comparison, there are no choices. Federal law is absolute and unavoidable. It is a force of nature. Evaluating a U.S. federal law by comparison is impossible. The United States has no peers; there is nowhere to look to see how a similar situation is being handled elsewhere. The moment something gets passed into federal law, it becomes almost completely immune from annaliss. A federal law simply �is�. Federal law is almost completely unavoidable. While I suppose it is possible to leave the country and change citizenship � that is a far less viable option than simply moving across a state line. Federal law is both unavoidable and almost impossible to evaluate objectively. This, my friends, is a combination for disaster. Federal law is both too powerful and too �one-size-fits-all�.

There are a limited number of things that MUST be done at the federal government level. If we are to exist as a great country, we must have a unified foreign policy. A single currency and a single fiscal policy are also appropriate. There must be a central authority to evaluate the way that states relate to each other and to adjudicate disputes. All of these things make sense and, just by coincidence, all of these things are specifically provided for in the United States constitution.

There are many things that should not be a part of the U.S. Federal Government. I believe that almost everything that falls under the umbrella of a �Social Spending Program� should be funded and administered at the state or lower level. First, there is absolutely no provision in the U.S. Constitution for taking money away from some citizens for the purpose of giving it to other citizens. Second, almost all such programs become bloated and inefficient in the absolutely ridiculous extreme. When a social program becomes codified under federal law � any reason it had to be efficient goes completely away. For most federal social programs, less than one dollar in four actually makes it to an end user of that program. More than 3 dollars in four are used to administer the program. (If you have not yet done so, now might be a good time to print out �Macroeconomics for Dummies�. We deal with the economic consequences of federal spending much more extensively there.)

When evaluating social spending, education, most criminal law, and a host of other issues � I plead the 10^th. These issues are extremely important � BUT - these issues belong to the states. The Constitution of the United States clearly says so and it just makes sense.

In Defense of the Electoral College

Fri, 10 Sep 2004 15:28:48 GMT

There is a great deal of discussion in the United States about doing away with the Electoral College. Many people argue that we should elect the President of the United States though a simple direct election. On the surface, the arguments sound convincing. Why not use a simple one person � one vote system? Wasn�t the Electoral College created because we didn�t have an effective way to tabulate the votes? Don�t we have that now? Why in the world don�t we just count the votes � award the Presidency to the guy with the most votes and do away with this archaic Electoral College thing?

All of these are good questions, but there are some equally good answers. The Electoral College is not just an old fashioned vote tabulating system. The Electoral College was created (and still exists) for some very important reasons � completely apart from vote counting. The United States is far too large and diverse a country to not have some system of �compartmentalizing� political influence. We have urban and rural, agricultural and industrial, north � south, costal � Midwestern, multiple ages groups, races and more varied demographic groups than I can fit on this page. Without some system of compartmentalizing political influence (like the Electoral College) a single, lopsided block of any of these could completely trump the interests of all the others.

For the sake of illustration, let�s look at what would happen if we removed the compartmentalization from another form of our political representation. Let�s take a look at how we elect members of the United States House of Representatives. As it stands now the United States House of Representatives is divided into representative districts, according to population. As of this writing we have 435 districts and each represents approximately 650,000 American citizens. Some less populous states have only 1 district in the entire state and some major cities have several districts within the city limits. Let�s say we decide to get rid of this �complex and archaic� system and elect members of the House of Representatives directly and nationally. Let�s just have every one who wants to be a representative throw their name into a national hat � let�s have everybody vote for the one they want, and let�s just send the top 435 vote getters to congress. That would make for a true democracy! That would be better � right?

Here is what would happen. All of the representatives would end up coming from the major urban areas. Not most of them � all. (In our current representative district system, about 45% of the vote is cast for candidates who eventually loose. If we abandoned our district system and allowed all representatives to be elected nationally, it would have the statistical effect of allowing neighboring districts in high population areas to �pool� loosing votes to elect additional representatives and render the vote in less populous areas irrelevant.) Not only would all representatives come from major urban areas � so would the top several hundred runners up. You would not find a successful candidate representing the interests of Kentucky, Wyoming, South Dakota, or Alabama at all. A fringe candidate � the 150^th vote getter on the I5 corridor between San Francisco and Los Angeles would still have exposure to a wider audience of like minded voters than the number one candidate in Northern Arkansas. Bozo the clown could toss his hat in the ring, walk around upper Manhattan squirting people with his flower and fall into far more votes that the best qualified candidate in the world who ran a well organized campaign in central Idaho. Absolutely all representatives would be from the major urban areas. So� very quickly � all political influence would migrate to the major urban areas. Farm issues, forest management, etc. would become completely politically irrelevant. There would quickly be no political power in the central United States at all.

Fortunately, this country�s founders identified this potential problem and they addressed it. They solved this problem by regionally �compartmentalizing� political influence through the representative district system. A state�s level of representation is based on that state�s population, but it is compartmentalized. People vote only for the representative in their district. California has 53 representatives � Idaho has 2. California has 26 � times more congressional representation than Idaho, but nothing that happens in California�s election can deprive Idaho of its two congressional seats. Through compartmentalization, high population areas still have �more� representation in direct proportion to their population, but they can�t use their greater population density to �statistically trump� less populous areas� representation completely out of existence.

The Electoral College is a largely ceremonial body elected by the voters of each state, but its effect in compartmentalizing political influence is roughly the same as house districts. In fact, doing away with the Electoral College and electing a president directly would result in a polarization effect even greater than the one described in our House of Representatives example above.

Suppose we have two candidates competing for the Presidency. Let�s look at a polling snapshot three months before the election.

Candidate A leads in California 53% to 47%. It looks like he will receive California�s rather sizeable set of 55 electoral votes.

Candidate B is leading by that same 53% to 47% margin in Alaska (3 electoral votes), Arkansas (6 electoral votes), Colorado (9 electoral votes), Connecticut ( 7 electoral votes), Delaware (3 electoral votes), Idaho (4 electoral votes), Iowa (7 electoral votes), Mane (4 electoral votes), Mississippi (6 electoral votes), Montana (3 electoral votes), Nebraska (5 electoral votes), North Dakota (3 electoral votes), Rhode Island (4 electoral votes), South Dakota (3 electoral votes), Utah (5 electoral votes), Vermont (3 electoral votes), West Virginia (5 electoral votes) and Wyoming (3 electoral votes) for a total of 83 electoral votes.

For the sake of this illustration, let�s assume that this example covers all the states.

Candidate B is currently in the lead. If Candidate A wants to be President, he will have to gain a wider base of support. He already has a majority in California - he is going to get California�s 55 electoral votes, and that counts for a lot, so he only needs to take a few other states. If he could take Connecticut, Delaware and Idaho, we would be tied with candidate B. Taking Iowa, Mane, and Mississippi would put candidate A over the top and he would become President. In any event, If Candidate A wishes to close the gap between himself and Candidate B, he will have to find a way to widen his base of support across the country. Some of his message will have to appeal to voters other than Californians.

If we were to do away with the Electoral College and elect the president by direct election, the entire dynamic of this situation would change. If we were simply counting votes, there would be a far more direct way to close the gap. Rather than seeking wider support across the country, Candidate A could simply seek to �deepen� his support in the one (densely populated) state he already has. If candidate A focuses on California issues primarily, if he can convince California voters that he speaks primarily for them, if he can widen the gap in California to 63% to 37%,then (assuming nothing else in our scenario changes) he can win the presidency without gaining majority support in a single other state.

It is easy to forget how large and diverse a country we live in. As we sit down to evaluate candidates and cast our vote for president, it is easy to assume that there are two kinds of people; our side and the other side � those who support us on our critical issues and those who oppose us on our critical issues. The truth is that often, voters on the other side of the country couldn�t care less about our critical issues � they may not even know what our critical issues are. They have their own critical issues, issues that may be critical to them and completely irrelevant to us. They choose a presidential candidate based on how he comes down on the issues that are important to them. The Electoral College protects a regions political influence, no matter how closely divided that region is over it own important issues. With the Electoral College, a state that is divided 51% to 49% becomes the focus of the campaign. Both candidates will seek to have a majority at the end of the day. In a direct election a state that is divided 51% to 49% ceases to matter at all. That state would become statistically irrelevant in term of selecting a president. This states influence over a direct presidential election is not related to this state�s population. The only voters that matter are the voters representing the 2% separation between the candidates. (In a direct election � a state�s influence over the election would not be associated with its population. Mathematically � it would become the population times the number of points separating the candidates. Close states, states where the vote is separated by only 2 or 3 points have almost no bearing on the outcome of a direct election.) By being closely divided over its own internal issues, this state will have given up its ability to effect the presidential election in any way.

By the way � Oregon is such a state. We are a closely divided, medium sized state. In a direct election we would not be a player at all. In 2004 we saw literally dozens of visits by both presidential candidates and their senior surrogates. In a direct election � neither of them would even know where Oregon was. In a direct election, our state would have no effect on the outcome at all and everyone would know that.

The Electoral College compartmentalizes political influence. A state is given political influence in direct proportion to its population. A state casts its influence for a candidate based on the will of the majority of the voters in that state. If a majority of the voters in a state vote for you � you get that state�s electoral votes. Having done that, a Presidential candidate must move on and gain the support of as many other states as possible. We do not elect the candidate with the highest vote total; we elect the candidate with the most broad-based support across the country. Through the Electoral College, single region or single issue candidates can not get elected president, no matter how deep their support is in that single region or on that single issue.

Fortunately, this is a largely academic discussion. Yet another form of compartmentalizing political influence protects the Electoral College. If we were to attempt to do away with the Electoral College, it would require a constitutional amendment � and that would require a supermajority of state legislatures voting to do it. The states that would give up any right to influence the presidential election would have to agree in a vast majority that it was a good thing to do so. I don�t believe this is likely. The Electoral College is going to be with us for the foreseeable future.

Making Moral Statements through Flawed Public Policy

Fri, 03 Sep 2004 15:04:02 GMT

Gun Control is one of my favorite topics when discussing logic (or the lack thereof) in politics. Not only is this an important issue in and of itself, but it also illustrates a concept that appears all too often in American public policy. Gun Control legislation is one the clearest examples of �making a moral statement through public policy� in a way that is irrelevant or actually harmful to the issue being addressed. We (unfortunately) do this all the time in American politics. We pass a law that addresses a political issue, which seems to be related to a political issue - that does not, however, have the intended effect upon that issue. Because we addressed it (again, with out positively effecting it) we get to feel better about ourselves and we get to say we are doing something. The fact that the legislation, when applied to the real world, affected its target issue in a negative way gets completely ignored. Gun Control legislation seems to be custom made for use as an illustration of this concept.

Gun control legislation seems to be based on a (usually unstated) two-step argument that falls completely apart at step two.

Step One: If there were no guns, there would be no gun violence.

O.K., you can have that one. There has to be guns for there to be gun violence.

Step Two: Laws against guns = no guns.

Now we have a problem.

Gun control laws can and do reduce the amount of guns. Unfortunately, these laws remove those guns that are least likely to be involved in crime but do not touch those guns that are most likely to be involved in crime. Here is the key problem with gun control laws: when they are actually applied to real world situations - for them to be effective, they have to be perfect. If a law could be crafted that would, in actual practice, completely eliminate firearms in a city, state or any other geographic area, one could probably make a case for supporting such a law. This is, however, clearly impossible. Clinical levels of perfection in any area of public policy just doesn�t happen. Prohibiting something through legislation does not make that thing just go away. Laws do affect things, but when one passes a law, one does not automatically bring about the exact situation written into the law. Laws affect us in a far more subtitle and complex way. This problem, as it relates to Gun Control specifically, is that any partial measures, anything less than absolute perfection toward the goal or ridding the streets of guns, makes things worse. A law that eliminated 95% of the firearms in a city would ensure that the remaining 5% would be in the hands of the people we least want to be armed and it would formally notify those people that the rest of the city had been disarmed. And, as with any other commodity, the rarity of the guns that were left would add power and value to that remaining few. Those who violate the law and keep their weapons can now hunt the streets with impunity. The law abiding have been disarmed.

Let�s take a critical look at one specific exercise in irrelevance and futility. Let�s examine one of the most famous gun control laws in existence, The Brady Bill.

James Brady was shot in a failed assignation attempt on President Regan. People were up in arms, �Look what that gun did! We have to pass a law!� So our lawmakers did. Our legislators crafted the Brady Bill (now the Brady Law). The Brady Bill provided for a ten day waiting or �cooling off� period when buying a handgun. This way, potential criminals would have to think about what they were going to do for ten days before they could act. A ten-day waiting period is reasonable isn�t it? After all, we are talking about guns here. We are safer now aren�t we? Don�t we feel better about what good people we are?

Let�s step back and interject a little logic into this equation. Let�s look at what the Brady Bill actually does. In actual practice, the Brady Bill would only apply to the following, extremely specific, almost fluke situation:

1. Someone plans in advance to commit a violent crime using a handgun, but does not own one. (If they already have a gun, then the Brady Bill doesn�t effect this situation).

2. Even though they are planning to do violence with this weapon, they decide to buy the gun legally, and comply with all licensing requirements instead of buying the gun off the street, stealing the gun or borrowing a gun. (If they buy their gun off the street, steal a gun or borrow a gun then the Brady Bill doesn�t effect this situation.)

3. During the ten day cooling off period, they change their mind completely about they act the ordered the gun to commit. (If they don�t change their mind in ten days then the Brady Bill doesn�t effect this situation)

4. Having ordered a gun to do violence, having changed their mind about that violent act, having taken delivery of the ordered and already paid for gun, this person never again decides to do violence with a firearm. (If he decides later to commit a violent act with their new firearm then the Brady Bill doesn�t effect this situation.)

Folks, the Brady Bill would not have affected the Regan assignation attempt � Brady Shooting at all. Hinckley had owned that weapon for much longer than ten days. I can�t come up with an example of a situation that the Brady Bill would effect. The Brady Bill is a piece of Legislation that in reality, effects only one fluke, almost lotto odds situation of which none of the people who crafted the bill can give you a real world example. The Brady Bill does only two things; it lets the people who worked to get the bill passed feel better about them selves and it allows people who do not use logic to feel that they are safer.

Sadly, the Brady Bill is among the very best pieces of gun control legislation. It is at least relatively harmless. The worst thing about the Brady Bill is the amount of money and time we wasted to enact something that does absolutely nothing. Most gun control legislation is far more harmful than the Brady law. Most Gun Control legislation actually makes our streets more dangerous.

A couple more factoids for ya. Don�t take my word for these, go check. I�ll be right here waiting.

- The cities, states and countries with the most restrictive gun control laws are the cities states and countries with the highest rates of violent crime. (Look for N.Y.C., D.C. etc.)

- When strict new gun control laws are enacted, violent crime goes up. (Look for Australia)

- The Black Market in handguns is far more prevalent in states and cities with extremely restrictive gun control laws. The harder it is for a law abiding citizen over 21 to buy a hand gun at a gun store, the easier it is for a two time felon to buy an automatic out of the trunk of a car.

Gun control does only two things. It disarms the law abiding and (even worse) it formally notifies criminals that the law abiding have been disarmed.

You are protected by your right to own a gun (in places where that right still exists) even if you choose not to personally own one.

Picture a criminal with a handgun in Washington D.C., walking down a residential street. He may enter any home with impunity. He can be almost sure that the owner of any home he chooses to enter will not be armed. If he picks a home to enter, he will have the only weapon; he will be a god, with the power of life and death over all inside. He knows this. D.C.�s restrictive gun control laws makes crime safer for criminals and publishes that fact.

Picture the same criminal walking the streets in suburban Okalahoma City. He knows that entering a home with a firearm in his hand is suicide. He knows that his will probably not be the only weapon present. He knows that he may well be faced with superior firepower when he enters and may well not survive. Here is a key folks; it does matter whether or not this is actually true. It does not matter whether or not the homeowner is, in fact, armed. This home is protected by the fact that the homeowner might be armed. People are protected more by their right to own a weapon than they are protected by using the weapon it self.

Gun control simply doesn�t work. It is not a matter of whether I agree with it or not, gun control simply does not do what it purports to do. It disarms only those who are least likely to use weapons in crime. It notifies criminals that the law abiding have been disarmed. It establishes a �self protection free zone� in which criminals may hunt in safety. It does not effect how most weapons used in crimes are obtained. In the final analysis, gun control�s main effect is that is makes crime safer for criminals.

The difference between logical and emotional political reasoning

Fri, 27 Aug 2004 21:03:25 GMT

Why are there no liberal radio talk shows?

The advent of conservative radio political talk shows has completely revised the A.M. dial. Over the last decade Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, Ken Hamblin, Michael Regan, Oliver North, G. Gordon Liddy, Neal Boortz, Michael Savage, Sean Hannady, Lars Larson and a host of others have become extremely popular. There are no notable liberal counter parts to any of these guys. Even in cities (such as San Francisco, New York etc.) where the voting population leans to the far left, liberal political radio personalities can�t seem to make any significant headway. Even well planned, externally funded attempts at liberal political talk radio seem to rapidly fall apart. In a country, split roughly down the middle in terms of ideology, one side of the isle has literally dozens of people making seven figure incomes in talk radio and the other side can�t field one national level show that can make a profit. Why?

I believe the answer lies at the core of the difference between liberal and conservative political philosophy, the difference between arriving at one�s beliefs logically or emotionally. This is less an issue of what liberals think or what conservatives think, this is far more an issue of how liberals and conservatives think. Liberal political discussion just doesn�t work in the talk radio format. Liberal talk radio isn�t popular, even among its target audience, even where it exists. Talk radio just isn�t fun for many people on the American left for reasons completely apart from the ideology of the topics discussed on the show.

Here is the premise behind long-format conservative talk radio:

The host expounds upon a political issue. He dissects it extensively. He details the line of reasoning he used to arrive at his opinion. He then invites people to call in and disagree with him so he can defend his opinion from different angles.

People who come to their political belief system logically often think this is fun. They like to explain how they came to their conclusions. They are proud of their conclusions and the effort expended coming to them. Conservatives often invite challenges to their opinions because they like to defend their beliefs. They see this as an opportunity to teach. The talk radio format is an extension of how many conservatives naturally think and evaluate issues.

Most liberal political opinion is emotionally based. Conservatives conclude, liberals feel. People are attached to their emotional beliefs in a completely different way than they are attached to their logical conclusions. People resent being asked to explain why they "feel" one way or another. A challenge to an emotional belief is not a welcome opportunity to illustrate how one came to a conclusion. A challenge to an emotional belief is often perceived as a personal attack. Listening to others challenge their emotional belief system is not something people typically do for fun.

Imagine a talk show where the topic was justifying why you love your children. Picture the calls being something like: "I can�t imagine why you love your children. They aren�t very attractive and they�re not very smart either." Your first instinct would not be to pull out pictures and test scores to show that your kids were smart and cute. Your first instinct would be to slug the guy who dared challenge your children. It doesn�t matter anyway, whether or not they are smart and cute has nothing to do with why you love your kids. Why should you have to justify your love of your kids to some jerk who probably doesn�t have kids anyway?

This is how talk radio (and political debate in general) feels to people whose attachment to their political belief system is emotional. Long format talk radio is not a fun experience for people whose belief structure is emotionally based, even if the host and show leans in their direction politically.

The process of persuasion � from both sides

Let�s say that you believe a certain way on a political issue. The issue itself doesn�t matter for this illustration. Lets say you arrived at that conclusion logically (valid logic, faulty logic, doesn�t matter). You are asked: "Why should I believe the way you believe on this issue?" Your first instinct would be to walk that person down the same intellectual path you walked to arrive at this conclusion in the first place. Your first instinct would be to say "You should believe this way for the same reasons that I do. Here is how I arrived at this conclusion; step one, step two, etc�"

Same situation, but this time let�s say that you arrived at a political position emotionally. You feel very strongly about it. Your perspective comes from your heart. You are asked, "Why should I believe the way you believe on this issue?" In this case you would not have the option of simply walking the questioner down the same path you used to come to your conclusion. The reason why you feel a certain way is so complex and so personal that it is difficult to articulate, even to family or close friends. It is much like trying to articulate why you love your kids. You could give a list of your kid�s virtues, but it would not be why you love your kids. Even if every one of the specific virtues you articulate about your kids could be shown to be false, it would not change the fundamental way you feel about your kids. So� (hang on guys, we are getting to a major point) if you arrive at political views emotionally, when you are called upon to convince others to share your views, you are often required to list attributes, virtues and benefits that, in and of themselves, really have nothing at all to do with why you yourself hold that political position. You can�t simply recount the argument that persuaded you. You have to create a new argument from scratch, off the top of your head, which you believe will have meaning to the questioner.

I have frequent conversations with slightly amused, but frustrated conservatives:

Joe Conservative: "I really want to understand where my friends on the left are coming from. It is not easy. It seems like that if a point they are trying to make falls apart, they don�t reinforce it, they change it. They change subjects completely on a dime using phrases like �Oh yea, well then how about this?� The fact that they just conceded and abandoned a major point they were trying to make gets completely ignored. They can change subjects a dozen times, concede every argumentative point and it doesn�t seem to shake their fundamental belief in their main issue. They look at me like I am the one who doesn�t get it. I am trying, really, but I just can�t seem to follow their line of reasoning."

There is a term a need to use here that always seems to escape me, anthomoripsomthingortheother. (Maybe some day I�ll look it up.) Anyway, what this big multi-letter term means is erring by assuming that others are more like yourself than they actually are, applying characteristics about yourself to a situation where they don�t exist and thereby missing a point. If I could remember this term, it would apply here. Here are some differences about conservatives and liberals that each seems to miss about the other that contribute to their general misunderstanding of how the other thinks.

CONSERVITIVE PERSPECTIVE: Political beliefs are conclusions, much like the solutions to math problems are conclusions. Conservatives' beliefs are "correct", much like a math problem could be correct. People who disagree with them are people who either have incorrect data or don�t know who to work the problem. Asking a conservative to justify his views is usually seen almost as complimentary. It is seen as; "Show me how you got that answer" to a conservative. When a conservative is arguing a point, the first part of his argument and the basis for his entire argument will usually be why he himself subscribes to the point.

LIBERAL PERSPECTIVE: Political beliefs are feelings; much like love of family is a feeling. Liberal beliefs are "good" much like the desire to help others is good. People who disagree are people who are "bad". Asking a liberal to justify his views is often perceived as insulting or redundant. It is seen as "So tell me, why should I be a good person?" When a liberal is arguing a point, you will almost never be given why he himself believes the point as a part of the argument. The real reason they themselves believe, the basis for the "feeling" itself, is usually too personal and complex to articulate. For this reason, when a liberal is arguing a point, often the entire argument is fabricated from scratch specifically for the intended audience. In most cases, when a liberal is trying to persuade you, his personal cards are not on the table. If a point or an entire argument is lost, then you, as the debate opponent, were not persuaded, but the liberal�s belief in his own issue will remain intact. (This, by the way, is the reason it is difficult to "win" an argument with a liberal.) The actual emotional basis for a liberal�s belief system is very rarely actually placed on the table as a part of the debate and as such, it can survive most debates completely unscathed.

The reason that there is no liberal talk radio is that there is no market for it. The reason that there is no market for it is that liberals (the target audience) don�t listen to it, even in the limited number of markets where it exists. Many liberals wish that liberal talk radio existed, it frustrates them that there seems to be an entire media form where they have no real representation. For the most part, however, they have no real desire to routinely actually listen to liberal talk radio. For all the reasons we have discussed, talk radio isn�t a recreationally pleasant experience for them, even if the agree with the host and the topics. They want liberal talk radio to exist, but only in principal. It�s kind of like the electric car, people want them to exist, people complain that not enough is being done to develop them, but no one wants to actually buy one. Liberal talk radio will not exist in any significant form until there is an actual, profitable, market for it.

Canceling Gravity through Judicial Activism

Sat, 21 Aug 2004 06:13:32 GMT

In November, 2004, Oregonians voted on whether or not to formally define marriage, (as a union between one man and one woman) in the state constitution. Earlier that year, Multnomah County (Portland OR) commissioners decided to unilaterally begin issuing same sex marriage licenses. Voters were asked if they wish to amend the state constitution so that can never happen again. I voted yes. So did most Oregonians.

Please understand that my opposition to gay marriage is not because it infringes on the marriage rights of non-gays. This is not a rights issue at all. This is not a referendum on homosexuality or Gay relationships in general. This isn�t a religious issue. This is not even a morality issue. This is completely and totally a logic issue. I believe that Gay marriage seeks to formally proclaim something, through government, that is factually just not true.

There are many types of relationships that people can enter into with other people. A marriage is one, very specific type of human relationship. A marriage is a formalized union between one man and one woman. It is the biological, emotional and social foundation of the family structure. It is the core building block of all human societies. It has been this way for thousands of years. It has very little to do with law. A man can no more have a marriage with a man than a goat can have a marriage with a waffle iron. Again, this isn�t a matter of law; it is a matter of fact. Legally allowing homosexual couples to marry is as irrelevant as legally allowing armadillos to fly.

The only way you can say that same sex couples can be married is by completely redefining what the term �married� means. If we look at this issue as a simple dictionary re-write, then I suppose you can do anything you want. But by following this logic, it is just as easy to say that same sex couples can be invisible, florescent or laminated. If we redefine terms, on the fly, to mean what ever we want them to mean at the moment - then why not corrugated, hyphenated or lactose intolerant? The problem with this line of reasoning is that once we redefine a term and give it a new meaning it didn�t have five minutes ago, we can�t, in the same breath, go back and assert that the term still has all the characteristics that it had before we redefined it. We can�t redefine the word invisible to mean anyone with socks on, and then immediately assert that wearing socks makes one transparent. When we assigned the word its new meaning we took away the old meaning. By the same token, we can�t redefine the term married to mean any pairing of any individuals under any circumstances and then immediately assert that �married couples� have all the characteristics that have been associated with married couples for thousands of years.

Look - suppose I get all bent out of shape because dogs can�t lay eggs. I feel that it is discriminatory that only the bodies of certain types of animals can biologically produce eggs. What do I do? I lobby my congressman and he gets a law passed that says that dogs can lay eggs. We legally re-define the word �laid� to mean sitting on eggs � no matter the original source of the eggs in question. Armed with this new law I go to the store and buy a dozen eggs. In full view of everyone I slide those eggs under my dog�s butt and declare him to have �legally� laid those eggs. I then apply for membership in the poultry council and I send my dog to sleep in the hen house. And Buddy, you had better not come to me and say: �Excuse me, I just saw you put those eggs under your dog�s butt.� That would be poultry-centered thinking. You would be branded a hound � o � phobe. Remember, the new law says that dogs CAN lay eggs.

The Gay Marriage lobby could have everything they SAY they want in a way that very few would ever object to. If someone sought to create a way for people to legalize non-biological family relationship bonds in a process that would be roughly equivalent to adoption, I would be all for that. Somebody want to write the �voluntary mutual next-of-kin assignment act�? I�d vote for it. Maybe two ladies who have lived together for 50 years could legally become sisters. Maybe I would include my buddy in our family by making him legally a brother. And yes, Bob and Bruce could pursue legal next of kin status. This would allow joint ownership of property, dependent status on insurance accounts - etc. This process would address every possible complaint in the �rights� arena.

That process will never happen because it is not even close to the real point. The real point (from the Gay Marriage crowd�s perspective) is not an issue of rights at all. This is an issue of pursuing public affirmation of something that even proponents believe is questionable. If you think you are Napoleon (and you like being Napoleon) - there is probably some annoying little voice inside you that still tells you that you are probably not really Napoleon. The best way to silence that little voice is to get as many people to call you Napoleon as possible. Maybe you can find a way to legally compel people to call you Napoleon. That, my friends, is what the whole Gay Marriage issue is all about. This is about seeking public affirmation for something that even supporters think is �logic challenged� so gays can feel better about themselves and their situation. If a whole bunch people espouse a position it can�t be that strange � can it? If the government says it is true � then it must be! I mean if the government says something is true � why that�s kinda like the whole country saying it is true. Wow! Next week I think I will propose legislation that cancels gravity and makes the weather nicer.

I do not care that gays consider themselves married. I don�t care if they consider themselves a ham salad sandwich. It doesn�t infringe on my rights. No skin off my nose. None of my business at all. My problem starts when they legally demand that I say that they are married and that I teach my kids that they are married. �So you see Honey, your mom and I, Bruce and Bob over there, that goat and his waffle iron, all exactly the same thing � understand?� No. It is not the same thing and a million laws to the contrary doesn�t change that.

Gays are not seeking to enter into the institution of marriage. (They can�t � or perhaps even more accurately, they choose not to.) They are seeking to co-opt the term marriage. They seem to resent the fact that their sexual orientation makes a major human institution unavailable to them. In response, they are seeking a public redefinition of the term associated with that institution so they don�t have to be offended by it any more. This entire issue is not an attempt at �inclusion�. This is an attempt to take an institution that is thousands of years old, that is the basis of all human societies, which is coincidently an exclusively heterosexual institution, and effectively redefine that institution out of existence. This is kind of like that old Chinese torture. I tell you something that both of us know is false. I then beat you until you make me believe it is true. I guess I haven�t been beaten enough. The sun doesn�t rise in the west, dogs don�t lay eggs and men don�t marry men. None of these things are subject to Supreme Court review and they can�t be changed through legislation.

Welcome to The Rationalist Papers � An Introduction

Tue, 17 Aug 2004 14:51:35 GMT

Welcome! Thanks for stopping by! What will follow here, over the coming months, is a project born largely of frustration. The Rationalist Papers will be discussions of some of the important topics of today with an eye toward the introduction of rational thought and logic into the debate. The frustrating part is that this concept could be considered in any way novel. I am amazed by how many public policy decisions are made by emotional reaction. I am astounded by how many politicians will publicly tell you that they make their decisions with their heart. Many of our political leaders seem to hold rational thought and logical decision making in contempt.

Let me be clear - I am in no way suggesting that people should become cold calculating complete adherents to all things logical. I, personally, am certainly not a cold calculating adherent to all things logical. If you wanted my view on life in general, I would probably tell you to do what made you and the important people in your life happy. We are not, however, going to be talking about my view of life in general in these pages � we are going to be talking about public policy and politics. There is a big difference here folks. You can make decisions about your own life in any way you see fit. Public policy, however, is a set of decisions that we impose on others. Those decisions must be held to a far higher standard. Public policy is confiscation of someone�s private assets (whether they like it or not) for a public purpose. Public policy is the limiting of an individual�s freedoms to accomplish a collective objective. Public policy is imposing collective decisions on private individuals under the force of law, with the threat of imprisonment, at the point of a gun. You may evaluate your personal life decisions in anyway you see fit. You may subject your personal life decisions to elaborate analysis or you may flip a coin. In the vast majority of cases, it is absolutely none of my business. Again, however, public policy is something else entirely.

Even given all of that, I am not going to try and tell you that absolutely everything in the public arena must be decided in a completely logical manner. Our form of government is a constitutionally based, democratically elected, representative republic. There are going to be public priorities that I do not agree with and some things are going to be decided using criteria I take issue with as well. On the whole, I am O.K. with that. To paraphrase Winston Churchill, it is a lousy way to do things, but it is infinitely preferable to any conceivable alternative.

However, once we get to the exicutition phase, once we begin to implement specific steps to bring our national priorities about, logic must take center stage. If we are going to take someone�s private assets to accomplish a public purpose, that person has a right to know that those assets are not being used in a wasteful, irrelevant or even counterproductive way. If we are going to take someone�s freedoms in the name of public safety, that person has a right to know that our specific actions are not making the streets more dangerous. Watching your resources taxed and your freedoms limited to support some cause you disagree with, is one thing � in some cases that is the price of living in a great country. Watching your resources taxed and your freedoms limited in the name of some cause you disagree with - in such a way that the issue is worsened � that, my friends, is always unacceptable.

Really Weak Analogy #1:

We might (as a country) vote that we feel that we want to place a television in all city public squares. We may decide that everyone in the United States should have an equal opportunity to watch Wheel of Fortune. Some others of us may feel that the government should not be in the television business, but in this case let�s say that we are in the minority. We are going to have the national television set grant program. So be it. Having come to that conclusion - if we come together to vote on where we feel we want to attach the wires inside the national TV sets, we will probably burn down ten city blocks!

At the implementation point of all public policy, logic must take center stage. Once we come to a public/governmental decision, it must be executed in such a way so that it actually works. If our governmental actions limit freedoms or consume resources without having the intended results they are abject failures. In the final analysis, good intentions are absolutely irrelevant. We must evaluate the implementation of all public policy using the single criterion: �Did it work?�

Even weaker extension of Really Weak Analogy #1:

Unfortunately, that is not what we do here in the good ol� United States. Our �national television sets� cost about 1.9 million dollars each. They have a three-inch screen, no sound and are housed in cabinets about the size of a semi-truck. They are made almost entirely of cheese because the co-sponsors of the national T.V. set bill are from Wisconsin. We have produced about 1500 of them but only 6 have ever been turned on because the permits are not in yet.

People have, and still do, campaign and win elections by being in favor of the national TV set program. They are lauded as national heroes. And folks, no freshman congressman had better ever dare stand up and say: �Excuse me. I was never too keen on this national TV set idea, but as long as we are going to do this, they have TVs vastly superior to our government TVs down at Wallmart for about eighty-five bucks. I am going down there to get some toothpaste anyway. Does anyone want a ride?� That person would be branded a racist, bigot, sexist, polluter, homophobe, oppressor of the down trodden. Their political career would be over.

Let�s get this out of the way here in the beginning. I am a political conservative. In some respects, you can read that to be the commonly used definition of political conservative. Some would have you read conservative vs. liberal to mean rigid vs. flexible. I do not believe that to be true in general, it is definitely not true in my case. For the most part, I would have you read the word conservative using its most literal, dictionary meaning. I ask that you read conservative less as a specific, complicated statement of political ideology and more as a simple statement of quantity. The term conservative represents the amount of laws, regulation, taxation � government in general � that I would see applied to you. (You can probably read the term liberal in the same context.) I do not believe that making a case for something being �good� or �bad� automatically makes a case for government promoting or prohibiting that thing. I believe that government is the problem far more often than government is the answer. Our government does not have a real good track record in doing things outside those specifically articulated, constitutionally prescribed functions of government. I believe that one of the core founding concepts of our great country is the idea of �Limited Government�. I believe that in deciding if and how to take action, though government, the burden of proof should be astronomically high. We must evaluate constitutionality, necessity and potential for effectiveness (in that order) by a logical and objective standard. Seeking to define that standard is a big part of what this project is about.

Founding concepts of �The Rationalist Papers�.

There are two key issues that prompted the creation of The Rationalist Papers. I have addressed both of these in forms too lengthy to be included as columns on this web site. I wanted to briefly address these issues as a part of this introduction and I wanted to give you a way to download these first two Rationalist Papers.

I. The thing that actually got this project started was my frustration with the absolutely silly (most appropriate term I can come up with) state of political debate and discussion in the United States. If I believe something, and I wish to persuade you to share my belief, I will begin my argument by telling you why I believe it. I will present evidence, create a logical chain and ask you to share my conclusion. This process seems as obvious and natural to me as breathing. It is, unfortunately, so rare as to be virtually nonexistent in American political discussion.

What happens instead? Instead of debating the specifics of an issue, people will often seek to discredit one person on the opposing side of an issue (That guy is a racist, sexist, bigot, homophobe, polluter so there is no reason to evaluate his point at all!�) Another way to escape logical debate is to discuss issues exclusively through the use of catch phrases. (We must make sure that the winners of life�s lottery pay their fair share so that the most deserving can have a living wage!) There are even those who seek to prove the truth of an issue by making it rhyme. (Mend it, don�t end it!)

It is not that I disagree with these people�s logic. It is that some people seem to proactively seek to avoid logical arguments. It seems that some people have a skill for creating emotional simulations of logical arguments. (One of my favorite quotes: "If you were not reasoned into something, you can't be reasoned out of it." - unknown)

I became a student of this phenomenon. Just for fun, I wrote a tongue-in-cheek textbook on how to do it. �Logic Alternatives" is available in a printable format on the download page in the left column. I am not suggesting that you become a Logic Avoider � but if you know how it is done, it is easer to counter. Besides � it�s a fun read. So grab some paper (it will take 20 or so pages depending on your browser) and print Logic Alternatives for your reading enjoyment. This will give you the most definitive answer as to why I got involved in this project in the first place.

II. The other key issue is a little more �dry� but every bit as important. Much of what has become United States monetary and fiscal policy is based on emotion. Most Americans (to include many members of our government) lack even a basic understanding of macroeconomics. We see a need, we tax, we distribute a small percentage of the money we taxed in name of the need, we make things worse, we look for someone to blame. We tell the voters and tax payers to judge our intentions not our results, we tax more, we bring this situation almost back to where it was before we messed with it. We congratulate ourselves for only spending $300,000,000 while not making the issue too much worse than it was before we started. Miller time.

Macroeconomics for Dummies seeks to explain fundamental economic principals to non economics majors. This is a more amusing read that you might think. Go download it while you are getting �Logic Alternatives�.

Again, welcome to The Rationalist Papers. Thanks for stopping by. Leave your email address so we can keep you advised when there is a new posting. Bookmark this page. Tell your friends. And please, let me know what you think. You may find your views in the next issue of The Rationalist Papers.

Gower

John Kerry's Resume - A simple Matter of Qualifications

Wed, 11 Aug 2004 02:09:57 GMT

I come from a recruiting and staffing agency management background. I have hired and placed hundreds of people � many of them in management or leadership positions. As such, I have some degree of experience in evaluating the qualifications of management candidates. The first set of questions asked of management candidates usually goes something like this: �Tell me about the size and scope of your previous leadership or management positions. How many full time employees have you supervised? How many subordinate leaders have earned a promotion while under your tutelage? What was the dollar value of the assets under your management?� Those who are responsible for placing people in leadership / management positions of great responsibility are almost always interested in the magnitude of a candidates experience long before they ask any questions that are related to the candidate�s philosophies or belief system. Management philosophy is completely irrelevant without the fundamental skill set to bring that philosophy in to reality.

With these things in mind, let�s look at Senator Kerry�s skill set and experiences. Let�s evaluate John Kerry�s resume exactly as he presents it to us.

Mr. Kerry touts his Vietnam service as that which qualifies him to serve as commander in chief of the United States Armed forces. The Democrat National Convention revolved around this service. LT Kerry served as a patrol boat skipper, in charge of roughly a dozen or so people, for approximately four months. I do not wish to denigrate Mr. Kerrey�s service; I salute him for his courage. His service was not, however, in a position of great responsibility. He did not develop or evaluate strategy or create policy. He did not develop subordinate leaders or command combined arms operations. LT Kerry lead a dozen people on specifically directed missions and reported back, and he did this for far less than half a year. Again, I salute Kerry for his service, but it was extremely limited in scope and duration. His claim that this service specifically and immediately qualifies him to be commander in chief of the U.S. armed forces is difficult to fathom. I know personally scores of people with combat leadership experience of far greater scope and duration than Senator Kerry�s. None of these people would try and tell you that their service qualifies them to be the person who hires and fires the Secretary of Defense.

Reference point #1 - Before ascending to the presidency, George Bush had several years experience as a fighter pilot for the Texas National Guard. As Texas governor, President Bush was the Texas Guard�s commander in chief. He was responsible for over 10,000 soldiers, he made policy, he was directly responsible for hiring and firing General level officers. And of course he has served Commander in chief of the U.S. Armed forces for over three years. His performance is judged positively by those who currently serve. He is expected to receive 80%+ of the military vote this November.

The Kerry camp tells us that Mr. Kerry�s four months in Vietnam somehow trumps all this. They tell us that while George Bush is under qualified to be commander in chief � John Kerry�s Vietnam service makes him supremely qualified. The logic of this assertion completely escapes me.

There have been some recent charges as to the specific character of John Kerry�s military service. I am not going to discuss them here because they are not really relevant. Whether you consider his service heroism or treason or something in between really doesn�t matter. John Kerry�s combat service was 35 years ago, four months in duration and of extremely limited scope. At best or worst, it is merely a small print footnote on John Kerry�s resume. It demonstrates no qualifications whatsoever that would be relevant to the presidency.

Let�s look at Mr. Kerry�s other leadership or executive level management experience. Mr. Kerry owned a cookie and muffin shop, he served as Lt. Governor of Mass, he was a prosecutor. All of these positions are noble pursuits. I do not wish to disparage any of them. None of them, however, were leadership positions of great responsibility. None of them placed Mr. Kerry at the top rung of any form of any chain of command.

Reference point #2- Mr. Kerry has significantly less leadership or management experience than the typical, national chain, fast food restaurant district manager. A fast food restaurant district manager is responsible for a multi-level chain of command between him self and the bottom rung (restaurant general managers, assistant managers, shift leadership etc.) Mr. Kerry has never headed any organization where he was responsible for multiple levels of subordinate leadership. A fast food restaurant district manager is responsible for the leadership climate in multiple geographic locations. Mr. Kerry has no such experience in heading an organization located in multiple locations. A fast food restaurant district manager has the absolute minimum qualifications to apply for an entry level executive position. Mr. Kerry�s management experience is somewhat less than this � yet we are told that he is the most qualified person in the United States to hold the most sweeping and complex executive position ever to exist on the planet earth (the Presidency of the United States). Again, the logic of this assertion escapes me.

Final resume point, John Kerry served for almost twenty years in the United States Senate. Hey, now we have something. While U.S. Senator is not a leadership position in and of itself (it is a voting member in a parliamentary body) there are some who have used their time in the U.S. Senate to achieve greatness. There have been some who brought a vision to the Senate, and used their leadership to bring that vision to reality. There are those who have used their position in the Senate to change the American landscape.

Unfortunately, in his almost 20 years in the upper house of the U.S. Congress, John Kerry has not become such a Senator. I researched Mr. Kerry�s performance in the Senate using the source that one would assume would present his service in the most favorable light � his own campaign web site. I found multiple references to things that Mr. Kerry worked for, stood for, believed in, combated, supported, opposed etc. I found scores of platitudes and euphemisms for �good intentions�. I can find no reference to anything that John Kerry actually achieved. I can find no evidence of any vision held by John Kerry that has transitioned from concept to reality through his leadership in the Senate.

Please understand that I am not trying to evaluate or judge the Senate achievements of John Kerry, I am simply seeking to count them. Not only can I find no measurable specific achievements � I can�t even find where Mr. Kerry claims any. Mr. Kerry asks that we give him the Presidency based on a vague philosophy and good intentions. He asks that we ignore the fact that he can not point to any occasion where he has actually implemented any part of that philosophy or any of those intentions.

Mr. Kerry is simply, yet profoundly under qualified for the position he is seeking. In my investigations, I can find record of no presidential candidate with less relevant leadership experience who has made it to this stage of a presidential candidacy. This has nothing to do with John Kerry�s politics. His politics are irrelevant. This is a simple case of a remarkably weak resume. A candidate�s politics doesn�t matter when he lacks the basic experience and skill set to implement it.