Lawsuit Madness
It turns out, some liquor retailers busted for selling to underage drinkers, are trying to get even... by filing lawsuits against the drinkers for misrepresentation. It seems as though this is only relevant in the case where fake IDs were used and not where the bar owner or liquor store failed to check for an ID in the first place. I think that the retailers are misdirecting their anger. They ought be complaining to the legislature first, about the ridiculous puritan drinking age, and second, about the fact that they can get fined if someone brings in a fake ID. Even if we are to have the drinking laws that our country has, retailers should not get into trouble for serving underage drinkers if every reasonable effort has been made to check IDs.

How to Combat Threat of Terrorist Attack? Cut Back on the Air Marshall Program!
Due to budget problems, air marshalls will no longer be covering cross-country and intercontinental flights. This is to avoid paying for hotel rooms for overnight stays. This in the wake of recent terrorist warnings regarding airplane hijackings. Interesting quote from one air marshall:

“The fact that this is coinciding with the new airline threats, it just blows our minds. We can’t cover [every flight] but at least put us on the high-threat planes, the ones traveling across the country.”

Well, but at least we have the PATRIOT Act so the Feds can check our emails for threatening words!

UPDATE: I just heard on CNBC that air marshalls will be put back on international and cross-country flights. Good.
ANOTHER UPDATE: Read about it here... MSNBC finally changed their headline.

Does Yale Rule the World?
Possibly. Remember, Bush graduated from Yale. Cheney went to Yale for a year. Kerry went to Yale, as did Howard Dean and Joe Lieberman. It's heartening that four of the last six presidents (Ford, Bush Sr., Clinton, Bush Jr.) went to Yale. World Domination by 2010. Mwahahaha.

UPDATE: Instapundit also went to Yale (Law). And since he is leading the way in world domination (of the media at least), my point is hereby proven.

Appointment with the Dean
A cool interview with Democratic presidential hopeful Howard Dean. One interesting bit:

"People have no idear"—Dean always says "idear"—"what kind of politician I am," the candidate continues. "Because they have no idear what governing Vermont is like for the most part, because they've never come up and seen it. That [crowd in Chariton] was classic Vermont. Farmers, working people, smart, maybe not so well-educated, but they read a daily newspaper every day. Literate, product of good high-school systems. Work with their hands, rural. Conservative social values, but open-minded." Later, Dean returns to the point. "It took me about three minutes to figure out what that crowd was like, and it was rural Vermont." He smiles and raises his eyebrows in a self-satisfied way.

Again, Dean is using the word "idear" to sound folksy. The man graduated from Yale (which is one thing in his favor) and went to medical school. I am sure he knows how to pronounce the word "idea". But using "idear" is just that much more man-of-the-people-esque. It seems as though Dean has as pedestrian of an understanding of economics as "the people" do as well:

(Dean's theory in a nutshell: The structure of wealth in the United States before labor unions resembled that in Third World countries today, so in order to create middle classes in the developing world, we need to bring labor unions to them.)

Won't Dean's plan make the price of goods go up? "Yeah," he says quietly. "But so what?" My 25 minutes are up. We've arrived in Osceola, the site of Dean's next talk, and I'm being ushered out of McFun by Dean's staff. But I think Dean realizes he's ended the interview on the wrong note because he quickly adds: "Because in return for making the price of goods go up, you've fixed the illegal immigration problem, you've fixed the drain of jobs problem, you've created a middle class that can buy American exports. There's a lot you get for that." Now it really is time for me to go. "I've got to make a phone call," Dean says as I step outside.

In case Dean has not heard of a man named Adam Smith, let us remind him: If prices go up, which he seems not to care about, fewer American consumers will buy those goods, which means fewer Mexican/Sri Lankan/Combodian workers will get to be in the middle class. But at least the last breath they breathe in after starving to death is a clean one! Besides, Dean's definition of "middle class" is bizarre. The term Middle Class is in itself a relative concept. Relative to the overall wealth of a country, that is. A middle class New Yorker is an upper class North Dakotan. A middle class American is a robber baron in Vietnam. So, it is not clear how higher prices will lead to a middle class. Why do lower prices prevent a middle class? I see no reason for this to be true. I bet that the buying power of a Combodian, earning a couple of pennies a day for making t-shirts for hipster Dean supporters, is higher than that of Cambodians back when hipster t-shirts were Union Made in the USA.

Dean also continues to mouth the old line of workers in the Third World taking away jobs from Americans. But do Americans really want those jobs? I would venture to guess that there are almost no Americans who would want to work their entire lives sewing in sleeves into a sportscoat. Dean's idea that higher prices would end the job drain problem is actually correct, though only in its factual claim, not in its normative claim that job drain is a problem. Yet, it completely undermines his idea that this will create a Third World middle class. If higher prices will solve the job drain problem, then Americans will be getting these jobs that people in the Third World currently get. What do Third World workers get in exchange? Environmental regulations and labor unions. Too bad they're unemployed, but at least they have labor unions! I don't know, maybe Howard Dean has convinced me that he is one of the people... Nah... anyone who has ever earned an honest living knows that "Deanconomics" is bunk.

UPDATE: Daniel Drezner, guest-blogging over at the Volokh Conspiracy has an excellent post with links to many papers debunking Deanconomics.

A Modest Proposal?
This is an interesting idea to have Russia sell to China its Far East holdings. The benefits seem to be:

1. Solve China's lack of space problems
   
2. Give China more natural resources, such as oil, which they so desperately need
   
3. Give Russia extra money, which they are always in need of, especially when commodities markets dip
   

One main concern that I have with this proposal is that this will prop up the Chinese economy. The Chinese regime -- and make no mistake about it, it is an oppressive one -- derives its legitimacy from its economic success. Right now, it is having economic problems and it would be a terrible idea to prolong the regime's lifespan by aiding them economically. Another issue, is that the Chinese economy, despite popular misconceptions, is not a capitalist one. Most companies in China are still owned by the Chinese military and there is great barriers to free enterprise. Any proposal that seeks to aid the Communist apparatchiks in charge in Beijing are prolonging an evil and oppressive regime.

Not Everything in the Latest City Journal is Like Heather McDonald's Article
A good article in the latest issue on how labor unions at universities are affecting academic departments. This is another good argument against GESO (the graduate student group trying to unionize at Yale... though thankfully they have been recently rebuffed by losing a vote that they themselves rigged!). Unfortunately I will be a graduate student in the fall at the first private university to get a graduate student union (New York University). Hopefully it will not politicize the academic departments. Though NYU is already liberal enough, I suppose. At least I'm in the math department. Imagine if I were a Poli Sci or History grad student!

Oh McDonald Had a War...
Heather McDonald of City Journal, who I very much respect, just wrote an interesting article in the latest issue, defending the PATRIOT Act. If you're wondering how such a ridiculous piece of legislation could possibly be defended, you are right to wonder. I think McDonald makes some very good points regarding how some of the fears of civil libertarians have been exaggerated, particularly in the media. For example:

A running theme of the campaign against section 215 and many other Patriot Act provisions is that they violate the Fourth Amendment right to privacy. But there is no Fourth Amendment privacy right in records or other items disclosed to third parties. A credit-card user, for example, reveals his purchases to the seller and to the credit-card company. He therefore has no privacy expectations in the record of those purchases that the Fourth Amendment would protect. As a result, the government, whether in a criminal case or a terror investigation, may seek his credit-card receipts without a traditional Fourth Amendment showing to a court that there is “probable cause” to believe that a crime has been or is about to be committed. Instead, terror investigators must convince the FISA court that the receipts are “relevant.”

A large amount of her argument is simply that the act extended current law enforcement provisions to allow for the FBI to keep up with newer technologies:

The majority of legal changes after September 11 simply brought the law into the twenty-first century.

But this argument is problematic. Just because the FBI already had vast law enforcement powers does not mean that they were right to have them. As in, I don't think that the FBI ought be able to read my mail. So obviously, I'm going to oppose CARNIVORE (the sniffer placed by the feds on the servers of an ISP that checks emails that contain certain buzzwords), even though it is merely an extension of the FBI being able to read my mail. If I think a certain governmental power is illegitimate, I am certainly going to oppose its expansion. McDonald does not address this in her article.

Then, she borders on the absurd with statements such as:

The government has long had the power to collect the numbers dialed from, or the incoming numbers to, a person’s telephone by showing a court that the information is “relevant to an ongoing criminal investigation.” Just as in section 215 of the Patriot Act, this legal standard is lower than traditional Fourth Amendment “probable cause,” because the phone user has already forfeited any constitutional privacy rights he may have in his phone number or the number he calls by revealing them to the phone company.

It's certainly true that I give up my right to privacy. But, I chose to give this number to the phone company. I did not choose to give it to the FBI. It is also impossible not to let a phone company know your number. After all, they are the ones who gave it to you! But I see no necessity in the FBI getting a hold of these records. It is as if McDonald were arguing, "Well, you already forfeit your right to privacy by giving your building superintendent the keys to your apartment for emergencies. Hence, the Fourth Amendment guarantees against unreasonable search and seizure do not apply since this right to pricacy in your possessions has already been forfeitted." This argument is obviously ridiculous, as is McDonald's original.

I think that the biggest problem is that McDonald actually thinks that the War on Terror is a real war. She argues:

In fact, of course, the 9/11 bombings were classic decapitation strikes, designed to take out America’s political and financial leadership. Had a state carried them out, no one could possibly deny that they were acts of war, as John Yoo and James Ho point out in a forthcoming Virginia Journal of International Law article. The aim of the 19 foreign terrorists and their backers was not criminal but ideological: to revenge U.S. policies in the Middle East with mass destruction.

Recognizing that the World Trade Center and Pentagon attacks were acts of war entails certain consequences. First, the campaign against al-Qaida and other Islamic terror organizations is really war, not a metaphor, like the “war on drugs.” Second, it is a war unlike any the U.S. has ever fought. The enemy, mostly but not exclusively foreign, is hidden on American soil in the civilian population, with the intention of slaughtering as many innocent noncombatants as possible. The use of military force abroad, while necessary, is by no means sufficient: domestic counterterrorism efforts by the FBI and other domestic law enforcement agencies are at least as essential to defeating the enemy.

This argument is also problematic. Adopting her definition of war, Tim McVeigh's attack on Oklahoma City is also such an act. The only distinction she makes is that McVeigh was American whereas Mohammed Attah was not. If she believes that this is an actual war and not just a metaphor like the War on Drugs (which she claims), then I wonder if she could name the precise individuals whom the war is against. Also, when do we know that the war is over? She argues, correctly, that in a traditional war civil liberties are curtailed. Even without entering the discussion of whether suspending the writ of habeas corpus is ever legitimate, we can say that in a traditional war, we know the standard by which we should judge that the war has ended. For example, Hitler has been deposed. Or a peace treaty has been signed. What such standard exists in the War on Terror? The capture of Osama? Doubtful, given that there are many lunatics who want to commit terrorist acts against the US. In a real war, suspensions of civil liberties are temporary. They go from the moment of declaration of war to some particular point in time at which some event has occurred that denotes the war's end. Yet, in this case, since we do not know when the war will end, our suspensions of civil liberties seem to be indefinite!

I am not the first to make these arguments. Read this, this and this.

Two very evil men are dead

It's official: Saddam Hussein's two sons, Uday and Qusay, are gone for good.

Good riddance. These men were about as rotten as they come. Their hobbies were rape, murder, and torture; Iraq is better off now.

This is interesting. Some human rights groups are claiming that American soldiers are torturing Iraqi prisoners. By way of comparison, check out Andrew Sullivan, who has lately been posting e-mails from American soldiers in Iraq. These two sources paint very different pictures.

First of all, I'm not sure if forcing prisoners to wear hoods on their heads for extended periods of time qualifies as torture. It's nowhere near to the sick practices one would find in Iraq when Hussein and his boys were in charge; we're talking apples and oranges here, to say the least.

Second, the attitude that comes across in the materials Sullivan cites (our troops seem to be taking their work to heart) flies in the face of these accusations. Though I don't mean to dismiss these allegations outright, perhaps this is just another example of reflexive anti-war thinking.

Hon. Alex Kozinski (9th Circuit) Lays Smackdown on Envirolunatics... via Bjorn Lomborg of Course
A great review by Kozinski of Bjorn Lomborg's The Skeptical Environmentalist. Linked via Eugene Volokh over at the Volokh Conspiracy. If after reading this, you are asking yourself, "Is Kozinski this fun in person as in print?" the answer is: "You bet." I had the pleasure of listening to him debate Hon. Stephen Reinhardt (also from the 9th Circuit) on the future of the federal judiciary at the Federalist Society at Yale Law School. Kozinski was very very entertaining.

What to do with Iran?
Patrick Belton discusses an LA Times story on Oxblog that seems to be saying nothing other than extending the status quo on American foreign policy. As Belton writes:

What are they asking for, then? Mainly, a major presidential speech on Iran, outlining a U.S. strategy "to provide moral and political assistance to the internal movement for democracy in Iran, not to anoint a future leader." Secondarily, that the US make clear it will only deal with a democratically elected regime, and (somewhat nebulously) that we accelerate the flow of accurate information and democratic ideas through broadcasting, confront the regime on its nuclear weapons program and violations of human rights, and support Iranian reformers "intellectually and practically." (Incidentally, on the broadcasting point, see this article on Cuba jamming the new daily Persian-language broadcasts of VOA and a private Iranian exile group in L.A..)

Sounds fine, but I'm not (yet) convinced that this isn't, in spite of itself, a call for extending the status quo of US policy, albeit perhaps with more administration attention. Which may be fine, but is markedly less ambitious than the wholesale new policy the authors promise at the outset.

This might not be a very popular suggestion, but I think the solution to the problem is for America to use more covert military attacks on Iran than just declaring war on them like we did with Iraq. I know we have also been quite ineffective in these kind of missions (Bay of Pigs, Lybia, etc), but I think if we have the will to do it -- which I think we do, given Bush's rhetoric on this issue -- we ought try to provide secret military aid to the Iranian rebel leaders. Eventually, I think we have to pick sides in the conflict. Even if we just say that "The people of Iran should choose their leaders" we have already picked a side, by rejecting the idea of just allowing the Shah's son to resume the throne. I think that this is inevitable. And given that it is inevitable, we ought provide military help to the democratic faction. Our choices are not just empty plattitudes and all out war. We have more covert means of doing things.

Eric Alterman, Dowdified
Pejman Yousefzadeh Dowdifies The Nation columnist Eric Alterman. If Ann Coulter is the Maureen Dowd on the Right, is Eric Alterman the male Maureen Dowd? I heard him speak live once (in a debate against Rick Brookhiser of NR and Alexander Hamilton, American fame at the Yale Political Union on Clinton's legacy... let's just say Alterman was less than stellar).

Is Bush Anti-Science?
Nicholas Thompson of the Washington Monthlyseems to think so. But, I think that he is overexaggerating Bush's supposed hostility towards science. One big piece of evidence Thompson cites to support his claim is that Bush is out of line with consensus "scientific" opinion on Global Warming. The problem, however, is that the established environmental "scientists" do not operate in a very scientific method. Many so-called "environmental scientists" are not scientists in the traditional sense, but little more than demographers. Read Bjorn Lomborg's The Skeptical Environmentalist for plenty of examples of unscientific conduct by the established community. I would also not call social science, "science", as Thompson seems to want to do (with abstinence-only education, for example). Thompson falls into the trap of thinking that academic research is unbiased. Academics have as much of an axe to grind, based on their personal beliefs, as do special interest groups like corporations. Accepting their scientific results without questioning their validity first would be a disservice to science itself.

I think I agree with Thompson on the stem-cells and cloning issue, but he does not have an ally in my on his claim that Bush's opposition to the environmentalist agenda is an example of hostility to science.

Stand By Your War
The Economist believes that even if Bush and Blair lied, War was still justified in Iraq. They are exactly right. Linked via Slate.

The Future is Now
New human tracking chip is about to hit the market. Basically, a small chip the size of a grain of rice can be implanted in a person's skin via syringe and when examined with a scanner, it provides the person's name, address, blood type, and other information. In Mexico, this is becoming popular, as a result of a high crime rate, particularly in kidnappings, burglaries and theft. I suppose this is pretty cool, as long as the government doesn't try to require everyone to have this thing. I doubt that the US government ever will, but I am sure that our EU allies would have few moral qualms about doing that.

France Bans The Word "e-mail"!
The French Academy is out of control. It is ridiculous for some organization to declare what is and what isn't proper usage. For example, in America, the MLA (Modern Languages Association) is an utter joke given their pomo tastes. Language evolves naturally. That's why the President of France's largest ISP, Club Internet said in response to this change:

The word 'courriel' is not at all actively used. E-mail has sunk in to our values.

I wonder if this was an anti-American move, in much the same way Congress decreed to change the name of "french fries" to "freedom fries". I suppose it's only fair. But still a joke.

The Next Churchill
Tony Blair is just amazing. His speech to Congress was a Churchillian moment:

As Britain knows, all predominant power seems for a time invincible, but in fact it is transient. The question is, what do you leave behind? And what you can bequeath to this anxious world is the light of liberty. That is what this struggle against terrorist groups or states is about. We're not fighting for domination. We're not fighting for an American world, though we want a world in which America is at ease. We're not fighting for Christianity, but against religious fanaticism of all kinds. And this is not a war of civilizations, because each civilization has a unique capacity to enrich the stock of human heritage. We are fighting for the inalienable right of humankind--black or white; Christian or not; left, right or merely indifferent--to be free--free to raise a family in love and hope, free to earn a living and be rewarded by your own efforts, free not to bend your knee to any man in fear, free to be you, so long as being you does not impair the freedom of others.

That's what we're fighting for, and it's a battle worth fighting. And I know it's hard on America. And in some small corner of this vast country, out in Nevada or Idaho or these places I've never been to but always wanted to go--I know out there, there's a guy getting on with his life, perfectly happily, minding his own business, saying to you, the political leaders of this country, "Why me, and why us, and why America?" And the only answer is because destiny put you in this place in history in this moment in time, and the task is yours to do.

And our job--my nation, that watched you grow, that you fought alongside and now fights alongside you, that takes enormous pride in our alliance and great affection in our common bond--our job is to be there with you. You're not going to be alone. We will be with you in this fight for liberty.

We will be with you in this fight for liberty. And if our spirit is right and our courage firm, the world will be with us.

Why aren't our presidents as eloquent as the Brits?

Giving a Mandela a Dictator's Celebration
This is really Lenin-like. The celebration for Mandela's 85th birthday sounds like a celebration of a nation's founding. What is weird that such a feast and holiday would be in honor of one person. Mandela was quite possibly a terrorist. His wife certainly was. Even if one thinks that Mandela is a good guy, the kind of God-like adoration with which he is being treated by the government is absolutely bizarre:

Guests are rumoured to include Queen Beatrix of the Netherlands, Barbra Streisand, Michael Jackson and Oprah Winfrey. But no one knows for certain because the organisers have threatened to sue anyone who spoils the birthday bash by revealing the guest list.

This sounds more like something that the Soviets would do to celebrate Lenin's birthday. And the same guests would probably be in attendance.

A new twist in the California recall effort.

I think this is a horrible move for the Democratic Party. Governor Gray Davis has had a miserable stint as governor of California, plain and simple. I find it bizarre that Former President Clinton and Rep. Nancy Pelosi, prominent Democratic figures, would expend political capital by getting behind a politician with the anti-Midas touch that Gray Davis seems to have (I can't recall the last time I heard about a positive accomplishment of his; it's stuff like the energy crisis and current budget fiasco all the way back).

Yes, taking other Democrats out of the running would make it more likely that the recall will fail. However, the momentum seems to be in favor of the Republicans to the point that this won't really matter; McAuliffe's move will do nothing to whitewash the writing on the walls for Davis.

And it's not a foregone conclusion that a Republican will win with Davis out of the way; don't forget what state we're talking about. Arnold Schwarzenneger could still lose. This could be a great opportunity for a young up-and-coming Democrat to make his move, though such a political powerplay would be impossible without the support of the rest of the Dems. The DNC would be well advised to realize what battles it has lost and retreat in the hopes that the war may yet be won. Davis can't win, and the DNC should find a replacement so they won't lose.

This could have an impact on the presidential race in 2004, after all. If McAuliffe continues to stick with Davis he won't have a Democratic governor in California to help with the campaign. I'm not saying that President Bush will take the state. However, he may gain votes he otherwise wouldn't have, both in California and around the country. Davis's office is the most prominent, and most important, elected office the Democrats now hold; for the Dems to lose it in such an embarassing way will get some voters thinking in 2004.

This is Refreshing
Finally, a ban on taxes on Internet service. This is a great idea and I bet would be extremely popular. So many people are online now, that they could appreciate the lower costs, which usually add a couple of bucks to the monthly bill. Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee (D-TX) doesn't seem happy:

‘‘I believe that we are interfering with the rights of states on their own taxation policies," said Sheila Jackson Lee, D-Texas.

So, given her new fondness for states' rights, I assume she is also unhappy with the recent Lawrence decision? Wouldn't think that she and Law Professor David Wagner, who also happens to be the YFP's first editor, would have so much in common!

Speaking of Howard Dean
The man has an entire page on his campaign site devoted to documenting the supposed lie by Bush about Iraq's attempts to purchase uranium from Niger. You can read the complete debunking of the claim that Bush lied here, here, and here.

Is This The Best The Dems Can Do?
John Kerry spoke at the Bronx last night. The speech was supposed to be a scathing attack on Bush's inept domestic security policies. Such an attack would have been worthy and would have distanced him from the other Democratic contenders who are still chasing the so-called Niger nuclear lie (Howard Dean has an entire website devoted to it). But he spent most of the speech talking about how the local firehouses need more money. If you read the entire Salon article, you can see how this just turned into a giant "gimme" match. Everyone wanted to get in on the pie Kerry was promising the firefighters. How boring. Is this the best he can do? If the Dems have any hope of winning, and I do not think that they do, they really need to attack Bush on the tough issues: homeland security, civil liberties, the economy, and the huge spending increases.

Someone Needs to Check their Premises
Salon sees a contradiction in the declaration that the recession ended in November of 2001, according to academic economists, but unemployment is still rising. The likely reason for this is that we're still feeling the shakeout from the internet bubble. When the internet bubble burst, there were many many people who lost their jobs. Some firms did not realize the extent of the economic problems at the time and figured that they could just rehire these people. Now, companies are realizing that there was an economic inefficiency going on. To maximize profits (or even to just remain profitable somewhat) it was necessary to become more efficient, streamline their workforce, etc. And so, the people keep getting laid off. The GDP is growing due to this move to greater efficiency, but the number of people on unemployment is rising. Think about it: all of the internet companies closed down. Those workers needed to go somewhere. And those are the people on unemployment now (well, not exactly the same people, but rather the same number of people... some people from internet companies got hired soon after the bubble burst, but companies laid off some others).

Families Live in Fear of Midnight Call by US Patrols
Linked via Eve Tushnet. Here are some exerpts:

Some, like Ghania Hassan, sink to their knees in despair. She holds a photograph of her eldest son, Mohammed Yasim Mohammed, a 22-year-old student. She said that he was walking through al-Shaab market with friends when passing troops saw him eating biscuits from an American military ration pack and accused him of being a looter. Allegedly he was pushed face down on the street while his friends tried to explain how a soldier a couple of streets away had given them the biscuits.

... One of the most disturbing incidents concerns Sufiyan Abd al-Ghani, 11, who was with his uncle in a car that was stopped near his home in Hay al-Jihad at just after 10pm on May 27. The boy’s father heard a commotion and rushed outside to see him sprawled face down on the road with a rifle muzzle pressed against his neck and US officers shouting that someone in the car had shot at them.

Sufiyan was made to stay on the ground for three hours, while more than 100 soldiers poured into the neighborhood, searching houses and cars. Eventually he was taken away with his hands trussed behind his back and a hood draped over his head. No weapon had been found. The boy said that soldiers dug rifle butts into his neck and back and that the first night he was handcuffed and left alone in a tiny room open to the sky.

If true, this is pretty appalling. I was and still am in favor of the war, but the Americans should not be acting like this. One of the most telling quotes from the article:

Mr Akhjan, whose 58-year-old father was arrested three weeks ago for driving a truck with no doors or headlights, said: “People are so sickened by what is happening they talk of wanting Saddam to come back. How bad can the Americans be that in three months we want that monster back?”

It seems that whenever wars happen, this is inevitable. After all, soldiers are only human and with the recent attacks on soldiers by what seemed to be civilians have made the soldiers more paranoid, and more importantly, angrier. The first thing that the US needs to do is let the Red Cross see the prisoners, as has been done in previous wars. If we really are going in there as liberators of people oppressed by an evil regime, we need to start behaving that way. Again, I do not know how true the stuff in this article is (it originally came from the Times, UK, reprinted in a progressive online journal). But if it is, it represents a big problem for Bush, in my view.

UPDATE: Well, in light of the above, this is refreshing. What is more interesting, is that this poll was taken in Baghdad, which is heavily anti-American. And still, 56% want us to be there for at least 12 months. Some disturbing bits in the poll, however, is that nearly half (47%) think things have gotten worse.

Protests in Hong Kong Cost Two Officials' Jobs
Apparently, the recent protests against the new set of sedition laws in Hong Kong proposed by the mainland, have possibly cost the resignations of two higher-level officials, the secretary of security and the secretary of finance. It looks like Beijing has been embarassed. According to the resigning officials, their resignations were for various personal unrelated reasons. Though, I would imagine that the secretary of security's resignation did have something to do with the huge protests that have been very embarassing for the mainland. This is excellent news. It may very well force the mainland to reconsider its proposal. Read about the proposal in the April issue of the YFP, here.

It is tempting to say that the Iranians should learn from those in Hong Kong. Though, I think that the differences between the two movements are quite vast. For example, China desperately seeks international legitimacy, mainly for economic reasons. It also needs Hong Kong since Hong Kong is very important for the mainland's finances. For this reason, widespread protests are embarassing for the regime and may very well lead them to scrap the entire sedition policy proposal. On the other hand, the Iranian regime is filled with lunatics who could not care less about murdering a third of their citizens. Finally, the people aren't trying to cause a change in an already- existing regime, but are trying to prevent the implementation of a policy. They seek no international approval or legitimacy. They view their own legitimacy as deriving from Allah and not the dollar. This is obviously not to say that the Iranians should not have a strong protest movement to pressure the Mullah's to do something. By the same token, I would imagine that there is something that they covet and would feel threatened by losing. I think in the case of Iran, the US government really does need to provide the people actual material and military support to overthrow the Mullah's.

Mugabe to Step Down in December
I am not sure that I trust RSA's Thabo Mbeki on this issue. Also the plan appears to leave Mugabe with a lot of clout within the ruling party. I hope this plan does not preclude Mugabe from being able to be prosecuted later for his Stalinist policies. We'll just wait and see if Bush will have the balls to do the right thing in Zimbabwe.

The Guardian On The People's Mojahedin
I suppose this is an interesting news story on one of Iran's opposition groups. Yet, this article cites no evidence whatsoever. All of its information is based on unnamed sources and cites facts that they attribute to no person, but rather refer to as if they were common knowledge. Here's an example of what I mean:

More and more, analysts believe, the MKO may have become a pawn in a bigger contest between Washington and Iran. The George Bush administration sees the MKO as a possible lever in its campaign to restrict Iran's nuclear programme and force the extradition of al-Qaida suspects allegedly sheltering in the country.

Who are these analysts? Is there any evidence? Where did The Guardian get this information? For all I know, they might have just made it up! I am not sure what to think of this group, but it certainly does make me think that The Guardian has an axe to grind on the Iran issue. In fact, it seems as though it is willing to quietly support the Mullah's just to oppose the American regime. I am not claiming that the MKO is a good group that we should support in Iran. I don't know enough, to be honest. But, it certainly appears that The Guardian just did a hatchet job with this article.

Que Chirac, Chirac. Whatever will be, will be...
So it turns out that Chirac is going through with huge spending increases that are breaking EU rules and hurting the EU's budget. Instapundit rightly notices Chirac's hypocrisy and unilateralism. The interesting thing, I think, is that no large nation in the world with any clout wants strong international organizations, and who can blame them!?

The last time there was any concerted effort on the part of a large nation to have a true international system was Wilson's 14 Points. And we all know how well the League of Nations worked, now don't we? Every large nation pays lip service to international organizations because these can be used and manipulated by the hegemons to serve their own needs. Look at the United States. As soon as the U.N. was no longer implementing our will, we said, "screw you, I'm going home." Now, I think we did the right thing in that case because the U.N. was dead wrong on the Iraq issue. But that does not deny the fact that the U.S. did that. Remember when Eastern European nations signed that letter supporting the war in Iraq? Chirac immediately started threatening them.

I think it points to the futility and silliness of "international systems", "international regimes", etc. Of course nations that have a strong sense of who they are and a great degree of self-sufficiency are not going to want to bow down to pressure from smaller countries. No one wants to give in on their interests, especially when they end up giving up a lot of autonomy and power. Absolutely no one. The reason small nations have to is because they have no choice. They have security needs and inevitably have to sacrifice their interests for the understandable necessity of security. I think France and Germany want to use the EU to leverage their interests against the U.S. As separate countries, they cannot compete with our power. Yet, if they dangle enough carrots in front of Eastern and Central European nations (and poorer Western European nations like Portugal), those nations will go along with them in their conglomerate state. The EU, with all of its economic and military power, does have the clout to challenge America's hegemony, or at least be a huge pain in the neck (see blocked McDonnel Douglas - Boeing merger). This is what France wants to get out of the E.U.

I don't think this is really anything new. We have known it all along. But, I think that this is an important point. International roganizations are quite useless in "world community" terms because no one with enough power to make this community work wants to be an equal partner in this community. Why should the strongest guy in the neighborhood selflessly protect everyone else, while having the same amount of voting power as the weakling accross the street.

"A Mockery of Self-Government"
In case you have not been following the discussion on The Volokh Conspiracy about the Nevada Supreme Court invalidating parts of the Nevada Constitution (if you think this makes no sense, you are right!), OpinionJournal has an excellent piece recapping the whole affair:

Apart from Mr. Guinn and the teachers unions, the folks happiest about this are probably Florida's high court judges, who now have company in making a mockery of self-government. It appears Governor Guinn will now get his tax hike. But let's remember that in suing the state's legislators, he was in reality suing his own voters.

Hopefully Guinn will experience the negative consequences in the next election.

Kate Spade Bags
I have been following the discussion on The Volokh Conspiracy about the connections between Kate Spade knock-offs and Napster.

Kate Spade bags are usually very plain cloth bags with a little "kate spade" label on them. See the classic bags here. The point is that these bags are not at all that distinguishing, but people want them for the trendy "kate spade" label. Nothing special. Based on the various reader responses received on the The Volokh Conspiracy, it seems that the cheap knock-offs are not really hurting Spade's business. After all, most people who buy those cheap knockoffs could not afford the $150 price-tag for a cloth bag. So, they would not be buying Spade's bags if the knock-offs did not exist. Still, some who buy the knock-offs would buy the original. Further still, it seems Spade's name adorns bags she did not sign off on. I am certain that the quality of the cheap immitations are not on par with that of the original bags. So, I think one can avoid the entire copyright issue by basing prosecutions of the vedors of impostor bags on simple misappropriation of likeness laws. For example, if someone took a photo of George Bush drinking a cup of Starbucks Coffee and then Starbucks used that photo in an ad without paying Bush money or getting his permission, they would be held liable for misappropriation of likeness. I think it might be a stretch to apply it in the Kate Spade case. After all, no advertising is involved. On the other hand, it is a form of advertising or promotion to have her name on those bags which she did not give permission to endorse. Her name is a form of her likeness and these statutes might apply. I am not a lawyer and would like to hear more about this. But I think that it might be an interesting way of getting around copyright discussions in this particular case.

Pat Robertson
Daniel Drezner says that Pat Robertson is corrupt, citing his praise for and business dealings with Charles Taylor (linked via Instapundit). We wrote about this two weeks ago. But the news isn't anything new. The Michael Barone article we linked to is from nearly two years ago! I guess everyone was caught sleeping on this until now. But then again, that's not a surprise given Clinton's buddy buddy relationship with Taylor, leading the establishment media to think Taylor is an actual ally.

New Editor at the NYT
So how does NYT's new editor, Bill Keller compare to Howell Raines in terms of partisanship? Well, read all about it here, a quasi-scientific study of media bias. Tracks the number of positive and negative references to Republicans and Democrats in Keller's columns. It seems that based on this (scroll about half-way and look at NYT "Pundits"), Keller is among the better people the Times could have chosen. Well, but then again, the other columnists without dayjobs are Maureen Dowd and Frank Rich.

Our Friends the Saudis
So it turns out that someone got to this site from Saudi Arabia, by Google searching "Iranian sex." Where is the Committee on the Promotion of Virtue and Prevention of Vice? I guess enforcement has been lax recently. Tsk Tsk Tsk.

Feed It, Just Feed It
Ok, this discussion is getting too long and involved. We might have to cut it off right here. But, let me address a couple of small issues first. To make everything clear about the law and morality distinction, what Steve needs to do to win this argument is to show me why it is immoral to end my life in the case of extreme suffering. If it is immoral, then, and only then, can he begin talking about making laws to regulate it (and even then I think that it would be suspect, given the recent Lawrence decision). So, let me first deal with the epistemology issue and then I will proceed to the legal matters for even if it is immoral to commit suicide in extreme suffering, why it is unjust for the state to regulate it.

So, to wit: On epistemology, Steve writes,

I’m not being anti-individualistic. I start with an epistemic claim. How do we know if something is a duck? It walks like a duck, etc. We know a duck because it engages in qualities pointing to duckness. How do we know a man? Same drill.

So? Just because we know a man based on what he does, does not mean that we can only understand him within the context of his society. Man does a lot of things that have no effect on society and we use it to base our decisions of him and his morality. You then go on to write,

I think there’s a fine line between autonomy and self-ownership that shouldn’t be crossed. I believe in human agency and for the responsibilities that entails. I think you make the connection between the body and agency way too close. Our bodies are very constrained, much more than the mind. I may will to fly, but my body never will. That doesn’t mean I can’t will to fly, just that I never will fly. Our agency and its inherent freedom (other there is no true human agency) is above and beyond, related to but not connected to in the way you describe, our bodies.

Just because we cannot do everything we set our minds to does not mean that we do not have agency over our bodies. I agree that our bodies are limited by physics, but so are our minds (eg: schizophrenia, lsd, absynthe). Furthermore, I still do not see why this is relevant to the discussion. Even if it is true that we can only understand ourselves through our relationship with others, and even if it is true that we do not have full agency over our bodies, that does not mean that our body is owned by society or any such silliness.

Essentially, we have the following four choices:

1) Your body is owned by you and you alone (which is my view),
2) Your body is owned by your society or some other human being (this is known as slavery, or Spartan-style form of society),
3) Your body is owned by God (which is what Steve seems to fundamentally believe, especially given the fact that he is Greek Orthodox),
or
4) No one owns your body.

Now, I think that 2 can be rejected outright. If Steve cannot prove to me that I do not own my body, he certainly cannot prove why Bob or Katie, or the Joneses ought own my body. In the case of 4, it seems that it would not matter whether I commit euthanasia or not. For example, if no one owns a piece of paper on the street, it is not a problem if I tear it up into a million different pieces. So, that leaves cases 1 and 3. I don't think that we can rationally differentiate between them. Well - rather - I do, but Steve would think that I'm hurling insults at him by calling him irrational (;-)). So, I'll just be charitable and call his system arational and just leave it at that. But seriously, there is really no way in which he can rationally argue that God owns our bodies.

So, onto the legal argument. Even if it is immoral for us to kill ourselves, I do not believe that the government ought make it illegal to do that. First, I don't think that it will lead people to devalue human life or to start killing themselves over paper cuts. Some states already have physician-assisted suicide laws in effect (I believe Oregon does) and there is not now a rash of suicides as a result. People do not kill themselves over paper cuts. Why? Because most people have an instinct to live unless under SEVERE psychological or physical duress (well, I think that SEVERE physical duress leads to SEVERE psychological duress... that's the whole point... one cannot enjoy being human anymore, nor partake in humanity). As for angsty teens committing suicide, I doubt that current suicide laws are stopping any teens from committing suicide. Furthermore, I greatly doubt that legalizing suicide will all of a sudden make people think, "Yay, let's go commit suicide!"

Also, your anology with abortion does not work at all. One can see how the law would change the cultural view on abortion (though I doubt it did all that much) given that this is an act of harming someone else. People's instinct of wanting to survive themselves (which as I said earlier, an instinct most people naturally have unless something really really really bad happens... ie: mental illness, physical suffering, etc) will not change. It has evolutarily been ingrained in us. You will not all of a sudden have people committing suicide over paper cuts because they think that it's now all of a sudden perfectly normal to commit suicide since it was legalized. I just think that you're totally exaggerating here.

Second, I do not think that this law is just. I do not see a legitimate state interest in enforcing a law against suicide, especially in cases when the person is likely to die soon anyway, and his living is merely prolonging his suffering.

UPDATE: Ok, I might be overstating my case a little bit there at the end. I am not sure how legally one can argue legitimate state interest or lack thereof in this case, as I am not a lawyer. I will leave it up for now, but I am not sure I believe it on closer examination.

The Feeding Tube Strikes Back

Sorry for the late response. I had some projects at work I needed to take care of. Anyway, I’ll respond to both of your posts (for readability’s sake I tried to limit the length a bit, though it ended up being quite a long post anyway; if I glossed over anything I'll try to clarify later):

(Note: the indented material is Gene's):

I. Law and Morality

You just merely repeated your main point.

Yes, granted I should have used a different example. I'm unimaginative, sorry.

I am not sure how to affirmatively argue that it is moral (or at least amoral) to end one's life after years of prolonged suffering. I think that the burden lies on your shoulders to prove that it is immoral (see my arguments further down for why your standards aren't good enough to say that it is immoral).

I'm not so sure about that. Since you're advocating the reversal of common law and practice and understanding, I'd say the burden is on your shoulders. But, I'll try and do my part anyway.

As for the legal argument, I think that your thinking is completely out of line with the kind of legal reasoning we have in other areas of life. For one, I think that the recent Lawrence decision, whatever you may think of it, in fact legitimizes physician-assisted suicide, so long as it was fully consentual. The "mystery of life" passage from Casey cited by Kennedy, seems to allow for people to decide themselves about their lives.

…I agree that the law and morality are intertwined. But, at this point, I think that they have been greatly severed (and rightly so, in my mind) in the Lawrence decision.

I don't mind being out of line with Lawrence, actually. Far from being about “liberty” it was a decision made by five un-elected and unaccountable individuals that constricted the liberty of localities to make (and repeal) their own laws. Yes, the sodomy law was stupid. The right decision would have been for the Court to say “Yeah, we find the law reprehensible but, legally speaking, we have no choice but to let Texas deal with this issue as all states should. We’re limited by the understanding that the Constitution allows states and localities the right to legislate ‘public health and morals.’”

As a result of the decision, all connections between law and morality are severed. Not only are local governments now prohibited from making laws that try to differentiate between good and bad elements in society (a fundamental and inescapable distinction) but the language which exalts “the mystery of life” can easily be used to further justify laws that prevent individuals from exercising their own right to discriminate, the cornerstone of liberty (though that trend is already in full swing, most recently manifested in the growing secular-Puritanical desire to outlaw smoking).

Sure, I have no legal basis now to oppose euthanasia. In principle, if not yet in practice, no one has any legal basis to oppose anything anymore.

II. Epistemology and Self-Ownership

Anyway, off the tangent and back to the main issues:

What does it mean to have "insight into a man in and of himself"? I completely reject our premise that we know humans only by their relationship with other humans. It seems that your idea is totally unindividualistic.

We’ve had several conversations on this before, and a resolution was not in the cards then. I don’t think we can resolve this complicated epistemic issue in this type of forum, but I’ll try to clarify one more time (we’ll probably be better off focusing on the consent issue directly).

I’m not being ant-individualistic. I start with an epistemic claim. How do we know if something is a duck? It walks like a duck, etc. We know a duck because it engages in qualities pointing to duckness. How do we know a man? Same drill.

Your example of the names doesn't cut it either. Your name doesn't define your being. If you were placed in a witness protection program and had to change your name, your Being doesn't change. You are still the same person. In fact, I think that this position undermines your religious argument. If we were created by God or some other Creator, our Being (souls) existed before we were even born. But our names did not. We had no relationship to society until after we were born. We certainly had a relationship to our parents.

This is not to imply that there is no inner essence to people, actually. I’m just saying we can’t fully understand what it means to be us without knowing what is expected of us, etc. The closest way to know the being-in-itself, in other words, is to know what the being is supposed to do. I can’t know a duck minus quacking; I can’t know a person minus what he’s supposed to do in the world.

I brought up the epistemology in the first place because I think it fights the self-ownership idea.

Also, on self-ownership: I think that this is easily derivable from human agency. We are moral agents and as such, we cannot sever our agency from the bodies in which our agency occurs. Since we are the sole determiners of our destiny (as moral agency denotes) we out determine the destiny of our bodies. If Steve wants to argue that we do not own our bodies, then I think he will have a difficult time arguing against slavery. And the argument that God owns us and hence we cannot be enslaved by any man is a bad one. Certain parts of the Bible can be interpreted to mean that slavery is ok. In fact, the book of Genesis, when God tells Adam to be Eve's master, clearly seems to imply some form of subserviency and ownership. So, unless one accepts self-ownership as a fundamental tenet of what makes us human, I cannot see what justification he can have for opposing slavery.

I think there’s a fine line between autonomy and self-ownership that shouldn’t be crossed. I believe in human agency and for the responsibilities that entails. I think you make the connection between the body and agency way too close. Our bodies are very constrained, much more than the mind. I may will to fly, but my body never will. That doesn’t mean I can’t will to fly, just that I never will fly. Our agency and its inherent freedom (other there is no true human agency) is above and beyond, related to but not connected to in the way you describe, our bodies.

I can argue against slavery without taking the self-ownership position. I can talk about human teleology and how slaver subordinates man from his destined end to one imposed on him by the master; we can further talk about what harmful effect slavery has on the master himself.

III. Consent and Commodity

First, about consent. The example you cite of little Charlie getting into a stranger's car is a bad one. Charlie, presumably is underage and we have decided in our society that children can not give consent. Legally, we have made that decision, and morally as well. I agree that morally, consent is not the starting point. Legally, to a large extent, it is.

Realize that the legal basis for this distinction is fast eroding. About a year ago a law was proposed in Texas that would lower the voting age (in state elections, I guess) to 14. It is already OK for a minor to get an abortion without telling her parents about it. The inability of children to make decisions on their own (from a legal perspective) hinges on the authority of the household and traditional familial arrangements which are quickly eroding.

I do not buy this at all. Many people who suffer from terminal illness are so overwhelmed and engulfed by it that their mind is only focused on that one thing. They can not engage in the "non-commoditized" aspects of our life, thinking about ourselves, pondering what it is that makes us human, etc. You seem to be implying here (and explicitly stating this as a future hypothetical later on) that people want to commit suicide because their tummy hurts or they have a paper cut. This is plainly false.

First of all I’m not implying that people now want to kill themselves because of a paper cut. I am questioning how far you are willing to go with euthanasia. What exactly counts as a malady sufficiently severe to justify such an act? And what’s to stop us from getting to the point where people opt out of life for such stupid reasons? One can argue that the reasons lots of teenagers give for killing themselves (the standard angst all kids feel) is already getting ridiculous. I don’t mean to be flippant, but I’m reminded of Chris Rock’s take on the Columbine kids, which I’ll paraphrase: “They didn’t have any friends? I saw their high school yearbook picture. There were six of them. I didn’t have six friends in high school. That’s three on three with a half court.”

I don't see how your abortion argument has any relevance to this discussion.

It’s quite relevant. The fact that abortion has obtained legal and (for the most part) social acceptance has changed the way people view children. That’s what people mean when they talk about the consequences of abortion, like unwed motherhood and derelict fathers and child abuse. I think the same will happen if euthanasia gains that acceptance.

Next, I think that you are the one placing too high a value on physical existence. Your entire point is: "your physical existence is too precious for you to just eliminate because you feel too much pain." The non-anti-euthenasia stance (I don't want to call it the pro-euthenasia stance for various reasons... more later) is that physical existence is not the end all and be all of your Being. There are other aspects to it and when your physical existence begins to interfere with your other existence, you ought be able to end it.

… Many people who suffer from terminal illness are so overwhelmed and engulfed by it that their mind is only focused on that one thing. They can not engage in the "non-commoditized" aspects of our life, thinking about ourselves, pondering what it is that makes us human, etc.

First, as I implied earlier, this argument can be used to justify euthanasia in cases we would today find ridiculous. Second, this argument can be used to justify the killing of retarded or disabled people (after all, these are major impediments to high human existence, so to speak, and in the case of retarded people they are in no position to recognize their plight or make an educated decision, anyway). Third, it’s a recognition that the rules of life are not in your hands, that you can’t simply press the off button when you want to; it’s not a love of physical existence.

IV. Slippery Slope

Both of these are versions of the slippery slope argument. I don't think that you have a case here. As Eugene Volokh writes here, just because we allow people certain liberties does not mean that people are not going to abuse them. As an example, we have allowed pretty vast self-ownership in regards to doing what one wants with one's body so long as no harm to others is done. One exacmple of this is we allow girls to get their ears pierced. Even their navels and tongues and other body parts. Are there people shoving needles through their genitalia? Sure! Is it a perversion? Probably. But it doesn't mean that as a result we shouldn't allow people to get their ears, navels, noses, etc. pierced just because some people choose to mutilate their bodies for what seems to be no reason.

Granted, in the case of piercing ears. But if, say, we suddenly come up with a right to sexual liberty that opens the door for NAMBLA, then I suggest we redefine that liberty. I don’t care how much people want to enjoy themselves, pederasty is too high a price to pay. In the case of euthanasia, I think that practice is bad in itself; in addition I was making the point that it would lead to unintended and horrible consequences. I don’t want to ban euthanasia just because of the principle it establishes.

Too Bad the Tories are Wussing Out on Britain and the EU
The EU is a net harm, to both Europe, and the rest of the world. Too bad that the Tories don't have the guts to pull Englad out of this terrible organization.

More for the Feeding Tube
I want to elaborate more on the consent issue, and a lot more on the defining ourselves through others bit. I don't think that I addressed the latter point sufficiently.

First, about consent. The example you cite of little Charlie getting into a stranger's car is a bad one. Charlie, presumably is underage and we have decided in our society that children can not give consent. Legally, we have made that decision, and morally as well. I agree that morally, consent is not the starting point. Legally, to a large extent, it is.

I agree that the law and morality are intertwined. But, at this point, I think that they have been greatly severed (and rightly so, in my mind) in the Lawrence decision.

As for knowing others only through ourselves bit, I am not even sure why it is relevant to this issue. The issue is whether or not it should be illegal for someone to choose to end his own life. And this, in my view, has no bearing on the issue. Furthermore, I think we're going to get bogged down in very vague arguments if we do not make it more concrete. Why is this relevant? What do you mean by "knowing ourselves through others"? What does "insight into a man in and of himself" mean? All of these need be clarified and made more concrete if this discussion is going to be fruitful.

Also, on self-ownership: I think that this is easily derivable from human agency. We are moral agents and as such, we cannot sever our agency from the bodies in which our agency occurs. Since we are the sole determiners of our destiny (as moral agency denotes) we out determine the destiny of our bodies. If Steve wants to argue that we do not own our bodies, then I think he will have a difficult time arguing against slavery. And the argument that God owns us and hence we cannot be enslaved by any man is a bad one. Certain parts of the Bible can be interpreted to mean that slavery is ok. In fact, the book of Genesis, when God tells Adam to be Eve's master, clearly seems to imply some form of subserviency and ownership. So, unless one accepts self-ownership as a fundamental tenet of what makes us human, I cannot see what justification he can have for opposing slavery.

Post pending

*This is an ammended post. When I first wrote it up only a paragraph or so of Gene's response was up, and I responded accordingly.

I'll read his complete thoughts and add my own in a bit.*

Here's the substantive part of what I wrote earlier:

Consent is only important because it recognizes human will as a higher order and important factor when dealing with human conduct. However, when consent strikes at that root, we must defer to the more basic principle. Do we allow little Charlie to get into the car with the stranger because he consented? Do we allow Charlie and his sister Charlize to get it on because they consented to?

Consent isn't, and can't be, our starting point. It is justified by the value of man and, when there's a tension between that value and consent, something's got to give. Euthanasia is one of those moments of tension.

I'll touch on the claim that there are two issues here, moral and legal. Yes, but the two overlap significantly. Morality as the guide to and explanation of human life must inform the law. That's not to suggest that morality must be codified in the civil law completely. However, euthanasia is significant and fundamental enough an issue to justify legislation, just like any issue of life and the taking of life..

Stick This in Your Feeding Tube and Smoke It
Steve, I think that you are overexaggerating the societal consequences of allowing voluntary euthenasia and completely glossing over some very deep philosophical points. You write:

First of all, consent is not a valid yardstick in and of itself. People can, and do, consent to lots of repugnant things. Just because I ask the doctor to kill me if I ever get into a coma does not legitimize said death.

You just merely repeated your main point. I think that consent is a very important aspect of whether something is legit or not. There's two issues here. The moral and the legal. I am not sure how to affirmatively argue that it is moral (or at least amoral) to end one's life after years of prolonged suffering. I think that the burden lies on your shoulders to prove that it is immoral (see my arguments further down for why your standards aren't good enough to say that it is immoral). As for the legal argument, I think that your thinking is completely out of line with the kind of legal reasoning we have in other areas of life. For one, I think that the recent Lawrence decision, whatever you may think of it, in fact legitimizes physician-assisted suicide, so long as it was fully consentual. The "mystery of life" passage from Casey cited by Kennedy, seems to allow for people to decide themselves about their lives. I think that there is also a very strong liberty component to this, which goes to your second point, which I will address below.

You go on to write:

Second, euthanasia is grounded in radical individualism insofar as euthanasia is justified by the concept of self ownership. It's an idea I reject for two main reasons, religious and epistemic. First, it's incompatible with Christianity since men are God's creations. Second, it is radically individualistic to the point of undermining understandings of the individual. Unless someone has insight into a man in and of himself, we are forced to concede that we know humans through their teleological relationship to other humans, etc. We know a man through other men.

Names are a good symbolic reminder of this. "Steve" is unknowable, and incomprehensible. It is only when we add "Christoforou" that I can be understood because then we can talk about my duties in relation to family, community, friends, etc.

What does it mean to have "insight into a man in and of himself"? I completely reject your premise that we know humans only by their relationship with other humans. It seems that your idea is totally unindividualistic. That in some sense we don't exist without others. I would agree that human beings need others to keep their sanity, but from an epistemic point of view, I do not understand why we can only be defined through others. Each one of us has a definite nature independent of other people. Sure, we're shaped by others. That does not mean we can only understand ourselves through others.

Your example of the names doesn't cut it either. Your name doesn't define your being. If you were placed in a witness protection program and had to change your name, your Being doesn't change. You are still the same person. In fact, I think that this position undermines your religious argument. If we were created by God or some other Creator, our Being (souls) existed before we were even born. But our names did not. We had no relationship to society until after we were born. We certainly had a relationship to our parents. We always do. But, this does not have a bearing on the euthenasia argument (in fact, often parents of people who want to end their lives after years of great pain are in favor of it themselves... see the various Kevorkian cases). Your epistemic argument seems to completely undermine any sense of individualism, radical or otherwise. It would justify such silliness as "it takes a village to raise a child." Ought we consult our neighbors when getting pregnant? In some societies that's the way it is done; but those are the same societies Steve decries for not having a value for human life. That's exactly the point. If you have value for human life, then you do have to rely on some sort of self-ownership argument.

In regards to the theology, it just seems to me that this is a barrier the two of us won't be able to overcome on the issue given that, well, I am an atheist/agnostic and you are Greek Orthodox. Even still, I do not understand why having been created by God implies that he owns us. We were created by our parents. That does not mean that they own us. Sure, it would be nice if we consulted them on big decisions in our lives, but the point of being an adult is making decisions yourself and facing their consequences. So, just because God created us does not imply ownership. We still own ourselves. Obviously, the theological reason is slightly different. But, I don't see a way in which we could argue about it. Sorry, but looks like we have to do this on humanistic terms.

You then proceed into, what seems to be, hyperbole on "commoditizing life":

Third, euthanasia is a misplacing of priorities. It places too high a value on physical existence. I think it's the flipside of the transhumanist coin, as both concepts revolve around a retreat from physical pain and suffering, either through escapist death or escapist technology. It's a retreat that, in paranoidly glorifying physical life out of a fear of pain, commoditizes life. We can call it the "Six Million Dollar Man Syndrome," the escape of weakness which leads to the thingness of man.

I do not buy this at all. Many people who suffer from terminal illness are so overwhelmed and engulfed by it that their mind is only focused on that one thing. They can not engage in the "non-commoditized" aspects of our life, thinking about ourselves, pondering what it is that makes us human, etc. You seem to be implying here (and explicitly stating this as a future hypothetical later on) that people want to commit suicide because their tummy hurts or they have a paper cut. This is plainly false.

Next, I think that you are the one placing too high a value on physical existence. Your entire point is: "your physical existence is too precious for you to just eliminate because you feel too much pain." The non-anti-euthenasia stance (I don't want to call it the pro-euthenasia stance for various reasons... more later) is that physical existence is not the end all and be all of your Being. There are other aspects to it and when your physical existence begins to interfere with your other existence, you ought be able to end it.

I don't see how your abortion argument has any relevance to this discussion. You write:

And it may go farther than we like it to. The acceptance of abortion has had miserable effects on the way people look at children. They've become little more than accesories women have in their 30s or 40s after they've spent the best years of their lives "enjoying themselves." Nursing homes have altered the way we relate to the elderly; the fact that we can just ship them off to a home makes them burdens we can dispose of guilt free. Euthanasia, as the ritualized killing of human beings, can make things worse. Past societies that have been so free and easy with the taking of human life (like the ritualized suicide of Japan or the "come back with your shield or on it" mentality of the Spartans) didn't hold human life in very high esteem.

and later:

Fourth, if we are to allow euthanasia, how far do we take it? I've felt really rotten when I've been sick in the past, the kind of sick where you just want to crawl in a hole and die. If we do allow euthanasia, what's to stop me? It may sound foolish to kill yourself because of a fever, but to some it sounds equally foolish to want to die if you're ever in a coma, etc. And who knows, in due time it may not sound so stupid to want to kill yourself because of a fever.

Both of these are versions of the slippery slope argument. I don't think that you have a case here. As Eugene Volokh writes here, just because we allow people certain liberties does not mean that people are not going to abuse them. As an example, we have allowed pretty vast self-ownership in regards to doing what one wants with one's body so long as no harm to others is done. One exacmple of this is we allow girls to get their ears pierced. Even their navels and tongues and other body parts. Are there people shoving needles through their genitalia? Sure! Is it a perversion? Probably. But it doesn't mean that as a result we shouldn't allow people to get their ears, navels, noses, etc. pierced just because some people choose to mutilate their bodies for what seems to be no reason. Next, this is merely a legal argument and does not present a strong moral case for why euthenasia is immoral. I think that you have no legal basis for this argument, again for the reasons Eugene Volokh cites.

In conclusion, I think that you fail to convince me on the moral grounds (throwing the theology argument aside.... and I will admit that it's a bit of a shank on my part... but that would require a long discussion of metaphysics and all of my reasons for not believing in God), and you are, in my view off-base on the legal argument as well.

A response to Gene's post about euthanasia

Gene's right about the problem this story poses for involuntary euthanasia. I think we should go further than that, though.

First of all, consent is not a valid yardstick in and of itself. People can, and do, consent to lots of repugnant things. Just because I ask the doctor to kill me if I ever get into a coma does not legitimize said death.

Second, euthanasia is grounded in radical individualism insofar as euthanasia is justified by the concept of self ownership. It's an idea I reject for two main reasons, religious and epistemic. First, it's incompatible with Christianity since men are God's creations. Second, it is radically individualistic to the point of undermining understandings of the individual. Unless someone has insight into a man in and of himself, we are forced to concede that we know humans through their teleological relationship to other humans, etc. We know a man through other men.

Names are a good symbolic reminder of this. "Steve" is unknowable, and incomprehensible. It is only when we add "Christoforou" that I can be understood because then we can talk about my duties in relation to family, community, friends, etc.

Third, euthanasia is a misplacing of priorities. It places too high a value on physical existence. I think it's the flipside of the transhumanist coin, as both concepts revolve around a retreat from physical pain and suffering, either through escapist death or escapist technology. It's a retreat that, in paranoidly glorifying physical life out of a fear of pain, commoditizes life. We can call it the "Six Million Dollar Man Syndrome," the escape of weakness which leads to the thingness of man.

And it may go farther than we like it to. The acceptance of abortion has had miserable effects on the way people look at children. They've become little more than accesories women have in their 30s or 40s after they've spent the best years of their lives "enjoying themselves." Nursing homes have altered the way we relate to the elderly; the fact that we can just ship them off to a home makes them burdens we can dispose of guilt free. Euthanasia, as the ritualized killing of human beings, can make things worse. Past societies that have been so free and easy with the taking of human life (like the ritualized suicide of Japan or the "come back with your shield or on it" mentality of the Spartans) didn't hold human life in very high esteem.

Fourth, if we are to allow euthanasia, how far do we take it? I've felt really rotten when I've been sick in the past, the kind of sick where you just want to crawl in a hole and die. If we do allow euthanasia, what's to stop me? It may sound foolish to kill yourself because of a fever, but to some it sounds equally foolish to want to die if you're ever in a coma, etc. And who knows, in due time it may not sound so stupid to want to kill yourself because of a fever.

Russia Needs to Start Caring About Al-Qaeda
It is clear that the Chechens are tied to Al-Qaeda. This is starting to become a problem for Russia almost as much as for the United States. The point of Al-Qaeda is to protect and promote Islamist land claims and ideology throughout the world. No corner of the world is free from their meddling. And Russia needs to realize this and cooperate more with the US on operations to root Al-Qaeda out.

Why Involuntary Euthenasia is a Problem
A story of a man who woke up after being in a coma for 19 years. I think that this is the main problem with involuntary euthenasia. It's less of a problem for people who wrote in their wills to be turned off if they are in a coma for a long period of time. But, it is still problematic if one signs away their life, but then has a chance of waking up. Voluntary ethenasia is still ok, and this story does not change the argument in favor of that at all, in my view. I'd be interested to hear the comments of others who post on this blog. Wink wink.

Here's How to Get Involved in Iranian Democracy Movement in NYC
Email Amir Irani-Tehrani, of the Iranian Unity and Solidarity Council. Like me, he's a student at NYU.

More Accounts of Iran Solidarity Protests in US
Here's Asparagirl covering the protests in NYC (with pictures of that cool flyer they were handing out I posted about yesterday). Here's also a post from Ken Wheaton. Here is also a report on the one in LA.

I Can't Believe This
Count on The Nation to support the most disgusting and unsavory characters there are, like Margaret Sanger. Ellen Chesler writes in the article that:

In 1917 Sanger went to jail for distributing contraceptive pessaries to immigrant women from a makeshift clinic in a tenement storefront in the Brownsville district of Brooklyn. The nation's birthrate was already declining as a result of private contraceptive arrangements and a healthy underground trade in condoms, douches and various contraptions, but it was Sanger who first recognized the far-reaching consequences of bringing the issue of reproductive freedom out in the open and claiming it as a woman's right.

Right, especially when Sanger's pro-contraceptive stance was largely part of her desire to engage in ethnic cleansing and eugenics. In 1921, in the eugenist Birth Control Review Sanger wrote:

Today Eugenics is suggested by the most diverse minds as the most adequate and thorough avenue to the solution of racial, political, and social problems ... As an advocate of Birth Control, I wish to take advantage of the present opportunity to point out that the unbalance between the birth rate of the "unfit" and the "fit," admittedly the greatest present menace to the human race, can never be rectified by the inauguration of a cradle competition between the two classes. In this matter, the example of the inferior classes, the fertility of the feeble-minded, the mentally defective, the poverty-stricken classes, should not be held up for emulation to the mentally and physically fit though less fertile parents of the educated and well-to-do classes. On the contrary, the most urgent problem today is how to limit and discourage the over fertility of the mentally and physically defective ...

This doesn't sound like Chesler's claim that: "Undermining Sanger's character as a way of undermining her message has long been an effective political strategy." This is not just part of her character, but as can be clearly seen above, a major component of her stance on contraception.

Another idiocy in Chesler's article:

She advanced public health and welfare policies fostering universal health and fitness and providing essential economic safety nets, and she spoke out against immigration prohibitions and other stereotypes.

Compare this with Sanger's article in the Birth Control Review in 1932, in which she wrote:

Second, have Congress set up a special department for the study of population problems and appoint a Parliament of Population, the directors representing the various branches of science: this body to direct and control the population through birth rates and immigration, and to direct its distribution over the country according to national needs consistent with taste, fitness and interest of individuals. The main objects of the Population Congress would be:

a. to raise the level and increase the general intelligence of population.

b. to increase the population slowly by keeping the birth rate at its present level of fifteen per thousand, decreasing the death rate below its present mark of 11 per thousand.

c. to keep the doors of immigration closed to the entrance of certain aliens whose condition is known to be detrimental to the stamina of the race, such as feebleminded, idiots, morons, insane, syphilitic, epileptic, criminal, professional prostitutes, and others in this class barred by the immigration laws of 1924.

d. to apply a stern and rigid policy of sterilization and segregation to that grade of population whose progeny is tainted, or whose inheritance is such that objectionable traits may be transmitted to offspring.

I don't know this sounds awefully similar to "prejudice" and support for immigration.

I don't understand how this article could sing the praises of a woman, who so clearly took a stance in favor of birth-control, not out of sympathy for the freedom of women to control their bodies, but to rid the population of the "feebleminded" and "idiots." I am in favor of birth control and reproductive rights. But this is the precise reason I would never support Planned Parenthood or the rest of the pro-choice movement. Not only are they products of this eugenist legacy, but in fact celebrate their eugenist founder, Margaret Sanger.

Iranians not the Only Ones Pushing for Freedom
Demonstrations in Hong Kong protesting the mainland's new infringements on civil liberties. Read Eric Tung's wonderful piece on the proposed law in the April issue of the Yale Free Press.

Act Locally... and Globally
To voice your opposition to Iran's regime and its human rights abuses, call the UN at (212) 963-5931... Not that it will help all that much.

Do Three-Way Street Fights Suggest Mullah's are Losing Control?
Seems that way. The police are battling the Basijis, Islamist paramilitaries loyal to the Ayatollah, who are battling with the students in Tehran street fights. It seems that the regime is losing control. Why else would they be engaging in fist-fights with the paramilitaries? The answer is that they do not want violence or chaos of any kind in the streets because it destabilizes their political situation. Furthermore, if the mild protests that have been going on (the main ones were cancelled due to a threatened "Tiananmen-like" response... read about it here. Thanks to Andrew Sullivan for the link) were brutally and violently crushed by the paramilitaries, there would likely to have been a great international outcry. It would also have possibly led to further uprising. On the other hand, the police detained several people after a newsconference at which the protest organizers announced that they were cancelling the protests. Still, it seems that they want to maintain as much order as possible, even if it means preventing the paramilitaries from crushing the students completely.

Another small point to make here, is the possibility of a fission, or at least a minor one, in the Iranian regime. The police are controled by Khatami, the supposed Reformer president, while the paramilitaries are the clerics' men. So, that dynamic might also be at play here. Will be interesting to see what happens next. Le resistance lives on!

Bush: Mbeki an "honest broker" on Zimbabwe
In what way is Mbeki willing to act to rid Zimbabwe of the murderous thug, Robert Mugabe? This seems to me to be Bush trying to ingratiate himself to African leaders at all cost. South Africa is not going to do much with Mugabe. According to Mbeki:

"The principal responsibility for the resolution of this problem rests with the people of Zimbabwe."

Right, when the people are starving and being intimidated by savages who roam the streets of Zimbabwe with AK-47's, rape women, and murder children, they are really going to take on that responsibility of restoring peace and prosperity in Zimbabwe. Oh yeah, good call, Thabo. What is needed is paramilitaries. Or better yet, arresting Mugabe as soon as he leaves his country, Pinochet-style.

IAEA to send experts into Iran
I hope that this does not lull the world community into thinking the Iranian regime isn't so bad.

Reflections on NYC Rally for Freedom in Iran
So, I just returned from the Free Iran rally in New York city. It was held in Dag Hammarksjold Plaza near the UN. The turnout was pretty good. About 75 or so of us were there. The turnout was markedly Iranian. Almost everyone I saw there was an Iranian and many were pro-Shah. Some people wanted to display pictures of the Shah's son, but the rally's organizers, the Iranian Unity and Solidarity Council, told them to put those away since the rally was for democracy and was to be inclusive of all parties who wanted to rid that country of the Mullah's.

I saw some women crying at the rally. Some slogans shouted were: "Down with the Mullahs!"; "Get Out Hezbollah!"; "Iran, Iran, Just Iran!"; and some others I don't remember now. They also handed out a very cool picture of a mushroom cloud with the Ayatollah's face on it. I am going to try and scan it in when I get a chance and put it up on here.

One thing that was clear: they were all desperate to get their voices heard by all Americans not just those of Iranian dissent. Speaking with the organizers, they were very happy that I, a non-Iranian, wanted to get involved in their cause. Do what you can to help them. Get the word out. Not just in the blog universe, but also local newspapers, magazines, think tanks, etc. Talk to your Senator or Congressman. Make sure that people know about this movement. Without widespread support beyond just the Iranian-American community, there will not be enough pressure from the world community on the Mullah regime to make significant changes. I am going to get involved in this movement and so should you.

Pro-Freedom Protest In Solidarity with Students of Iran NOW in NYC and DC
Be there or be square. Eve Tushnet (former YFP editor) is going to one in DC. Asparagirl in NY. I am going to the NY one in about an hour! Stand up for freedom in Iran!!!

Why Dems should love Bush
From the Cato Institute, courtesy of Andrew Sullivan, a scathing report of Bush's Nixon-esque domestic policy. What a shame.

Are Gray Davis' Days Numbered?
Supporters of a drive to recall Calif. Gov. Gray Davis (D) are claiming they have more than enough signatures to force a recall election before September 4th. Let's only hope.

Charlotte police react to Lawrence
Eugene Volokh has an interesting piece from the Charlotte police regarding violations of the North Carolina Law against Nature. The name is just exquisite isn't it? But anyway, one interesting bit from the police headquarters' memo:

Officers should still charge individuals with felony crime against nature if persons are observed engaging in anal or oral sex in a public place, such as a park or a restroom.

Does that mean that regular sex is ok in a public place? I want to check this out. If regular missionary sex is fine, but anal or oral sex is not, this seems like an easy case to strike down on Equal Protection grounds:

While it is true that anal and oral sex are qualitatively different, their performance in public is not qualitatively more disturbing to passersby than regular sex is. In other words, there is no compelling state interest to ban oral and anal sex in public but not regular sex. I wouldn't want my children to see either one.

New York City Schools Throws Civil Liberties Out the Window

Administrators told the girls, who skipped class in May to go to a party, would have to take tests for pregnancy and sexually-transmitted diseases before they could return to school, according to the NYCLU.

This is the most egregious case of invasion of privacy I have ever heard. I know that the Supreme Court has ruled that essentially, students do not have a right to privacy in school. But this seems to go to the extreme. I cannot understand for the life of me, why this would be a compelling state/school interest whether the girls had STD's or were pregnant. Even if it were, I do not understand why cutting school to go to a party implies that the girls might be pregnant or have STD's. Absolutely unbelievable. Express your disgust (but politely) here:

Joel Klein
Chancellor of New York City Schools
52 Chambers Street, Room # 320,B4
New York, NY 10007
(212) 374-0200
JKlein@nycboe.net