Wednesday, November 20, 2013

Another Round on Self-Evident Truths

At Power Line, friend (and nemesis!) Steve Hayward replies to my suggestion that he reads rather too much into President Obama's second inaugural by using rather too little of it. Steve originally used just a few words from this line of that speech—
“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness.” 
Today we continue a never-ending journey, to bridge the meaning of those words with the realities of our time. For history tells us that while these truths may be self-evident, they have never been self-executing; that while freedom is a gift from God, it must be secured by His people here on Earth. 
—to suggest that Obama's belief system is (ahem) less than fully American. "May be self-evident" suggests residual disbelief in the proposition. I suggest the fuller passage indicates the president's unmitigated acceptance of said proposition.

Steve replies:
No sensible person disputes that we work out our ideas in space and time with great difficulty, but Obama’s use of “may” is extremely telling, like the academics I meet who unfailingly say “Lincoln was right—for his time.”  What about our time, today?  What about Lincoln’s view that the self-evident truths of the Declaration were true everywhere and always, as Jefferson put it?  I’d bet a lot of money that Obama does not believe that.  Does Joel really believe differently about Obama’s deepest philosophical views?  Why would Obama believe differently? 
Since my original critique of Steve's post was founded on the idea that getting inside the president's head—any president—is a fool's errand, I'm going to try to decline speculation about "Obama's deepest philosophical views." I don't know what they are; I can only know what he says and what he does.

Monday, November 18, 2013

Getting Inside Obama's Head: Steven Hayward Edition.

I think most pundits do their worst work when they play armchair psychologist; instead of assessing what (say) a president is doing on its own terms, they try to guess at the man's motivations and hidden beliefs—often in venal terms, if they disagree with that president's acts.

My friend and occasional nemesis Steven Hayward, I think, gets caught in this trap in his latest column for Forbes, in which he speculates about why the president isn't showing up for this week's anniversary commemorations of the Battle of Gettysburg, decides that the president just doesn't believe in America the way the rest of us do.
One reason may be that Obama has to carefully avoid associating himself fully with Lincoln’s view about the centrality of what Lincoln called, at Gettysburg, “the proposition” that “all men are created equal.” Obama omitted this famous line from the Declaration of Independence in his famous Philadelphia speech about the Rev. Jeremiah Wright controversy in 2008. He did finally quote the Declaration’s “self-evident truth” in his second inaugural address earlier this year, but then added in a revealing line, “while these truths may be self-evident. . .” 
May be self-evident? This is what intellectual poker players would call a revealing “tell.” If hooked up to a polygraph, Obama would likely have to confess to the modern liberal view that individual rights come not from our natural equality as human beings, but from a positive grant from government. The redistributive welfare state depends on this principle for its legitimacy, as does today’s “progressive” insistence on dividing people into groups according to skin color or gender or sexual preference, and assigning hierarchies of legal rights accordingly. Much of modern liberal philosophy depends on turgid obfuscation to disguise the fact that it is at odds with Lincoln’s understanding of equal rights.
I can argue another time with Steve about the foundations of the legitimacy of the welfare state. But the problem here is that he truncates the president's inaugural speech—by a punishing amount—in order to get it to "reveal" what he sees in it. Here's what the president actually said:
“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness.” 
Today we continue a never-ending journey, to bridge the meaning of those words with the realities of our time. For history tells us that while these truths may be self-evident, they have never been self-executing; that while freedom is a gift from God, it must be secured by His people here on Earth. The patriots of 1776 did not fight to replace the tyranny of a king with the privileges of a few or the rule of a mob. They gave to us a Republic, a government of, and by, and for the people, entrusting each generation to keep safe our founding creed.
For a black man born before the Civil Rights Act, before the marriage of his parents would have even been considered legal, it must be "self-evident" that it has taken the work of many people to secure the promises that the Founders said were owed to all of us.

More to the point, one only has to read Obama's entire sentence to realize that he explicitly affirmed what Steve says he didn't.  Steve's a skilled polemicist, and I realize that much of the writing he does (at least in blog form) often amounts to playing "got your nose" with liberals. Still, I think his attempt to psychoanalyze the president drifted into actual (and because I like him, I'm sure inadvertent) misrepresentation of the president's words.

Saturday, August 31, 2013

John Yoo: Still wrong on the Constitution

Please oh please oh please world, remember this is how John Yoo* views constitutional questions: With the Constitution being secondary to whatever warmaking policy imperative Yoo is in favor of this week.

The Constitution vests power in Congress to authorize war, the executive to, uh, execute it—and, it's generally understood, that power allows the executive to act with dispatch when an attack has been made upon the United States and its forces. Such is not the case here.

Tom Woods (who is almost certainly more conservative than I am) writes: "In conformity with this understanding, George Washington’s operations on his own authority against the Indians were confined to defensive measures, conscious as he was that the approval of Congress would be necessary for anything further. 'The Constitution vests the power of declaring war with Congress,' he said, 'therefore no offensive expedition of importance can be undertaken until after they have deliberated upon the subject, and authorized such a measure.'" 

Seems clear. Choosing between Yoo's interpretations and George Washington's example, I'll stick with George Washington.

* I know we've moved on from the George W. Bush administration. But Yoo's work in the Office of Legal Counsel, I think, opened the door to scary possibilities from wartime American governments. He'll probably continue to be  my bugaboo.

Thursday, August 29, 2013

Being poor makes you more poor (An ongoing series)

Financial stress may hit your brain and wallet: "Being short on cash may make you a bit slower in the brain, a new study suggests. 
People worrying about having enough money to pay their bills tend to lose temporarily the equivalent of 13 IQ points, scientists found when they gave intelligence tests to shoppers at a New Jersey mall and farmers in India. 
The idea is that financial stress monopolizes thinking, making other calculations slower and more difficult, sort of like the effects of going without sleep for a night."
Not much to add to this, except that I've seen other studies that suggest the stresses of being poor do hurt one's decision-making capabilities. Expecting people to "bootstrap up" out of their circumstances thus isn't always realistic.

Pennsylvania governor: gay couples barred from marriage 'like 12-year-olds' | World news |

Pennsylvania governor: gay couples barred from marriage 'like 12-year-olds' | World news | "Marriage licenses given to same-sex couples in Pennsylvania are invalid because they were barred from marrying in the same way as 12-year-olds, attorneys for the Republican governor said on Wednesday.

Tom Corbett's administration has filed a lawsuit seeking to block same-sex marriage licenses in suburban Philadelphia, where Montgomery County register of wills D Bruce Hanes has issued more than 150 to gay and lesbian couples since July 24.

State attorneys said in a court filing on Wednesday the gay marriage licenses have no "value or legitimacy" and can't be defended in court. They compared gay and lesbian couples to children, who can't marry because a 1996 law says marriage is between a man and a woman.

"Had the clerk issued marriage licenses to 12-year-olds in violation of state law, would anyone seriously contend that each 12-year-old … is entitled to a hearing on the validity of his 'license'?" the state wrote, according to a story on the news website."

'via Blog this'

Thursday, August 15, 2013

Stop-and-Frisk: A Response to Ben

This week, Ben and I debated the New York stop-and-frisk ruling for Scripps Howard News Service. Usually, we each get our 300-odd-words in, and leave it at that.

This week, though, I find a lot to object to in Ben’s take—and find that my own half of the column doesn’t really address those objections. (We write separately, so I don’t often see Ben’s take until it’s going to the publisher.) So this week, I offer a rare fisking of my colleague.

Standard disclaimer: Ben and I agree on little, but he’s my friend—a good and loyal friend—so please understand that though my objections here may be vigorous, they are by no means personal. This is the relationship we have.

Ben starts:

Contrary to critics’ claims, stop-and-frisk is indeed an effective crime deterrent. If Judge Scheindlin’s decision holds up, New Yorkers will soon discover just how effective it was.

Okay, then, let’s examine Ben’s case.

Understand exactly what Scheindlin ruled in the class-action lawsuit against the New York Police Department’s policy: Of 19 egregious stops cited in a case covering eight years, the judge determined 14 of them were unconstitutional.

Sounds like a lot of abuse until you learn that the NYPD conducted 4.4 million stops over the same period. The judge, therefore, voided an entire program because 0.0000031 percent of stops between 2004 and 2012 violated individuals’ rights.

This is misleading. Scheindlin didn’t make her ruling purely on the basis of of those 19 stops. She also relied on statistical analyses of those 4.4 million stops, and expert testimony provided by both sides about the meaning of that statistical analysis—a task rendered somewhat difficult by the NYPD’s refusal to collect more precise data (even though it prides itself on its data-driven approach to policing). She also relied on testimony about the statements of top departmental commanders and officers in finding the policy discriminatory.

Something to note—even at its worst, “stop and frisk” isn’t supposed to be an unlimited license to police to pull over any person they choose for the stopping and the frisking. They’re required to have “reasonable suspicion” that criminal activity has or is occurring. Yet in 36 percent of those 4.4 million stops, police didn’t identify even a cursory reason for making the stop.

Contra Ben’s assertion, Scheindlin ruled with the big picture in mind. The big picture doesn’t actually aid his case.

Even one violation is too many, you say? Maybe so. But civil libertarians sometimes forget what government exists to do: protect life and property. Murder, rape, and robbery deprive people of their rights, too, in the worst ways possible.

Here’s Ben in 2010 writing about the Transportation Security Administration, and it’s worth quoting at length:

If I had my druthers, I'd abolish the Transportation Security Administration, jail its administrators and exile its agents to North Dakota. But I'd settle for Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano's resignation and for Congress to simply "zero out" appropriations for these invasive, full-body scanners that have many travelers rightly outraged.

And instead of investigating citizens like John Tyner who stand up for their right not to be groped, Congress should be investigating TSA bureaucrats who openly violate those rights.

Napolitano and her allies in Congress, such as Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.), would have Americans believe their liberties and personal dignity is nothing compared with the terrible toll a terrorist could inflict without such invasive measures in place.

But the new scanners seem to be of limited utility. I went through one at Lihue Airport in Kauai a few months ago, and TSA agents still had to frisk me because of some anomaly that appeared on my shoulders, of all places. The process was laborious and slow, and I was lucky the airport wasn't very busy.

In the face of this, a CBS News poll finds 80 percent of Americans have no objection to the new policies and procedures. Obviously, those people haven't been subjected to them. But the poll suggests too many Americans are all-too eager to trade their liberties for the illusion of security.

What happened to us? In the days and months following 9/11, Americans showed real grit and determination. Shortly after air travel resumed in 2001, a United Airlines pilot famously informed his passengers of the new rules: In the face of danger, stand and fight. "We will not allow them to take over this plane," the pilot said. He concluded: "I find it interesting that the U.S. Constitution begins with the words 'We, the people.' That's who we are, the people. And we will not be defeated."

Writing on his blog, Tyner called for a recovery of that post-9/11 spirit: "It's time to stop treating passengers like criminals and start treating them as assets." We're prosecuting him? Let's make him Secretary of Homeland Security.

As you can tell, Ben rejects the idea that the security versus liberty debate is “either-or”—he goes out of his way, in fact, to heap his contempt upon those who trade their liberty too easily for security. I like this version of Ben.

So what’s the difference between angry-at-TSA Ben and fine-with-frisking Ben? He has suggested that the former is “security theater” while the latter is “effective.” But that’s a questionable distinction, and in both cases officials assert that much crime (or many terror attacks) don’t occur precisely because of such theater: People know not to carry guns on the streets in New York, or bombs into planes because of TSA. This appears to be a case of “liberty for me but not for thee” by my friend.

Stop-and-frisk has been an integral part of a broader strategy to slash crime dramatically in the Big Apple. Major felonies fell 31 percent from 2001 to 2012. There were 414 murders in New York last year, the lowest since 1963.

Correlation, as Ben knows, does not equal causation. Truth is, violent crime is dropping everywhere in America, including in cities—like Chicago—where stop-and-frisk isn’t practiced. Stop and frisk advocates don’t offer evidence why we should believe that tactic is particularly effective, given the universe of declining crime rates. Using Ben’s start date, I could just as plausibly argue that the falling murder rate in New York was sparked by a collective “come to Jesus” moment after 9/11, in which would-be murderers cast aside their weapons and dark impulses to join the Brotherhood of Man.

It’s true that the vast majority of black and Hispanic men commit no violent crimes. But it’s also true that blacks and Hispanics commit nearly 99 percent of all violent crimes in New York City’s 88th Precinct, where the class-action suit originated, and more than 93 percent of crimes in the city.

Reality didn’t seem to matter to Judge Scheindlin, who selectively highlighted supposed racial disparities in stops while downplaying actual crime demographics. The implication, as City Journal’s Heather Mac Donald points out, is that while “whites and Asians commit less than 1 percent of violent crime in the 88th Precinct and less than 6 percent of all crime, they should make up 40 percent of all stops—to match their representation in the local population.” Ridiculous.

That’s a complete misrepresentation of Scheindlin’s ruling. In fact, a good portion of her ruling is devoted to an examination of “actual crime demographics.” The New Yorker describes the expert testimony  regarding that issue.

In another statistical exercise, Fagan compared the number of stops in each enforcement area, and the race of the people stopped, to a benchmark that he constructed based upon the racial composition of the area and its crime rate. This benchmark was designed to provide a rough guide to what the racial distribution of stops would have been if the police officers carrying them out had been acting in a racially neutral manner, without any personal or institutional biases. By comparing the actual history of stops in each area to the benchmark, Fagan was able to show that the number of blacks and Hispanics stopped appeared to be excessive, even allowing for the fact that these groups are more likely than others to live in high-crime areas.

And that was not all. Fagan’s analysis also showed that blacks and Hispanics, once they had been stopped, were more likely to be subjected to the use of force, even though the probability of the stop resulting in further action—like an arrest, or a summons—was actually lower in cases involving minorities than in those involving whites.

Scheindlin cites this research extensively in her ruling. In other words, she took the standards that stop-and-frisk advocates urge—let’s apply this practice where the crime is—and found that minorities were still stopped disproportionately, usually for less cause, and treated rougher than white counterparts. She makes no demands that whites be subject to 40 percent of stops; she accepts the logic of policing where the crime is and still finds discriminatory patterns. That’s a far cry from the caricature that Ben (and Heather Mac Donald) paint of her.

Ben concludes by warning that Scheindlin’s ruling will have disastrous effects. “When felonies surge, don’t be surprised that poor and minority neighborhoods—like New York’s 88th Precinct—fare the worst.” And it’s true: The proof will be in the pudding. If crime suddenly shoots up in New York after this ruling (despite the lower crime trends everywhere else, remember) then we—all of us—will have to re-assess our convictions. Right now, though, the evidence doesn’t offer much to support the idea that we should be trampling on the liberties and Constitutional rights of brown people in New York.

POSTSCRIPT: I’ll conclude with an observation about conservatism and race. My conservative friends hate, hate, hate to be called racist. I take them at their word that they genuinely wish to view the world in race-neutral fashion, but that still leaves me with a problem.

When it comes time to dole out society’s goodies—jobs, entrance into top-flight schools that help one get those jobs—conservatives are insistent that it is unfair to award extra consideration to individuals based on their being of a minority race. An individual’s own merit should decide whether they obtain those rewards, conservatives say. Here’s Mac Donald in 2007, writing about affirmative action opponent Ward Connerly. “Ward Connerly’s courageous pursuit of a government that ignores race is delivering on the most fundamental promise of the American Constitution: equal treatment for all.”

When it comes time to dole out society’s burdens and punishments, though, conservatives are insistent that it is only fair to award extra consideration to individuals based on their being of a minority race. Here’s Mac Donald writing this year, after the Trayvon Martin verdict: “Here is a proposal: For a good five-year stretch, blacks bring their crime rate down to white and Asian levels. Once it becomes widely understood that blacks are no more likely to steal, rob, rape, or shoot than whites or Asians, we’ll see if blacks still elicit the defensive reactions that Obama alleges in elevators and department stores.”

So conservatives demand we judge individual on their own merit, unless of course they share a skin color with somebody who has committed crime. It’s hard to see a consistent philosophy bridging those two positions, but it’s easy to see a consistent result: Minorities get the short end of the stick.

Tuesday, August 6, 2013

What I Ate and How I Exercised Monday

Today's Log
Breakfast: 333
Egg, Scrambled, Large
2 Each
Turkey Sausage
1 Serving
Coffee, Brewed
10 Fluid ounces
Milk, 2%, w/ Vitamin A & D
2 Tablespoons
Peppers, Bell, Yellow, Sweet, Large, 3.7in
1/4 Each
Onion, White, Chopped
1/8 Cup
Lunch: 272
Lettuce, Romaine, Shredded
3 Cups
Chicken Breast, Skinless, Cooked
1 Each
Radishes, Large, 1" - 1 1/4"
1 Each
Tomatoes, Fresh, Med
1 Each
Peppers, Bell, Yellow, Sweet, Large, 3.7in
1/4 Each
Honey Dijon Dressing
2 Tablespoons
Dinner: 374
Soup, Classic Chicken Noodle
3 1/4 Cups
Snacks: 695
Mini Ice Cream Sandwiches
1 Each
Bar, Strawberry, w/ Yogurt Coating
1 Each
Croissant, Plain
1 Each
Iced Coffee, Sml
1 Each
Cream, Half & Half
1 1/2 Tablespoons
Popcorn, Air Popped
6 Cups
Exercise: 650
50 Min
End of day weight: 271. Down two pounds from last weigh-in.

Sunday, June 23, 2013

How I ate and exercised today

Really like the difference that a half-hour of decent exercise can make in my day.


Daily Report for June 23, 2013

Daily Log
Banana, Medium, 7" - 7 7/8" Long1 Each105
Egg, Scrambled, Large3 Each306
Sausage, Patty, Original, Vgtrn, Morningstar Farms2 Each160
Milk, Whole, 3.25%1 Tablespoon9
Coffee, Brewed10 Fluid ounces3
Flax Roll-up, Damascus Bakeries1 Slice110
Mediterranean Hummus, Trader Joe's3 Tablespoons105
Tomatoes, Fresh, Med½ Each11
Cucumber, Sliced6 Slices5
Sprouts, Alfalfa, Fresh4 Tablespoons2
Chicken Stir-fry W/ Brown And Wild Rice, Assorted Veggies2 Servings754
Banana mango Smoothie1 Serving217
Mini Ice Cream Sandwiches, So Deliciously1 Each90
Sausage, Patty, Original, Vgtrn, Morningstar Farms2 Each160
Flax Roll-up, Damascus Bakeries½ Slice55
Popcorn, Air Popped6 Cups186
Elliptical30 min391
Walking30 min130


Food Calories2,278
Exercise Calories522
Net Calories1,756
+/- Calories-855

Thursday, June 20, 2013

How I ate and exercised

Suddenly remembering that I got in the best shape of my life without changing my eating at all: Just by exercising a day. Makes a huge difference. This time: Trying both.

Daily Summary
Thursday Jun 20, 2013
Daily Summary for Jun 20, 2013
Export to spreadsheet
Daily Calories
Daily calorie budget
Food calories consumed
Exercise calories burned
Net calories so far today
I can eat 768 more calories today
Meal Calories
Today's Log
Breakfast: 509
Bagel, Everything
1 Each
Tomatoes, Fresh, Med
1/2 Each
Cream Cheese
4 Tablespoons
Iced Coffee, Small, With Milk
1 Each
Lunch: 427
Lettuce, Green Leaf, Shredded
3 Cups
Chicken Breast, Skinless, Cooked
1 1/2 Each
Tomatoes, Fresh, Med
1/2 Each
Cucumber, Sliced
6 Slices
Dressing, Caesar
2 Tablespoons
Onion, White, Chopped
1/2 Cup
Dinner: 579
Rice, Brown, Medium Grain, Cooked
2 Cups
Chicken Breast, Skinless, Cooked
1 Each
Sauce, Siracha, Hot Chili
2 Tablespoons
Snacks: 974
1/2 Cup
1/2 Cup
Mango, Slices
1 Cup
Strawberries, Sliced
1/2 Cup
1/2 Cup
Sandwich, Chicken Teriyaki
1 Each
Lettuce, 6" Portion
1 Each
Tomatoes, 6" Portion
1 Each
Pickles, 6" Portion
1 Each
Bread, Honey Oat, 6"
1 Each
Mini Ice Cream Sandwiches
1 Each
Exercise: 646
2 mph
30 Min
2 mph
35 Min
30 Min