The Last American World War I Veteran Is Dead

The Last American World War I Veteran Is Dead

Photo: Mark Wilson/Getty Images

How does one become the last American veteran of World War I? First, you have to start out young by enlisting, fraudulently, at the tender age of 16. Second, don't die in the war. Third, continue to live for a really, really long time. This is precisely how Frank Buckles outlasted every single one of America's 4.7 million or so World War I veterans. As the Washington Post writes:

Mr. Buckles said he was just a naive schoolboy chasing adventure when he enlisted Aug. 14, 1917, after the United States joined a war that had been raging for three years, with millions dead. "I knew what was happening in Europe, even though I was quite young," he told a Washington Post reporter when he was 105. "And I thought, well, 'I want to get over there and see what it's about."

Turns out it wasn't a good time. As an ambulance driver, Buckles witnessed war's carnage firsthand. After the war, he traveled the globe as a ship's purser, and it was while working in a company's office in Manila, Philippines, in 1941 that he was captured by the Japanese and sent to a civilian internment camp. He spent over three years there in squalid conditions before being liberated. After that, Buckles had experienced enough of the world and settled on a farm in Virginia, where he stayed until he died yesterday, at the age of 110. He'll be buried in the Arlington National Cemetery.

Last U.S. World War I veteran Frank W. Buckles dies at 110 [WP]

hat tip: New York Magazine

This is sad. At least the man had an interesting - and incredibly long - life.

Colbert Hilariously explains how "counter hacker" fighting wikileaks royally f'd up

<div style="background-color:#000000;width:520px;"><div style="padding:4px;"><p style="text-align:left;background-color:#FFFFFF;padding:4px;margin-top:4px;margin-bottom:0px;font-family:Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:12px;"><b>The Colbert Report</b><br/>Tags: Colbert Report Full Episodes,Political Humor & Satire Blog,Video Archive</p></div></div>

 

Hat tip: NYmag.com

Louis CK Donald Rumsfeld Lizard O and A

via youtube.com

I love, love, love Louis CK. Opie and Anthony - dorks.

New UK Website Cracks Down on PR-Driven Journalism

Filed at 2:12 p.m. EST

LONDON (AP) — Hoax articles and lazy journalists are being pushed into the spotlight by a new website that aims to expose news outslets that regurgitate press releases — a practice known as "churnalism."

Churnalism.com, launched by the Media Standards Trust charity, allows users to copy and paste content from news releases and compare it with articles published by British news outlets to see which reporters are less proactive and more reactive in searching for news

Media Standards Trust director Martin Moore says the site is meant to be an "accountability tool" and would ruffle some feathers in the media.

He said Thursday that with more resources and exposure, he hopes the site can eventually expand to other countries like the United States.

via nytimes.com

This is a terrific public service, but could also be very good for PR/marketing companies.

The Bonddad Blog: The Sheer Stupidity of U.S. Political Dialog

The standard crap from the political right:

1.) All regulation is bad 2.) Any data which might force us to change our current method of doing business or behavior is a liberal conspiracy 3.) There is a giant press conspiracy to paint conservatives in a negative light which warrants my near paranoid methodology of interpreting press stories. 4.) "Socialism" 5.) Arm everybody with as many guns as possible -- and make sure the guns are as large as possible

The standard crap from the political left:

1.) Money is evil and those whose incomes are above $75,000/$100,000 per year are clearly in league with Satan. 2.) Wall Street causes all bad things 3.) Positive economic numbers are rigged; negative economic numbers are sacrosanct. As a corollary, all bullish economists are tools while bearish economists are completely trustworthy. Finally, take one bad economic number in a series of good numbers and claim it is a sign that the end of the world is upon us. 4.) All corporations are evil 5.) All market based solutions are evil, rigged and to be avoided at all costs

While I may have missed some of the popular themes, the point is clear: U.S. political dialog is not about data or solving problems. Instead, it's about repeating talking points and cramming events into preconceived perceptions. NDD has pointed out this is "confirmation bias," meaning we only seek out opinions that confirm our preconceptions, regardless of the lack of data "supporting" our opinion.

People on the right can remain in a sealed echo chamber of talk radio, Fox news and right wing blogs. People on the left can remain on the political left's blogs. Both of these methods of information delivery have been taken over by extremists who could care less about data and facts, instead focusing on pushing the latest "meme."

In short, the political blogs have become pure garbage. Assume that any economic analysis from any of them is -- at best -- deeply suspicious, and, at worst, pure crap.

Read more at: http://bonddad.blogspot.com/

The Bondad Blog has been my favorite economy-focused blog for quite a while now. I find the insights and analysis there terrific, and I often enjoy just looking at the data - though sometimes it's too technical for my understanding.

This post is a-typical in that it is a rant, but the thing is, I couldn't agree more with him.

That's why I try my best to exclude any stories here from crap-centers and try to call out B.S. when I can.

We have real problems with the structure of our economy that need fixing. But we are also seeing some positive growth. And yes, we can thank both government and hard work for that. And we're going to need government to do some more mending of the economy before we get it to where we want it.

What Everyone Ought to Know about Stoic Thought on the Emotions pt II

Introduction
As I mentioned in the first post on Stoicism, the famous Stoic Epictetus wrote a very influential guide on how to be a Stoic called Enchiridion. The title translates to “the Handbook” or “the Manual”, and Epictetus certainly had the expertise to write it. So that makes it an excellent place to get a good grasp on Stoicism in practice and away from more “academic” debates.
I’m briefly bringing up the idea of the difference between Stoicism in practice and theoretical Stoicism for a couple of reasons. First, I’m trying to be as generous as possible to the philosophy. Many great, intelligent individuals, people who have really had interesting and good lives, counted themselves as Stoics. That says something to me. So there’s a lot about Stoicism in practice that I want to applaud, and I’ll try to be clear about that.
But I’m here to attack, and one of the first things I noted in studying Stoicism with a focus on the emotions was how blatantly Stoic psychology deviates from earlier theory. Homer, Plato, Aristotle, Lucretius and many others were all in basic agreement that the emotions were things that happen to us, that they are a major source of human action, and that virtue consists in properly acting on them. They even argued that acting emotionally is often good and proper.
But not the Stoics. They didn’t believe that things that happen to us could directly cause us to act. Instead, they argued that what disturbs men’s minds is not events, but their judgments on events… so when we are hindered, or disturbed, or distressed we should never lay the blame on anyone but ourselves, on our own judgments”.

Read more at my dissertation blog

Embarrassed Republicans Admit They've Been Thinking Of Eisenhower Whole Time They've Been Praising Reagan | The Onion - America's Finest News Source

via theonion.com

Very funny and right to the point. Reagan was just not a good president, for liberals or conservatives or anyone else. The only problem with this article is that a lot of super-conservatives (tea party-types) would probably consider Eisenhower to liberal.

Budgetary Zugzwang

There is a situation in chess called zugzwang in which any legal move leaves the player worse off (in other words, he’d be better off to pass his turn). Oftentimes, in fact, the zugzwang is mutual: both players would rather that the other one move next. A typical situation — black’s only legal move would lead to a loss, but white’s only legal moves would turn an advantageous position into a draw — is illustrated below.

If this sounds oddly familiar, it may be because it greatly resembles the debate over the federal budget. Try to find a winning move given this set of constraints imposed by public opinion:

The public overwhelmingly thinks the deficit is a very serious problem and requires immediate action, but most polls also suggest they think job creation — which arguably benefits from deficit spending in the near-term — is an even greater priority.

In the abstract, people prefer cutting spending to raising taxes. However, although it’s hard to find a tax increase that polls well (raising taxes on the rich is probably one exception), it’s even harder to find a spending program that the public would like to see cut.

The public is especially protective of entitlement programs (about two-thirds of people would rather raise taxes than reduce Medicare benefits), which represent three or four times as much federal spending as all non-defense discretionary spending. Nevertheless, a majority of the public also feels that it will not be necessary to raise taxes on “people like them” in order to reduce the deficit.

Most of the exceptions to the above rules would not go terribly far toward solving the deficit; rolling back the Bush tax cuts for the rich alone would only remedy one-twelfth of the projected debt in 2030; cutting foreign aid in half would address only one-eightieth of it.

This is not to suggest that some strategies don’t make for better politics than others, or that some solutions aren’t better as a matter of policy. But in general, almost any detailed proposal that a politician might make is going to be received poorly. The budget that President Obama unveiled earlier this week, which received harsh critiques from the left, right, and center, was certainly no exception.

Other than meet their legal obligations, then (the president is required by law to propose a budget; the Congress is required to pass one), what we’re basically going to see transpire over the next weeks and months is a lot of passive-aggressiveness: efforts to force the other side to make the next (unpopular) move. There are going to be several rounds of this and it is going to be quite tedious.

What differentiates the budgetary process from something like chess, however, is that it is not truly a zero-sum game. Even if politicians don’t give a rip about the effects that their actions would ultimately have upon the welfare of the country, they still have an interest in re-election. And in this regard, the interests of President Obama and the Republican Congress are not mutually exclusive.

We have been through three political cycles in which one party essentially ran the table, but there have been plenty of others (2004 and 1996 are two recent examples) in which almost all the incumbents won. Yes, Republicans would much rather see a President Romney or a President Pawlenty than a President Obama — and Mr. Obama would much rather see his side regain control of the House and secure control of the Senate. But Mr. Obama and the Republicans also have some shared interest in their own electoral prospects, and in this sort of game, a mutual interest of a small magnitude may sometimes triumph over a conflict of interest of a larger one.

In seeking an equilibrium solution, then, we might look for the answer to the following problem: what resolution to the budgetary process would tend to maximize the chance of the scenario in which both President Obama and the Republicans in Congress are re-elected?

The answer to this question is far from obvious, but here’s one hypothesis: it’s a solution that avoids any major disruption to the economy but also gives it enough of a handicap that extremely robust short-term growth is unlikely. Right now, according to the forecasting model produced by Yale’s Ray C. Fair, which assumes modest economic growth, President Obama would receive between 52 and 53 percent of the vote (meaning that he would almost certainly be re-elected) but Republicans would receive 52 percent of the vote for the U.S. House (meaning that at most a few of them would lose their seats and they’d very probably retain their majority).

That, arguably, is pretty close to the optimum: if growth gets too “hot” in Mr. Fair’s model, then President Obama wins, but the Democrats also take back a lot of seats in Congress (meaning it would be a bad deal for Republicans). But if it’s too sluggish, then Democrats get swept, meaning that it’s a bad deal for the president. (By the way, it doesn’t matter that, in the real world, the effects of the budget compromise on near-term growth are liable to be fairly small as compared with the intrinsic unpredictability in the system. All that matters is that politicians perceive it as having a larger impact.)

That means something like a failure to raise the debt limit, which could result in a downgrade to the United States’ credit rating, would probably be avoided. But there would certainly not be any further stimulus; instead, the deal might be mildly anti-stimulative — which would be accomplished by modest cuts in government spending — although not to a considerably larger degree than markets are anticipating.

Another outcome, not necessarily mutually exclusive with this, is that Republicans could give President Obama a win on style points (meaning that, after a few rounds of zugzwang, they’d play relatively nice and permit him some credit for having forged a bipartisan compromise) whereas they took more than their fair share on substance (meaning that Mr. Obama actually did compromise quite a bit). A situation in which, for instance, Mr. Obama gained some stature with independents but also somewhat discouraged his liberal base might help his electoral fortunes but probably not those of Democratic candidates for Congress.

But I wouldn’t necessarily expect any “grand bargain” involving major changes to the tax code or to entitlement programs — too unpredictable the effects of that for incumbents seeking re-election.

via fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com

EV Grieve: Upright Citizens Brigade unveils its 'Hot Chicks Room' on Avenue A

via evgrieve.com

I love the UCB. I own the complete series on DVD and I try to support the theatre on the West Side. Its just so difficult to get out there when there's so much to do so close to home. That's why I'm absolutely thrilled that the UCB is creating "UCB east" just a five minute walk from my apartment. I can't wait!

Budget Numbers You Can Understand - The Daily Dish | By Andrew Sullivan

Annie Lowrey has a clever piece up that puts the federal budget in perspective with a simple conceit:

For our purposes, let's use $60,000 as the government's income and $85,000 as its expenses.

Where does all of that spending go? Mostly, to mandatory programs, spending that does not change much year-to-year and is not easily reduced. But given that mandatory spending makes up about 60 percent of spending, if the debt is going to come down, these are the line items that need to change. Next year, Obama is requesting $17,400 for Social Security, $10,700 for Medicare, $6,100 for Medicaid, and $13,600 for other mandatory programs such as food stamps. There's no way around any of those expenditures, which total about $48,000—or more than three-quarters of the federal government's annual income. (Last year, mandatory spending alone actually exceeded income.)

Next she tackles the discretionary budget:

First and foremost is security spending. The country needs to fund the Afghanistan war and the Department of Defense. This is not cheap: In fiscal year 2012, Obama is asking for $20,000 for overall security costs.

So far, my friend, you're at $68,000. No cuts yet, and you've already blown your budget by about $8,000. But wait—there's more, as they say. You have to pay for all the debt you're ringing up. This year, you are on the hook for $5,500, and that is just for interest payments to creditors. So you see the problem here: Before you've even gotten to anything that anyone even talks about cutting, you're already about 25 percent over budget.

So what's left? "All of the money for bridges, schools, nuclear power plants, foreign aid, space flight, and everything else." And the numbers? "In the discretionary budget, the sums are astounding not because they're so huge, but because they're so puny: $400 on energy, $500 on agriculture, $1,000 on housing and urban development, and $1,800 on education, for example." What makes more sense? Eviscerating those budgets, or means testing social security, raising the retirement age, and cutting back on our military commitments?

We all know the answer. Except for Obama, the Democrats and the Republicans. Maybe it will take a national default to get our political leaders to lead.

via andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com

Very nice piece. My only comment is that to criticize the President for "not leading" seems to me to only win rhetorical points. What is actual leading in this case? Is it putting your foot down and spending all your political capital to ameliorate a budget for a fiscal year already half done? Or is it trying to navigate a way forward such that the next election can bring about the political capital and will necessary to make the monumental changes necessary, including raising taxes on those making over 200k, and possibly instituting a value-added tax, means-testing SS and cutting military spending?

Signpost

I'm a huge, huge fan of Signpost as I've gotten several good deals due to them.

And if you're in NYC,Chicago, SF or Boston you should definitely register. 

But this deal seemed a bit off:

What Everyone Ought to Know about Stoic Thought on the Emotions, Pt I

A brief background on the Stoics

If you say someone is stoic, you’re almost certainly giving them a compliment, specifically that they stood strong in the face of a very bad situation. And with that sort of good PR, its probably not a surprise that Stoicism is a very popular search term on Google. In fact, ‘Stoicism’ gets 56% more hits than ‘Platonism’ and 469% more hits than ‘Aristotelianism’.  Now, a lot of this is likely due to the facts that people usually search for ‘Plato’ instead of ‘Platonism’ and ‘Aristotle’ instead of ‘Aristotelianism’ and relatively few people know that Zeno of Citium founded Stoicism or even that its most well known exponent was Epictetus.

Still, the fact is that Zeno and Epictetus created and spread a philosophy that is quite famous and well respected even to the present day. And that certainly deserves a lot of respect. And I highly recommend anyone interested in how ethical philosophy influenced modern religions study the Stoics. I can’t think of a philosophy closer to Christianity than Stoicism.

Zeno of Citium

Here are four stoic books I can happily recommend:

Discourses - Epictetus

Enchiridion – Epictetus

The Golden Sayings of Epictetus

The Meditations – (Personal journal of Stoic and Roman Emperor Marcus Aurelius)

Read the rest at my dissertation blog

 

‘American Idol’ Embraces Steven Tyler

At this, the first few weeks of the 10th season of “American Idol” have proved, Steven Tyler is an unalloyed genius.

The moment when Mr. Tyler, one of this season’s new judges, claimed the show as his own came during the third night of auditions. Chris Medina tried out with a muscular version of The Script’s “Breakeven” after telling the story of how his fiancée, Juliana Ramos, suffered a brain injury that left her in a wheelchair, able to move her left arm and little more.

After he sang, he brought Ms. Ramos in to the audition room at the judges’ behest. By any measure it was difficult to watch, testing the viewer’s urge to turn away, to wish for a speedy change of scene.

Randy Jackson and Jennifer Lopez introduced themselves to Ms. Ramos, but Mr. Tyler took charge. “Hi, girl,” he said, shaking her hand. “I just heard your fiancé sing, and he’s so good.” At this point, as she teetered back and forth, he was gripping her shoulder and staring at her comfortingly: a rock, a confidant, a seducer. “You know, because he sings to you all the time,” he said, leaning in to her, stroking her hair, kissing her warmly — all with tenderness — then whispering in her ear, “That’s why he sings so good, because he sings to you.”

It was a stellar embrace, the sort of practiced sincerity that’s one of the wages of extreme celebrity. Except that, over time, it can shake free of its dishonesty, as was the case here. In that moment Mr. Tyler was both deeply practiced and deeply humane. It made for a stunning display of kindness unusual not just for “Idol,” but for all of popular culture in matters of dealing with the severely disabled.

Whether Mr. Medina was being fair to his fiancée by bringing her on the show may be an open question, and whether “Idol” producers were being fair to both of them may be one as well.

read more at nytimes.com

This review of Steven Tyler on American Idol is so good, I might start watching the show for the first time. Maybe.

I grew up a huge Aerosmith fan and I have to admit, I sided with those who thought this was a bad idea for Tyler's legacy. Maybe it was more the case that I didn't want my childhood somehow sullied-by-association with American idol. But what does that matter to Mr. Tyler, especially if he's taking it upon himself to really be a mentor.

Why Vinson's Attempt to Kill the Affordable Care Act by Questioning the Punishment of "Passive Individuals" Fails

I recently promised that I would take up Judge Vinson's absurd contention that the Affordable Care Act is unconstitutional because never before has it been the case that the government can  punish you for "failing to buy a product" and that to grant such power would mean "Congress could do almost anything it wanted".

I'll admit, my first reaction to his ruling was anger, followed quickly by dismay. I wondered how someone could be a federal judge and come up with such a looney opinion. But then I decided that maybe it wasn't so obvious to everyone and that I could do a public service by explaining why his ruling is absurd.

I earlier said that the introduction of the idea of a "passive individual failing to engage in commerce" was a 'red herring'. That's a type of informal logical fallacy, which simply refers to the rhetorical practice of introducing a topic or issue that draws attention away from the real issue. Below I'll start out by trying to explain why the concept of a person "failing to engage in commerce" is a red herring, then I'll move on to explaining why even if you think the concept really is to the point, it still doesn't help prove what Vinson wants it to. All along I'll try to tie everything together by making explicit how this is clearly not a constitutional issue. 

The Constitution clearly grants the federal government implied powers. And it grants the government the right to control commerce in the U.S. with all the power of the federal government. So who is pushing on us the idea that a health insurance mandate a constitutional issue? As the Romans used to say, "Cui Bono?"

First, let me start out like Socrates or Plato might have. If you accept this first batch of arguments, you probably don't have to keep reading.

Socratic argument 1.

Can the goverment force you to do any thing? Ever? Can anyone? If you have free will, a sound mind and an able body, I don't see how, literally, you can be forced. Don't we really mean that governments and people can  make it extremely unpleasant, even unbearable, to reject compliance with a demand? This can be done through fines, incarceration, humiliation, and even execution.

Socratic argument 2.

Is "engaging in commerce" a type of "doing" or isn't it? Yes, of course its a type of doing. Well, can the government punish you for not doing things? Yes of course it can. (E.g. men who don't register for the draft, people who don't pay taxes, people who don't wear their seatbelt). But If the government can punish you for not doing things in general, why does it matter if the doing in question is engaging in commerce? 

Socratic argument 3.

Is "'engaging in commerce" the type of thing we call buying? Or is it the type of thing we call selling? Or are both buying and selling engaging in commerce? It seems to me that both buying and selling are engaging in commerce. And its certain that the government can punish you for not selling certain things. So why is being punished for not buying something different? 

Socratic argument 4.

Is punishing you for not doing something similar to trying to force you to do something? That is, if I say "if you don't serve me at your restaurant because of my race, I'll have you fined" like saying "You have to serve me at your restaurant regardless of my race"? Its clear as day that the goverment can force you to do things. So what's the real difference?

To me it seems pretty clear that no matter how you slice it, "being punished for not engaging in commerce" is quite a lot like "being forced to engage in commerce". And the government does indeed have the right to do that.

But lets try one more definition of "engaging in commerce" while we're at it. Let's say that entering into a contract is a type of engaging in commerce. What if you want to engage in a marriage contract with someone, be it for love, for a tax or insurance benefit, to further a career, to have children, or for any or all those reasons? 

Well, dear reader, in order to engage in that contract if you are a homosexual, you are forced to marry a heterosexual. (In fact, if you really think about it, you have to marry a heterosexual no matter who you are if you want to get married. Or at least, you have to pretend to.) If you're a homosexual this is forcing you to not engage in commerce, but there's an interesting twist: to the extent you lose out on a financial benefit from not marrying because you're homosexual, you are being punished for not engaging in commerce. 

Ok, lets switch it up a little. Buying and selling narcotics such as cocaine and heroine is pretty illegal. But the selling of such drugs is actually pretty lucrative, and would be if legalized and licensed. So what happens if you're someone who wants to sell such drugs (don't, they're deadly)? Then you've got a catch-22!! If you do sell illegal drugs, you will be punished for engaging in commerce. But if you don't sell illegal drugs, then you will miss out on the benfit of engaging in commerce. That is, you will be punished for not engaging in commerce. The government isn't doing the punishing, but they're making it very hard for you to try to get the reward. 

The Government's Power to Impose the Rights Given to it
As I wrote in my previous discussion of this matter, Alexander Hamilton defended estabilishing a Bank of the United States (and many other worthwhile projects) by pointing to the implied powers granted to the federal government by Article 1 Section 8 of the Constitution and backed that up by explaining that "government must possess the means to attain the ends for which it was estalished or the bonds of society would dissolve" and that "it is inherent in the very definition of government and is essential to every step of the progress to be made by the United States that every power vested in a government is in its nature soverign and includes by force of the term a right to employ all the means requisite and fairly applicable to the attainment of the ends of such power".
This idea has won out consistently in our history, even though people such as Thomas Jefferson tried to stop it.
The terrific book The Metaphysical Club: A Story of Ideas in America explains that back in the mid 1890's there was a massive strike known as the Pullman strike. In a nutshell, the American Railway Union, founded in the summer of 1893 and which represented anyone who worked for a railroad, reached over 150,000 members by the time it was 1 year old. After a successful strike against a railroad in early 1894 it was approached by workers from the Pullman company. They requested the ARU boycott all railroads running Pullman sleepers. The result was that 20 railroad lines in and around Chicago were shut down, basically shutting down all rail in the area and in the end, much of the country. It was a total disaster from the start.
There was some serious discussion as to what the Constitution would allow the federal goverment to do about the situation, but in the end the Supreme Court concluded that "the entire strength of the nation may be used to enforce in any part of the land the full and free excercise of all national powers and the security of all rights entrusted by the Constitution to its care".
If the government has the power to do something, it has the power to get it done, period. (This is similar the argument John Locke gave in justifying governments' right to enforce the death penalty.) So when I hear things like the government's never had the power to "force you to buy something", excuse me if I laugh.
But Still, what does the Constitution have to say about Economic Theories
Not long after the turn of the 20th century, highly influential Justice Oliver Wendel Holmes, who served on the Supreme Court for 30 years,  wrote that "a constutition is not intended to embody a particular economic theory" so we can't "conclude our judgment upon the question of whether statutes embodying [some economic theory] conflict with the Constution of the United States" just because we don't like the theory. Put more simply, just because we don't like the economic ideas behind a law doesn't mean we can just conclude that the law is unconstitutional. The economic theory behind the law is irrelevant.
And though it is irrelevant, I'll save you the trouble - yes I am a (mostly) a capitalist. And yes I think capitalism requires strong, sensible regulation in order to be successful. And...
The Government has, in Fact, Forced us to Buy Things for Many Years
Here are just 3 examples, though 1 is enough to prove my point that its not unprecedented, and there are numerous other examples. Feel free to play at home.
Example 1.
When Social Security was created during the New Deal, many people thought it was wonderful that there would finally be a safety net to protect the elderly and the infirm - forcing workers to pay to support the last years of the elderly and to buy into a retirement savings plan for themselves. Some at the time argued that the move was unprecedented and seized power that only the states really had. Some argued that if the federal government was allowed to implement this far reaching system, there would be...say it with me...no limit to what the federal government could do. The Supreme Court disagreed.
Example 2.
The imposition of a federal minimum wage - forcing people to purchase labor at no less than a proscribed minimum amount - was also attacked along the same lines, It was, of course, found constitutional.
Example 3.(State governments do it too)
A Georgia state senator is trying to stop his state from issuing drivers licenses. His argument: We have the right to travel and the government forcing us to obtain driver's licenses (including paying fees) in order to do so is violating that right. He further claimed that its just a step along the road to a fascist state where "agents of the state" can demand your papers. (I take it he hasn't heard about Arizona). That is, there would be...say it with me...no limit to what the federal government could do.
The Difficulty in Enforcing Freedom of Speech
As you know, the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution protects the freedom of speech. But read it carefully: it says Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. On the face of it, it says nothing about what state or local governments can do to restrict your speech. So does the federal government have the right to tell states whether or not to restrict your speech? 
Its actually the 14th Amendment, adopted just after the Civil War, that is used to decide the question. It's "Due Process" clause gives the Federal government the right to stop states from restricting your speech:
 All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
But even that interpretation of the 14th amendment didn't take hold until 1925. 
Final Thoughts
Last week the Senate debated whether to add an amiendment to a Federal Aviation Administration-related bill. The amendment made it illegal to point a laser-pointer at an aircraft. The reason for the amendment being suggested was that when a laser-light shines through a cockpit window, it can do bad things like blind the pilot (which is bad in itself) and failing that can disorient a pilot enough to cause plane crashes. (There have been at least 500 case of pilots being blinded or disoriented by laser pointers since 1990). One Senator voted against the amendment because he believed its something that should be left to states to decide. Apparently planes don't fly over state borders, so theres no interstate commerce to deal with, so why involve the federal government. Let each state make its own law whenever they get around to it It won't be hard to pick a jurisdiction when a plane flies over a border at 400 mph. The bill passed 96-1.
My point is that Its good to question any government's authority.But its bad to do so out of ignorance and prejudice. Its bad to look stupid doing so. Why? Because it makes you look like a blockhead, and it poisons the well against those who may have a legitimate point in their criticisms of the government. And when people give you stupid reasons to question legitimate authority, you ought to ask yourself why.
The End.

HOW TO UNDERSTAND THE EPICUREANS ON EMOTION, PART II OF II - Anger, Et Cetera Online

As I explained in the last post, Epicureans believe that we all have a fundamental desire to pursue pleasure, and that to fulfill this desire, we'll actually sometimes have to avoid some pleasures. Specifically, we need to avoid pain-creating pleasures (e.g. doing hard drugs) and even pursue pleasure-creating pains (e.g. taking awful-tasting medicine).

That's certainly a tough lesson for many to learn, but it has the ring of truth to it, and, at least in my case, experience says it's often true. Perhaps you're one of the lucky ones who think all this is rather obvious and that there's not much to see here. Either way, lets look a little deeper because there's plenty more to see.

Do we really ALWAYS act to avoid pain and fear / to get pleasure?

Taking the claim that we always act to seek pleasure / avoid pain at face value may seem at times brilliantly simply and at other times a cliché or an uninformative tautology.

Consider the following:

Read the rest at my dissertation blog, Anger, Et Cetera Online

For the first time we've pieced together a view of the entire sun at all at once

via nasa.gov

Very great stuff.

Hat tip: Elly Vintiadis

Just How Many Days Does Bill Murray REALLY Spend Stuck Reliving GROUNDHOG DAY? | Obsessed With Film

via obsessedwithfilm.com

This is surprisingly well considered. Want to just know the answer, then scroll to the bottom of his page. Hint for those who know me: The amount of time I'd spent on earth as of Dec 15th, 2010.

Why the Affordable Care act is not unconstitutional despite Judge Vinson's learned opinion

I don't do a lot of long-form writing on this site, but I will start doing so once or twice a month. Here's my first such post.

Yesterday a federal judge became the fourth to issue a ruling on the Affordable Care Act, and the second to rule it unconstitutional. He found that the law's requirement that everyone be forced to purchase health insurance exceeded the regulatory powers given to Congress by the Commerce Clause in article 1 section 8 of the Constitution and amplified by the "necessaryand proper" clause near the end of the section. Here's what he is referring to:

Congress' Powers in the Constitution

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States; To borrow Money on the credit of the United States;

To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes; To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States; To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures; To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States; To establish Post Offices and post Roads; To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries; To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court; To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offences against the Law of Nations; 

To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water; To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years; To provide and maintain a Navy; To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces; To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions; To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings;--And

To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

Vinson explaining his ruling

Vinson believes that the parts in red aren't enough power to force everyone to buy insurance. He said that "If Congress can penalize a passive individual for failing to engage in commerce, the enumeration of powers in the Constitution would have been in vain." In saying this he was agreeing with the plaintiffs (nearly all Republicans) that the insurance requirement was an unprecedented effort to regulate inactivity because what the rule says is that you will be penalized for failing to buy a product. As he put it "It would be a radical departure from existing case law to hold that Congress can regulate inactivity under the Commerce Clause...If Congress has such power, it is not hyperbolizing to suggest that Congress could do almost anything it wanted."

The Justice Department gave an okay response to this, but one that didn't sway the judge, saying that choosing not to buy health insurance was not "passive" but an active decision, that, if too many people did, would shift the cost of caring for people without insurance to people who have insurance, to hospitals, and to local, state and federal governments. 

President Obama's administration pointed out that without the mandate, you get a big problem - those who want to game the system and make you pay for them can wait until they are sick to enroll in an insurance plan. Obviously this would be unsustainable if more than a few people tried to cheat this way, and all of the massive cost savings would eventually be lost. 

Judge Vinson seized on this idea - that too many free-riders could bankrupt the system for those getting low-cost health care, to say that we should trash the whole thing ("because the individual mandate is unconstitutional and severable, the entire Act must be declared void". Insurance companies should go back to being able to drop you for any reason, raise rates at will, and deny people who have pre-existing conditions the ability to get insurance.

Even though, of course, this means they'll have to go to the emergency room to get care when they can't pay. Pushing the cost to - you guessed it - people who have insurance, hospitals and local, state and federal governments. Or the people -often the poorest and least able bodied, such as children and the elderly - can just get sick and die.

To his credit, Vinson admits this, saying that " I am aware that [this decision] will have indeterminable implications...at a time when there is virtually unanimous agreement that health care reform is needed in this country."

 But still, what he's doing is saying that while it is true that we have a broken healthcare system and a terrible free-rider problem, the government's fix for the problem, which would work, can't be allowed because the government has never forced people to buy anything before, and giving the government the power to force people to buy anything is too much power. Because if they can force you to buy something, they can force you to do anything.

So that's what Vinson had to say. Perhaps he convinces you, perhaps he doesn't. Here's what a couple of republican lawmakers had to say about the situation. 


Republican criticisms of the law and agreement with the ruling

One, an attorney by training, said that after reading and re-reading the Constitution "it was not possible to discover in it the power to enforce an insurance mandate" because the Constitution does not grant the federal government powers not specifically enumerated there. He further claimed that the law "exploited the power of the "necessary and proper clause" in a way that would destroy any barriers that limit the power of the federal government and protect those of state governments."

Another argued that the law perverted the "necessary and proper" clause because for any law to pass the test of constitutionality, it had to be more than just convenient for executing the powers of the federal government it had to be truly necessary, indispensable and that taking a single step in giving any power that is not indispensable would give Congress uncontrollable power. He even went on to say that "any officials that tried to enforce the affordable care act in his state "should be judged to have committed treason against the state and be punished accordingly."

Actually, I've been pulling your leg - but only a little bit. Those quotes weren't from this century, or even the one before that. They were made this week in 1791. The first was from Virginia Representative James Madison. The second was Secretary of State Thomas Jefferson. They were trying to convince President George Washington to veto the Bank of The United States, the brainchild of Secretary of the Treasury Alexander Hamilton. 

More background on the debate about Implied Powers in the fight over the Bank of the United States

 As eminent biographer Ron Chernow explained in Alexander Hamilton, after the bill to charter the Bank of the United States easily passed the Senate on January 20th and passed the House with a wide margin on February 8th, but the vote split largely along northern and southern congressmen. The southern legislators who were mostly rich planters were supported by a number of smaller farmers in opposition to the bill because of the belief it would lead to a "subserviency of southern to northern interests" and serious questions as to whether the Constitution even allowed it. 

Before ratification of the Constitution, Alexander Hamilton and James Madison had written the famous and tremendously influential Federalist Papers, explaining the proposed constitution and how the theoretical government it created would work in practice. In these papers, both had argued for an "elastic" interpretation of the constitution, with Madison saying in Federalist 44 that "no axiom is more clearly established in law or in reason than wherever the end is required, the means are authorized; wherever a general power to do a thing is given, every particular power for doing it is included." But now Madison was arguing for the opposite view, denying that the Constitution granted the federal government powers that were not specifically enumerated there. (Obviously Hamilton was furious at his friend, and in fact their friendship began an irreparable fissure.) Hamilton's first reply to these criticisms was of course to point to the "necessary and proper" clause, but Madison claimed he was exploiting the power, and because he feared Hamilton would invent "limitless activities and then rationalize them as 'necessary and proper', became a "strict constructionist".  

 After the bill was passed by Congress, all that was left was for President Washington to sign or veto it. He had 10 days to decide. Washington, also a Virginia planter, was inclined to sign it in to law but was worried about the harsh opposition to the bill, and had yet to veto anything. So he solicited the opinions of various people including the Attorney General and Secretary of State Thomas Jefferson. I mentioned above Jefferson's view that the Constitution only gave Congress power that was truly necessary to fulfill its functions. President Washington sent the arguments he received to Hamilton and asked for his reply. Hamilton wrote back a 40 page response.

Hamilton's defense of the Constitutionality of the Bill

Hamilton strongly believed that the minutes of the Constitutional Convention would provide "ample confirmation" of his view that the implied powers in the Constitution meant the government had "the right to employ all means necessary to carry out the powers mentioned in the Constitution". However, he couldn't quote the record directly because they had taken an oath of confidentiality.

Hamilton's basic thesis, his core idea, was that "government must possess the means to attain the ends for which it was established or the bonds of society would dissolve". He argued that "this general principle is inherent in the very definition of government and is essential to every step of the progress to be made by the United States: every power vested in a government is in its nature sovereign and includes by force of the term a right to employ all the means requisite and fairly applicable to the attainment of the ends of such power". 

He thought Jefferson's point of view entirely wrong-headed, saying that f we followed his view we'd create a "political society without sovereignty [the supreme controlling power in communities not under monarchical government; absolute and independent authority], a people without a government. He pointed out that no one was denying the fact that there are "implied as well as express powers" in the Constitution and that to argue that all government policies had to be "absolutely necessary" to the performance of specific duties would "totally paralyze the government since it is practically impossible to prove for certain what was absolutely necessary".

To support this, he gave examples from real life: When he set up the customs service, which is listed above as a power of the government, he had overseen the creation of lighthouses, beacons, buoys, etc "none of which were strictly necessary, but still very useful to society. Similarly, he argued, the Bank of the United States would enable the government to fulfill 4 responsibilities cited explicitly in the Constitution: 1. collect taxes, 2. borrow money, 3. regulate trade between the states, 4. support fleets and armies. Finally, he summed up a basic problem with the fears of Madison and Jefferson regarding "over-reach", saying that "in all questions of this nature, the practice of mankind ought to have great weight against the theories of individuals". The "necessary" in "necessary and proper" "doesn't mean indispensable so much as it means appropriate". 

The point being that we've had thousands of years of government set up for various reasons, and there will always be nay-sayers and conspiracy theorists, but that common sense dictates that sometimes we just are better off giving the government the ability to do what we know we need it to do. Further, there are going to be many cases where to argue in terms of future "power grabs" not only is a logically invalid slippery slope, its just plain stupid.

The day after reading the response, Washington signed the bill into law. Hamilton later used the same arguments to recommend the U.S. do "crazy" things such as inspect manufactured goods to assure consumers of quality and thus increase sales; inspect all flour coming in to U.S. ports to improve its reputation in the world market; build public roads and canals to improve travel and the economy; annually purchase military weapons to form arsenals for our protection.

Madison and Jefferson were horrified at such ideas and spent the years after Hamilton left office trying to dismantle the impressive creation of Hamilton, Washington and John Adams - "a federal government with a central bank, funded debt, a high credit rating, a tax system, customs service, coast guard, navy, and a flexible Constitution that could meet future challenges to the country." Perhaps it was fitting then, that we nearly lost the War of 1812 thanks to Jefferson cutting back the navy, getting rid of taxes and the Bank of the U.S. and that the Treasury Secretary for Jefferson and Madison repeatedly defended what Hamilton had created and fervently supported the creation of a Second Bank of the United States, which finally happened under Madison.

Final note: here's a terrific blog that is covering the debates of Jan 20 - Feb 25 1791 in "real time": http://founders-blog.blogspot.com/2011/02/george-washington-to-alexander-hami...

And in the next post, I will explicitly discuss the idea of "being forced to engage in commerce". Hint: its a red herring and all the arguments needed to get past it were already made by Hamilton, but I'll go further.

Art Project, powered by Google

via googleartproject.com

Kudos to Google for this. Taking you "street level" inside some of the greatest museums in the world, including Three in New York; The Met, MoMa and the Frick. This painting, The Birth of Venus by Botticelli, is at the Uffizi Gallery in Florence, Italy.