tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32854202024-02-28T03:37:35.612-06:00Stubborn Facts"Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passions, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence." -- John AdamsJoehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02349540553796643057noreply@blogger.comBlogger40125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3285420.post-14100552895041582672010-12-27T18:59:00.000-06:002010-12-27T18:59:27.414-06:00Krugman's Cloudy Crystal BallThe Bizarro Oracle, Paul Krugman, <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/27/opinion/27krugman.html?src=me&ref=general">strikes again</a>. In his latest column he notes rising prices of oil and other commodities and makes a prediction:<br />
<br />
"So what are the implications of the recent rise in commodity prices? It is, as I said, a sign that we’re living in a finite world, one in which resource constraints are becoming increasingly binding. This won’t bring an end to economic growth, let alone a descent into Mad Max-style collapse. It will require that we gradually change the way we live, adapting our economy and our lifestyles to the reality of more expensive resources."<br />
<br />
Now, I haven't an Economics Nobel, but I'm pretty sure I learned in Econ 101 that while demand drives up prices, high prices lead to an increase in supply -- which may take the form of substitute goods. Krugman elides past the best example of this with respect to energy: oil from shale. He also neglects to mention the enormous natural gas reserves discovered in recent years.<br />
<br />
I suspect that what's at work is here is less prediction than wish. Krugman, like others on the left, hope we give up on challenges like our energy needs and just make do with less. I call it an aesthetic of shared misery.Joehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02349540553796643057noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3285420.post-33905385960902203532010-10-06T22:21:00.000-05:002010-10-06T22:21:07.240-05:00"Lone Star" Was DrekOK, so I only watched the first half of one episode, but it stank. Did not care what happened to any of the characters. And I'm from Texas, and know a lot of oil men, and have run across a few con men in my law practice.<br />
<br />
So, I'm unsurprised by the cancellation, but a little surprised by the few news pieces I saw on the show not mentioning how bad it was but instead blaming the audience. Typical critical arrogance.<br />
<br />
Newsflash. Better either give the viewers someone they can like -- and boyish good looks but may be ambiguous about being a criminal isn't enough -- or make it really interesting. I.e., Weeds wherein everyone is odious but at least unusual.Joehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02349540553796643057noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3285420.post-13524998062919204172010-06-12T13:00:00.000-05:002010-06-12T13:02:53.759-05:00Starcraft II BetaI played. <a href="http://us.starcraft2.com/">I liked it.</a> But, I... can't... win... a... game.<br /><br />I'm buying it anyway.Joehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02349540553796643057noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3285420.post-28187169657105696192010-06-11T23:31:00.000-05:002010-06-12T12:56:53.148-05:00AP Headline Sebelius June 11, 2010<a href="http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5h_6x0AU_CynNNRPSPbTlu_pPzemgD9G9EGE80">"Sebelius stumps for anti-childhood obesity plan"</a><br /><br />Sounds like the Dems are infringing Swift's intellectual property.<br /><br />Yes, the grammar police are on duty.Joehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02349540553796643057noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3285420.post-1116429213702086992005-05-18T10:06:00.000-05:002005-05-18T10:13:33.836-05:00NONE OF YOUR BUSINESSThe debate over biotechnology is couched in terms of what "we as a society should do or allow." Faugh! This field should be marked by an absence of coercion or prohibition. That we are on the threshold of being able to fundamentally modify the human animal is evident. It's equally evident that allowing folks like Leon Kass to drive policy embraces a Dark Ages approach that denies reality, impermissibly compromises liberty and betrays the promise of humanity.Joehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02349540553796643057noreply@blogger.com5tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3285420.post-1107805326933494572005-02-07T13:41:00.000-06:002005-02-07T13:42:06.933-06:00DRUG COSTS<div><span style="font-family:Arial;">Clearly, allowing US consumers to re-import price-controlled drugs from Canada, etc. runs contrary to the needs of the free market and -- all together now -- depresses the incentives for pharmaceutical research.</span></div> <div> </div> <div><span style="font-family:Arial;">Just as clearly, disallowing re-importation effectively places close to 100% of the cost of such research on US consumers.</span></div> <div> </div> <div><span style="font-family:Arial;">How can the issue be intelligently debated without a discussion of the other contra-free-market influence at work here: patent protection for drugs?</span></div> <div> </div> <div><span style="font-family:Arial;">Is it not useful to consider whether the length and scope of patent protection for drugs is appropriate? After all, absent patent law, the price of any new drug would fall due to generic knock-offs becoming available much sooner than is the case now.</span></div> <div> </div> <div><span style="font-family:Arial;">Of course, the lack of patent protection would depress research incentives as well, likely more so that allowing re-importation.</span></div> <div> </div> <div><span style="font-family:Arial;">Maybe one way to look at is that the single-payer systems in other countries are a rational response to the time-limited state-enforced monopolies that patents provide. Selling drugs to such government providers at a negotiated price (as opposed to the fiat price a monopolist can set) is the cost to the drug makers of having other countries respect US and international patents.</span></div> <div> </div> <div><span style="font-family:Arial;">The research needs to get done. However, given that patent protection compromises the operation of the free market, isn't it mandatory that our government take some steps to 1) try and shift some of that burden off of the US economy and 2) making sure that patent protection does not increase the cost of drug development versus what would exist if there were no patents.</span></div> <div> </div> <div><span style="font-family:Arial;">"That's just what it costs" and "Drug makers have a right to monopoly profits during the patent period" just don't cut it. And I simply don't believe that the current system (assuming disallowance of re-importation) produces the best results we can hope for. I don't advocate a free lunch, but I'm concerned about the government holding a gun to my head while the drug makers take a bite out of my sandwich.</span></div> <div> </div> <div><span style="font-family:Arial;">Of course, it's pure fantasy to imagine the current administration doing anything fundamental about this problem.</span></div> Joehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02349540553796643057noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3285420.post-1107200909062330442005-01-31T13:45:00.000-06:002005-01-31T13:48:29.063-06:00MORALITY?A RECENT EMAIL EXCHANGE WITH A DEAR FRIEND OF MINE WHO IS MOST CONSERVATIVE: START AT THE BOTTOM AND READ UP.
<br />
<br />
<br />Seems no one is forcing anyone to take a job as a hooker.
<br />
<br />They're given a choice; first, find your own job.
<br />
<br />If not, take work that we find for you, or lose your benefits.
<br />
<br />Do you object to legalized prostitution in Germany? If not, what's the
<br />rational basis to treat brothels differently from other employers?
<br />
<br />People have a choice to forego work, and the attendant compensations,
<br />because they're morally opposed to the business involved.
<br />
<br />More particularly, and to expand my earlier comment on workfare, look at
<br />this country where prostitution is illegal, except in Nevada. What if the
<br />article had been about a situation involving American welfare reforms,
<br />which, one presumes, involve benefit cuts if you refuse a job? How
<br />different would your reaction be if the story were about refusing, on moral
<br />grounds, to take work in a gun shop or gun factory? A tobacco shop or
<br />cigarette factory? Would you believe the state would be more justified or
<br />less justified in pulling the objector's benefits for such refusal?
<br />
<br />If you say "more justified" you implicitly make the judgment that moral
<br />objections to prostitution trump moral objections to guns and tobacco
<br />products -- a judgment I agree with, incidentally, in terms of the moral
<br />implications of individual participation (as opposed to the 50 year pattern
<br />of lying by the tobacco companies). I just don't think the government has
<br />any business imposing that judgment, no matter how majoritarian.
<br />
<br />I think your reaction would have been the exact opposite.
<br />
<br />This article proves the opposite of your fascist comment, and the compulsory
<br />comment, at least in this circumstance. Remember, traditional welfare, not
<br />tied to workfare, was the "liberal" position. Conservatives insisted on
<br />reforming welfare into workfare -- a notion I support, by the way.
<br />(Although weren't the WPA and CCC, the original workfare, invented by hated
<br />liberal FDR?) In any event the statist compulsion arises from the workfare
<br />aspect, not from the fact of unemployment benefits.
<br />
<br />And, if prostitution, or live sex shows, are legal (no evidence that such
<br />are legal for 13-year-olds, here or in Germany, though aren't you, as a good
<br />conservative, opposed to child labor laws?), shouldn't laws protecting
<br />workers apply?
<br />
<br />Of course, I know you're opposed to the minimum wage in the first place.
<br />
<br />All any of this proves is that individual liberty to choose is the only
<br />rational way to resolve moral debates.
<br />
<br />To: "Joe McDermott"
<br />Subject: Re: you won't believe it
<br />
<br />
<br />Proving once again that:
<br />1) the true facists are on the left;
<br />2) liberals do not care where what one does so long as it is compulsory;
<br />3) the only question a liberal would have, upon seeing a 13 year old girl
<br />performing
<br />sex on stage, is whether or not she was being paid the minimum wage.
<br />Thanks again to Joe for confirming what we already knew.
<br />Ford
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />Makes sense to me.
<br />Isn't this the logical next step in workfare?
<br />JAM3
<br />
<br />----- Original Message -----
<br />
<br />"Joe McD III (office)"
<br />Sent: Sunday, January 30, 2005 7:32 PM
<br />Subject: you won't believe it
<br />
<br />
<br />Joe
<br />A serious comment if you please
<br />
<br />
<br />'If you don't take a job as a prostitute, we can stop your benefits'
<br />By Clare Chapman
<br />(Filed: 30/01/2005)
<br />
<br />A 25-year-old waitress who turned down a job providing "sexual services''
<br />at a brothel in Berlin faces possible cuts to her unemployment benefit
<br />under laws introduced this year.
<br />
<br />Prostitution was legalised in Germany just over two years ago and brothel
<br />owners - who must pay tax and employee health insurance - were granted
<br />access to official databases of jobseekers.
<br />
<br />The waitress, an unemployed information technology professional, had said
<br />that she was willing to work in a bar at night and had worked in a cafe.
<br />
<br />She received a letter from the job centre telling her that an employer was
<br />interested in her "profile'' and that she should ring them. Only on doing
<br />so did the woman, who has not been identified for legal reasons, realise
<br />that she was calling a brothel.
<br />
<br />Under Germany's welfare reforms, any woman under 55 who has been out of
<br />work for more than a year can be forced to take an available job -
<br />including in the sex industry - or lose her unemployment benefit. Last
<br />month German unemployment rose for the 11th consecutive month to 4.5
<br />million, taking the number out of work to its highest since reunification
<br />in 1990.
<br />
<br />The government had considered making brothels an exception on moral
<br />grounds, but decided that it would be too difficult to distinguish them
<br />from bars. As a result, job centres must treat employers looking for a
<br />prostitute in the same way as those looking for a dental nurse.
<br />
<br />When the waitress looked into suing the job centre, she found out that it
<br />had not broken the law. Job centres that refuse to penalise people who turn
<br />down a job by cutting their benefits face legal action from the potential
<br />employer.
<br />
<br />"There is now nothing in the law to stop women from being sent into the sex
<br />industry," said Merchthild Garweg, a lawyer from Hamburg who specialises in
<br />such cases. "The new regulations say that working in the sex industry is
<br />not immoral any more, and so jobs cannot be turned down without a risk to
<br />benefits."
<br />
<br />Miss Garweg said that women who had worked in call centres had been offered
<br />jobs on telephone sex lines. At one job centre in the city of Gotha, a
<br />23-year-old woman was told that she had to attend an interview as a "nude
<br />model", and should report back on the meeting. Employers in the sex
<br />industry can also advertise in job centres, a move that came into force
<br />this month. A job centre that refuses to accept the advertisement can be
<br />sued.
<br />
<br />Tatiana Ulyanova, who owns a brothel in central Berlin, has been searching
<br />the online database of her local job centre for recruits.
<br />
<br />"Why shouldn't I look for employees through the job centre when I pay my
<br />taxes just like anybody else?" said Miss Ulyanova.
<br />
<br />Ulrich Kueperkoch wanted to open a brothel in Goerlitz, in former East
<br />Germany, but his local job centre withdrew his advertisement for 12
<br />prostitutes, saying it would be impossible to find them.
<br />
<br />Mr Kueperkoch said that he was confident of demand for a brothel in the
<br />area and planned to take a claim for compensation to the highest court.
<br />Prostitution was legalised in Germany in 2002 because the government
<br />believed that this would help to combat trafficking in women and cut links
<br />to organised crime.
<br />
<br />Miss Garweg believes that pressure on job centres to meet employment
<br />targets will soon result in them using their powers to cut the benefits of
<br />women who refuse jobs providing sexual services.
<br />
<br />"They are already prepared to push women into jobs related to sexual
<br />services, but which don't count as prostitution,'' she said.
<br />
<br />"Now that prostitution is no longer considered by the law to be immoral,
<br />there is really nothing but the goodwill of the job centres to stop them
<br />from pushing women into jobs they don't want to do."
<br />
<br />Information appearing on telegraph.co.uk is the copyright of Telegraph
<br />Group Limited and must not be reproduced in any medium without licence. For
<br />the full copyright statement see Copyright
<br />Joehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02349540553796643057noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3285420.post-1091745276387506662004-08-05T17:34:00.000-05:002004-08-05T17:34:36.386-05:00Iraq, ect.Large questions remain unanswered.Was invading Iraq in the interest of the long term security of the UnitedStates? Even if so, is the benefit worth the cost in blood and treasure?Is a more surgical approach possible and ultimately lest costly and moreeffective? Was and is the effort to more specifically identify, and dealwith, those that have done and will do us harm given short shrift in favorof toppling Saddam?How, if at all, does the invasion of Iraq diminish the prospects of findingand killing the specific people who are a threat? I have no truck withmulti-lateralism when it comes to American security, but when we need to beoperating overseas finding folks who have so far proved elusive, we needsome cooperation outside our own borders.Is a revival and modification of the cold-war MAD doctrine appropriate (I'msurprised Rumsfeld has not floated this; perhaps he has internally)? Couldwe not announce that, we are not changing one thing at home (see nextsection), and the next time Americans are killed on American soil byjihadists we will drop sufficient bombs, including nuclear if needed, tokill residents of _______ (name an Islamic city) in the ratio of 10,000 or100,000 to one?Why have we adopted what seems to be a dangerous middle ground between thepolicies articulated in the preceding paragraphs?****Are the efforts at home paying dividends? Is the compromise of fundamentalliberties and the quality of life of Americans attendant to the Patriot Act,airport security, etc. a rational and effective tool to prevent furtherattacks on American soil? Are there some in the government who would usethis crisis to permanently curtail some liberties?****Can a citizen in good conscience consider that a Democratic administrationwould be as or more effective as the current one in fighting our enemies?If so, is it not legitimate to vote for a change based on other issues?Protecting privacy and personal libertyProtecting freedom of religion and expression; maintaining church-stateseparationSensible economic policy (Who remembers when the GOP stood for balancedbudgets? Remember Gramm-Rudman?)Protecting the right to trial by jury in civil mattersProtecting the power of the courts to provide relief from laws infringing onpersonal libertyOpposing federal judicial appointments that reflect a narrow view ofpersonal liberty, unless the activity in question makes money, in which casethe liberty is infiniteGetting the government out of the culture war (With record deficits, why notsave the $57 million slotted for abstinence-only sex education?)Funding for basic science, irrespective of religious objectionsScience education based on the scientific method, not anyones religiousbeliefsRational, science-based environmental policy allocating environmental coststo those that generate themEnforcement of anti-trust, fraud and other laws that protect our marketeconomy from unfair distortions -- irrespective of how big or rich theoffender isMaking sure charitable organizations -- i.e.churches -- stay out of politicsor lose their tax exemptionsA chief executive who professes respect, not ridicule, for intellectualpursuits, academic excellence, and informed analysis; one who believes inevolution
<br />Joehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02349540553796643057noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3285420.post-1091111441043568932004-07-29T09:30:00.000-05:002004-07-29T09:32:02.353-05:00MY VIEWSHaving been accused of being a "Liberal", I outline a few things I believe in:
<br />
<br />The right to bear arms in self-defense, and as a bulwark against government tyranny.
<br />
<br />The death penalty. Draconian punishment for violent crime.
<br />
<br />Trial by jury in civil and criminal matters. And what the jury says is what the judge orders, even if it bankrupts someone really, really rich.
<br />
<br />Government getting out of the business of legislating morality, period. No palpable injury to another, no basis for prohibiting ANY conduct. This includes pre-viability abortions, until there is scientific proof that the soul attaches earlier.
<br />
<br />Strong national defense including totally wiping out those that would harm Americans.
<br />
<br />Free speech no matter whom it offends.
<br />
<br />Freedom from government intrusion and investigation absent judicially determined probable cause.
<br />
<br />Democracy, tempered by an expansive view of those rights which the minority or the individual has, irrespective of the majority's wish to circumscribe those rights.
<br />
<br />Low taxes, but with balanced budgets.
<br />
<br />Just enough redistribution in the tax system to fund opportunity, not outcomes, for all.
<br />
<br />Capitalism. Anti-trust laws. Rational allocation of environmental costs to those that damage the environment -- but only if scientifically justified.
<br />
<br />Entrepreneurship over massive corporations, though such are likely unavoidable. These is wisdom in the saying that separating ownership from management leads to trouble (See Enron.)
<br />
<br />Freedom of religion, or freedom from religion, if the individual wishes. I fear God's judgment, but not as much as that of some of His self-appointed representatives.
<br />
<br />Equal protection and due process.
<br />
<br />Science. Public funding of basic research. Science education, especially in the primary and secondary schools, unalloyed with any group's non-scientific (this includes creationism in all its forms) positions. By all means, study those positions in non-science classes.
<br />
<br />The right to be secure in ones home. The right to raise ones children as one believes best.
<br />
<br />The cultural superiority of that set of values which define Western Civilization; the Enlightenment; the power of reason and rationality;
<br />
<br />That Thomas Jefferson and Winston Churchill are two examples of what all men should aspire to.
<br />
<br />That the debt we owe Newton and all the other great discoverers of knowledge is beyond calculation.
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />Joehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02349540553796643057noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3285420.post-1086525629871377112004-06-06T07:16:00.000-05:002004-07-29T09:28:52.810-05:00BADLY NEEDED WEBSITESOne would think that, with the plethora of websites devoted to almost every imaginable interest, coverage is complete; no additional sites are really needed (not that that's likely to stop anyone). However, I have discovered some gaping holes that need filling, and thus present some sites that ought to be out there but aren't. These are not live links -- yet -- so don't bother clicking.
<br />
<br /><em><strong>MaureensTimes.com</strong></em>: <strong>Gambling</strong>. Run out of the Caymans (or any Bush state), this site makes book on whether any particular piece by <em>New York Times</em> columnist Maureen Dowd is written while she is entertaining her "monthly visitor". Site integrity insured by former Arthur Andersen partners who make surreptitious visits to the <em>Times'</em> waste disposal facilities; they sure don't have anything else to do. Site was planning to extend coverage to Ann Coulter until investigation revealed doubts about her gender. A planned rollout on Sean Hannity is on hold until it's determined if he's <strong>ever</strong> off the rag.
<br />Joehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02349540553796643057noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3285420.post-1084340961481155462004-05-12T00:40:00.000-05:002004-05-12T00:49:21.480-05:00CREATIONIST NUTBAGSBut I repeat myself. Less than half of Americans believe in evolution. The President of the United States is on the fence on the topic. Bodes well for science education, doesn't it? (Gee, Mom, why should I study evolution? W doesn't believe in it.) Now, what people take on faith is their own business. What is objectionable is the attempt to bolster the creationist case by -- manifestly falsely -- representing that there is some genuine scientific dispute over the existence of evolution, the age of the Earth (at least as far as a few thousand years versus several billion). Repeat after me. <em>There is no scientific controversy over these matters.</em> All the notions floated in the popular press suggesting the contrary are as intellectually bankrupt as fixed sphere cosmology.Joehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02349540553796643057noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3285420.post-866607272002-12-29T09:50:00.000-06:002004-05-11T00:26:27.686-05:00<h3>CLONING AND STEM CELLS AGAIN?</h3>
<br />
<br />That's right, I'm back on my favorite topic. What with: 1) the GOP regaining control of the Senate, making passage of a total ban on cloning more likely; 2) the widely disbelieved announcement that there has indeed been a cloned child born, under the auspices of a group whose scientific credentials and sanity are suspect; 3) Bill Frist, who has been a player (due largely to the fact he is the only M.D. in the Senate and tight with the President) making majority leader; legitimate research pressing forward (notably the announcement that a Stanford lab is making cloned embroys for the purpose of stem cell extraction); and 5) the revelation that the "compromise" the President approved last year, allowing federally funded research to proceed only on then-existing lines of embryonic stem cells, is a crock and, if observed, chokes off the research (far from the 60 lines touted by the White House, turns out there are significantly less than a dozen usable lines in the permitted group), I thought it time to get back on the soapbox.
<br />
<br />I've mentioned before Dr. Leon Kass, the influential and to my mind dangerous head of the President's Council on Bioethics. You should read the Council's report, and particularly his contributions as chairman, to see where this fellow is coming from -- somewhere between Jason and Freddy, as far as I can tell. The council website is <a href="http://www.bioethics.gov"><font color=#FF0000>here</font></a>.Joehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02349540553796643057noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3285420.post-761216172002-05-03T10:26:00.000-05:002002-12-29T20:38:31.000-06:00<h3>TRASHING WOODY...</h3>
<br />is what <a href="http://www.nationalreview.com/podhoretz/podhoretz050302.asp"><font color=#FF0000>John Podhoretz</font></a> is up to. Here's my response:
<br />
<br />I've not seen Hollywood Ending -- though I'll likely go this weekend -- so I must reserve comment. I'm not a "film buff" or a fan of the Sundance channel, nor do I bleed over indie genius. I detest most foreign movies. I like action/adventure, the hero gets the bad guy, boy gets girl(s), and funny movies. Woody Allen makes funny movies.
<br />
<br />Your comparison of Allen's post-Mia movies to those he made with her fails. You try to force square pegs into round holes to fit "the moral of the story" and it won't fly. To wit:
<br />
<br />Mighty Aprhodite was pretty funny.
<br />
<br />Rip offs or not, Jade Scorpion and Small Time Crooks were very funny. The latter, especially, had great doses of those zingers that make some of Woody's movies so delightful; the former was a successful execution of a funny premise with some nice twists and turns.
<br />
<br />Deconstructing Harry was absolutely hilarious. Did you not see the riffs with Billy Crystal in Hell? The exchange with Woody's sister featuring one of the greatest setup-punchline exchanges in history ("...in France, I could run on that ticket and win.")? The gag where Woody is right there for Bob Balaban when he faces possibly fatal news from his doctor, but then initially turns a deaf ear to Woody's request to accompany him on the road trip (much insight and humor in that exchange)?
<br />
<br />Weren't a lot of the Mia movies, well, ponderous? Didn't you get the feeling that she was the source of the ponderousness? Of the ones you mention, only Hannah and Her Sisters is what I call really entertaining.
<br />
<br />Isn't the real comparison between the pre-Mia and Mia movies? What about Annie Hall? Manhattan? What about Everything You Wanted to Know..., Bananas, Love and Death, Sleeper? Isn't that the gamut from terrific bittersweet love story to wonderful farce?
<br />
<br />What Hollywood leading man doesn't cast himself opposite much younger beautiful women, if he can get away with it? What regular guy doesn't dream of such for himself? At least with Woody, the premise is floated that a bad-looking, not necesssarily rich older guy can get the babes if he's sufficiently witty, which must bring hope to millions.
<br />
<br />As for the Scandal, get over it. News flash: Woody and Mia's set-up was not exactly Ozzie and Harriett. She's a nut. Soon-Yi was not his child, legally or biologically. I've heard it argued, notably by that great moralist and lesbian cow Rosie O'Donnell, that she was his child morally, but again, how can we apply conventional morality to the zoo that was the Farrow household? My only beef with Woody over Soon-Yi is that she's so damn ugly.
<br />
<br />Why do I have the feeling that you wrote the heart of your column years ago and have just been waiting for a Woody movie to trash to go with your pet theory?Joehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02349540553796643057noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3285420.post-760584922002-05-01T19:02:00.000-05:002002-05-01T19:03:14.000-05:00<h3>WHOSE DEATH IS IT?</h3>
<br />
<br /><a href="http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/comment-smith050102.asp"><font color=#FF0000>Wesley Smith</font></a> condemns Oregon's assisted sucide law in the National Review. I disagree:
<br />
<br />Wesley Smith does a good job of attacking the straw man: the admittedly ludicrous fiction that assisting suicide is practicing medicine in the Hippocratic sense.
<br />
<br />However, there could be good reasons to require such (if we are going to allow assisted suicide) be done by doctors, and not relatives.
<br />
<br />Presumably doctors would be better able to insure a painless, successful (in the sense that the patient dies as he intends) process.
<br />
<br />Doctors also could be more qualified to advise the patient of less drastic ways to relieve their suffering/improve their quality of life and thus possibly prevent suicides.
<br />
<br />Requiring someone in the process who neither is emotionally involved with nor a potential beneficiary of the death, as opposed to spouses, children, etc., certainly promotes the interest of making sure that the suicide is desired by the patient.
<br />
<br />All of which still begs the question, should we allow assisted suicide at all?
<br />
<br />What about this? There is no enforceable penalty for the physically capable person who kills himself. Absent assisted suicide, people with debilitating illnesses might well punch the clock prematurely, rushing to act before they became helpless to do so. Thus, the availability of assisted suicide might well extend some lives.
<br />
<br />Fundamentally, why is it the government's business if someone wants to off himself? It seems requiring one to stay alive against his wishes is the ultimate denial of liberty. Again, a prohibition against assisted suicide only affects those too weak to do it themselves. Is this fair?
<br />
<br />Moreover, under what twisted abandonment of federalism is it the United States' right to tell Oregon that, pursuant to a law adopted by its legislature, its citizens may not have help taking their own lives? What conceivably constitutional federal statute could bar that law? And if the answer to that is "none", how obscene is it for the chief law enforcement officer of the United States, the Attorney General, to subvert the Constitution by the backdoor stunt of taking away the drug-prescribing privileges of physicians who dare act in accordance with a clearly enforceable law, just because he doesn't like it?
<br />
<br />I've not addressed the enormous and troubling practical problems with legalizing assisted suicide, most of which boil down to making sure it's the patient's competent wish to end his life. That's a whole other discussion.
<br />
<br />What I am most interested in is in making sure that even zealots like Wesley Smith realize they don't have an exclusive claim to the moral high ground on this issue. There is another principled side to this debate. Where one comes down on the issue is truly a matter of conscience. And in America, matters of conscience rightly are decided by each individual for himself.
<br />Joehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02349540553796643057noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3285420.post-759249772002-04-28T09:37:00.000-05:002002-12-29T19:16:31.000-06:00<h3>MORE CLONING ARTICLES</h3)
<br />
<br />
<br />Yes, I am obsessing about this issue. I think there's nothing more important to the future success and happiness of mankind than the full exploration of this science. Here are some further recent articles and my replies:
<br />
<br /><a href="http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/001/169zcitb.asp"><font color=#FF0000>The Weekly Standard</font></a>:
<br />There sure IS debate over federal funding for embryonic stem cell research; just because "Bush has spoken" does not mean the question is closed. Of course, as you neglect to mention, what is at stake in the congress right now is not federal funding, but an outright ban on cloning. Talk about vague political speech. I'm glad that you mentioned that Harry and Louise originated in opposition to the Clintons' nationalized health care, because it highlights a point you seem to be missing. The Clinton plan was rejected by, not just insurers and doctors, but by Americans who did not want the government involved in their health care. Cloning opponents like to paint supporters of research cloning as part of the "biotech lobby", "Hollywood", or as forsaking morality in a rush to embrace the benefits of genetic science. They insist embryos have moral standing. That is NOT the only morally informed view. Many see an early stage embryo for what it is: a few to a few hundred cells with no brain function, no self-awareness, no soul. We rebel against the anti-cloning position, because equating a zygote to a human being is in itself morally grotesque. Laying the scientific and logical bankruptcy of the "embryo equals person" position aside, the equiviancy argument offends at its core the idea of what it is to be a human being. We are more than biology. Should we mourn the loss of an early term pregnancy as we do that of a three-year old child? The discarding of an embryo after research should cause the streets of London to fill as when the Queen Mother passed? Should Whitman have written "Oh Zygote, Oh Zygote"? Should we celebrate the abortion of an "evil embryo" (if we learn to detect such) as we will when Charles Manson finally chokes on his own bile? The barbarism lies not merely in foreclosing the benefits of embryonic research. The greater obscenity results from twisting the meaning of "human being" to include embryos.Joehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02349540553796643057noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3285420.post-757447012002-04-23T18:18:00.000-05:002002-04-23T18:21:36.000-05:00<h3>GRETA AND THE RUGHEADS...</h3>
<br />
<br />...make delightful fodder for the screamingly funny <a href="http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/001/161yaihr.asp"><font color=#FF0000>Larry Miller</font></a>, but he misses a small point, as I lay out in this letter to him:<br>
<br />I wish I could write that well, hammered. I would have never left the frat house.<br>
<br />
<br />Greta, of course, is proof that the shiboleth about only good looking folks getting on TV is false. Wait, so are you, Larry. At least you don't have a laydown malpractice suit against your plastic surgeon. Wait, do you? Perhaps I can get on TV!<br>
<br />
<br />As a trial lawyer -- could you guess? -- I have to take issue with your condemning Cohen for representing these vermin (although I sure as hell wouldn't). Say it with me one more time: everyone, no matter how vile, has the right to counsel; that's what makes it America. And Jewish lawyers, you know, have a tradition of representing the grossly unpopular ( I cannot bring myself to apply the term "underdog" here; how about just "dog"?). If the principles we live by have meaning, then they apply to the most heinous.<br>
<br />
<br />Your remarks about drinking remind me of the bit you used to do (maybe still, but I didn't have a coupon for the last time you did stand-up in Houston) about being out on a school night and, as the clock spins, telling yourself repeatedly that as long as you get ___ hours of sleep, you'd be cool. A classic! I howl everytime I watch my Napster-supplied illicit download of it.<br>
<br />
<br />Give Greta a break and remember she's a short-term phenomenon. Absent some blind guy's friends playing a cruel joke on him, she's unlikely to reproduce
<br />Joehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02349540553796643057noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3285420.post-757442372002-04-23T18:06:00.000-05:002002-04-23T18:13:39.000-05:00<h3>CLONING, AGAIN</H3>
<br />
<br /><a href="http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/comment-smith042302.asp"><font color=#FF0000>Wesley Smith</font></a> weighs in on the side of <b>adult</b> stem cell research. Facts are always welcome, but what does it prove? Here's what I wrote him:<br>
<br />Mr. Smith once again catalogues adult stem cell successes and thus adds much to the debate, although his implicit thesis: that the media pushes embryonic stem cell research because it wants to promote the destruction of embryos as part of some sort of institutional agenda to denigrate the view that such are human life with moral standing, strikes me as insuppportable.<br>
<br />
<br />As a lawyer -- and Mr. Smith was a successful one before he became a pundit -- one learns to cast the debate in terms that favor ones client's side, and Mr. Smith, it seems, is indulging in just that when he discusses stem cells and their promise only in terms of regenerative medicine, i.e., cures for existing conditions. He ignores the larger issue of genetic medicine applied at or before the point of conception to remove/deactivate genes causing birth defects, congenital illnesses, etc., or add/activate genes promoting desirable characteristics (general robustness, intelligence, etc.), and whether promise in that area is linked to embryonic or adult stem cells.<br>
<br />
<br />In so doing, he joins President Bush and other opponents of pre-birth genetic medicine in defining what are acceptable goals for genetic science in advance of the development of the science. The end result these opponents frankly seek is to foreclose individuals' choosing to utilize such science for their children-to-be. This is being accomplished. not by seeing what is and is not possible first, then making appropriate judgments, but, through enforced ignorance, delaying at all costs the development of the science so no one can have its (arguable) benefits.<br>
<br />
<br />That is simply barbaric.
<br />Joehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02349540553796643057noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3285420.post-755467382002-04-18T09:38:00.000-05:002002-12-29T10:08:57.000-06:00<h2>TOM DELAY, SACK OF HAMMERS</h3>
<br />
<br />There's a report in today's <a href="http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/story.hts/metropolitan/1371848"><font color=#FF0000>Houston Chronicle</font></a> on a speech Tom DeLay gave at a church urging parents not to send their kids to A&M or Baylor if they want them to get a Christian education. While I'd ordinarily applaud any advice that keeps kids out of College Station, I can't subscribe to DeLay's reasoning. Seems the failure to teach creationism, combined with the fact that some students have sex in the dorms (how shocking!), makes these campuses un-Christian. Wake up, Tommy. Some of us Christians can get our minds around the fact that God could just as easily have created man through evolution as out of a lump of clay (and the former is perhaps more miraculous than the latter). Some of us can even understand that the scientific method rests on proof, not faith, and that we do not betray our faith by embracing science to explain the state of this world.<br><br>
<br />
<br />The Chron dug up an old quote of DeLay's linking, with the subtle, clever sarcasm only a true wordsmith can muster, the Columbine tragedy with the teaching of evolution. As a bonus, he makes up a word ("evolutionized") in the process.<br><br>
<br />
<br />I shouldn't be surprised at Delay; after all, there's a picture of him next to "dogmatic" in the dictionary. I was interested to hear that his daughter, who went to A&M, "had horrible experiences with coed dorms and guys who spent the weekends in the rooms with girls." What horrible experience could this refer to? Walking in on a roommate and her boyfriend? Not getting any herself? Wait, I forgot she was Tom DeLay's daughter. Her problem must be with the fact that someone, somewhere (it just happened to be on her campus) was doing something of which she disapproved, and by God, they needed to be stopped. Good thing such an intolerant, silly little girl is not in a position of influence in this country. Whoops.<br><br>
<br />
<br />A DeLay hatchet man -- er, staffer -- reacted decisively, reminding us that the recording of the speech was unauthorized (after all, is it the public's damn business what the third most powerfull man in the House says to a gathering of hundreds?) and that the offending taper is a former member of the ACLU whose organization is to the left of Hillary Clinton. How he forgot to take a swipe at the trial lawyers, I don't know.<br><br>
<br />
<br />Yuo sure have to hand it to DeLay for being forward looking though. He reminded the crowd that there were "still some Christian schools out there -- good, solid schools. Now, they may be little, they may not be as prestigious as Stanford, but your kids will get a good, solid, godly education." Bob Jones University, maybe? Frankly, I think this recommendation was a master stroke. By urging parents to send their kids off to these schools, he promotes the creation of more narrow-minded conformists that blindly obey authority -- his very constituency!<br><br>
<br />
<br />As for where to send your kids to college, how about this? First, teach them right from wrong and to think critically about whatever they see and hear, in class and out. Then send them to the most intellectually rigorous college you can afford and they can get into. If you've done the groundwork, they won't come back crazy, or corrupted, but educated. And that's what it's all about.
<br />Joehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02349540553796643057noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3285420.post-754640772002-04-16T09:18:00.000-05:002002-04-16T09:20:54.000-05:00<h3>CIVIL LIBERTIES AND TERROR</h3>
<br />
<br />Anyone else troubled by the recent news of the indictment of the lawyer for convicted terrorist Sheik Omar Abdel Rahman? She's accused of assisting him in passing messages to his cohorts outside prison. Now, let me first say that if she did it, she needs to be shot. The familiar and maddening idea of a gang leader/Mafia boss continuing to control his criminal empire from "inside" is all the more horrific when applied to terrorists.
<br />
<br />However, under a justice department directive adopted post-September 11, the attorney general -- that guardian of your civil liberties, John Ashcroft -- can monitor otherwise privileged conversations if he merely suspects wrongdoing. Here's an idea: why not have a third party, say an official who is not beholden to the Justioce Department or the administration, pass on whether the AG's suspicions justify eavesdropping on privileged conversations? Say someone whose status is protected by Article III of the Constitution, i.e., a federal judge? Lord knows the application for surveillance could be ex parte, and the GOP has enough law and order zealots who skipped Constitutional Law 101 on the bench that complying with such a requirement should minimally inconvenience any legitimate investigation. At least we could sleep better knowing some attention was being paid before we violate a privilege that's one of the cornerstones of our system of justice.
<br />Joehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02349540553796643057noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3285420.post-751689282002-04-08T12:19:00.000-05:002002-04-08T12:24:37.000-05:00<h3>POLITENESS IS DEAD...</h3>
<br />
<br />...according to <a href="http://www.nationalreview.com/derbyshire/derbyshire040802.asp"><font color=#FF0000>this article</font></a> by John Derbyshire at National Review Online. I agree, but find his blaming lawyers and lawsuits (imagine that, from a conservative publication) not credible. Here's what I wrote him:
<br />
<br />I enjoyed your piece. Thank you for writing it. I'm 45, and was raised in Houston (where I still live) by parents for whom politeness in children was not an option, but an imperative. Yes Sir, No Ma'am, Mr., Mrs./Miss (both pronounced, in the southern manner, Miz; cf. the odious Ms.), please, thank you.
<br />
<br />My father is remarried and I have brothers 13 and 7, both of whom are getting similar instruction. It appears to be taking.
<br />
<br />Sadly, though, by and large, things are as you report. I find myself angered at tradespeople on the phone calling my by my first name, uninvited, not to mention cheeky waiters. My last trip to California I wanted to throttle several youngsters who called me "Joe". I could go on.
<br />
<br />I must disagree with your laying the blame for this phenomenon at the feet of the rule of law and its enforcement by "ingenious lawyers". For one thing, a suit over bad manners is always laughed out of court, if you can find a lawyer green enough or hungry enough to take it. We must draw a distinction between rudeness, which ladies in the workplace regrettably must sometimes put up with, and groping, or conditioning continued employment or advancement on sexual favors, or others acts which I'm sure we agree ought to carry a penalty more severe than a reprimand from the manners police.
<br />
<br />There are many plausible sources of the decline in manners: the breakdown and rebellion against class distinctions ("Why should I address you politely just because you are older, my boss, a person of authority, etc.? I'm just as good as you."); the ubiquitousness of technology which makes communications instantaneous and often impersonal; the concentration of population which both increases the frequency of unintended encounters with ones fellow citizens and the likelihood that one will never see most who he comes into contact with again, lowering the cost of rudeness (this reason applies particularly to rude driving).
<br />
<br />I'm glad you mentioned the Lampoon. It was a favorite. Many of the best old articles are on the website; I just finished rereading the classic "Foreigners Around the World."
<br />
<br />Let me close with a question that I hope you won't find impolite. Do you NR writers receive a per instance fee from the insurance industry and big business for negative references to lawyers and lawsuits, or is it an annual lump sum?Joehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02349540553796643057noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3285420.post-113093062002-03-31T09:30:00.000-06:002002-04-08T12:15:34.000-05:00<h3>DEATH TO SMOOCHY...</h3>
<br />
<br />...is hilarious, edgy, dark, outrageous, profane, and a treat. It's the "Network" of kids TV. If your sense of humor runs to the bizzare and rough language does not bother you, you will howl with laughter. Imagine Robin Williams as a corrupt kiddy show host, who, after he gets fired, plots to murder his successor. It gets stranger, and funnier, from there.Joehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02349540553796643057noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3285420.post-112007492002-03-27T22:53:00.000-06:002002-03-27T22:59:06.000-06:00<h3>CLONING PART...</H3>
<br />
<br />There's a piece in the <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2002/03/27/opinion/27MCKI.html"><font color=#FF0000>New York Times</font></a>which points out the strange bedfellows on the right and left aligning against cloning research. Here's a letter I wrote to the author:
<br />
<br />I read your piece in the Times today with great interest. I classify myself neither as an environmentalist -- I have serious questions about whether science truly supports many theses of the movement and suspect it is driven much more by a desire to dictate "natural" living to the society at large on aesthetic grounds than is let on -- nor a social conservative -- the imposition of controversial moral strictures on ones fellows to me is a vile repudiation of everything American.
<br />
<br />Thus perhaps it will not surprise you that I'm for cloning research, emphatically including steps that might improve the human animal. Moreover, I'm angered to the point of distraction by those on the left and right who oppose the idea. In your analysis of the strange bedfellows of cloning opposition you miss, perhaps because it's quite unflattering, the philosophical principle, much broader than unity in opposition to this science, which these disparate elements share: a willingness to tell others what they may and may not do in their personal pursuit of health, long life, and happiness. That anyone had the right to tell me I may not seek, through all available means which do not directly injure my fellows, to extend and expand life, health, abilities, resistance to disease and other adverse conditions, for myself or my children, I reject totally. It's widely, and correctly in my view, predicted that if Roe vs.. Wade were overturned and a significant number of states moved to seriously restrict abortion, major civil unrest would follow. I think that disturbance would be nothing compared to the reaction to prohibitions on genetic enhancement of humans, once the possibilities are more closely within our technical grasp and more widely understood.
<br />
<br />I think opponents realize this last proposition and are therefore all the more determined to keep the science from reaching the place where dramatic changes are possible. I brand this thinking as cynical and morally bankrupt.
<br />
<br />Even the debate on genetic enhancements is being unfairly spun by opponents by resort to comparisons to the Nazis and Brave New World to describe the risks. In addition to their total lack of resemblance to modern Western culture, both of these comparisons suffer as predictors of what could happen because they are based on what is being proved every day to be a false paradigm: that development of this science and its application will be state-controlled and mandated. Much more likely is that these technologies will be harnessed by private institutions, yes even some for profit, and the benefits, and risks, will be available to those that choose them, and that they will penetrate society, or the market, if you prefer, gradually. This scenario drains all the horror out of the genetically enhanced future, from where I sit.
<br />
<br />It comes down to whether you are really willing to shoulder the moral burden of telling me I may not, for example, pursue measures that might enable me to live healthily and happily into my second, or even third century, based on unknown and ultimately unknowable costs. I hope you have a strong back.Joehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02349540553796643057noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3285420.post-102999472002-03-02T09:15:00.000-06:002002-03-10T15:45:48.000-06:00<h3>HAPPY BIRTHDAY TEXAS</h3>
<br />
<br />Another Texas Independence season is upon us. This is the term I apply to the period from March 2nd, the day in 1836 that the brave men declared Texas independent from Mexico at Washington-on-the-Brazos, to April 21, 1836, where more brave men, led by a giant in American history, Sam Houston, defeated a much larger Mexican force and captured Santa Anna, "the Napolean of the West", effectively ending the war. Sandwiched between these events, of course, the bravest of men held the Alamo with less than 200 defenders against Santa Anna's army of 8,000, until the mission fell on March 6.
<br />
<br />Texas Independence doesn't get much press or even much celebration, which is a damn shame; it makes a wonderful story. For starters, the odds of success were perhaps less than those of the British colonists of 1776. While no one would mistake Santa Anna's Mexico for the England at its height as a world power, no ocean separated Texas from Mexico. Nor was the dictator constrained by the niceties of gentleman's warfare. He'd succeeded in the past by ruthlessly crushing his opponents and showed every sign of giving the Texans the same treatment. Then something nothing short of miraculous happened: the Alamo held for 13 days.
<br />
<br />Consider the Alamo: no medieval fortress complete with high walls and a moat, this mission proved defensible only because of the courage of the defenders and their uncanny skill as marksmen.
<br />
<br />Consider William Barret Travis: the commander of the Alamo was between 25 and 27 years old. Most of us will live thrice that long, and more. He had a young son. Yet he never thought of surrender. How different the wolrd might have been had he not been of such iron character.
<br />
<br />Consider Houston and San Jacinto: Houston trained the army of the Republic, such as it was, and lay in wait for Santa Anna. Then he pulled off a brilliant victory, capturing the dictator. He restrained his men, and himself, and instead of killing Santa Anna, he traded the man's freedom for Texas'.Joehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02349540553796643057noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3285420.post-95813612002-02-10T14:06:00.000-06:002002-03-02T09:12:57.000-06:00<h3>FRIVOLOUS LAWSUITS (PART 2) -- ENRON</h3>
<br />A friend whom I should listen to told me he found the previous post on this topic condescending. After getting him to explain what "condescending" means, I decided he had a point and I should take another stab at the subject. With luck, this will create even more rancor and confusion than the first one.
<br />
<br />In describing what I think to be two definitions of "frivolous lawsuit", one understanding held by lawyers and the other by laymen, I was trying to illustrate that the very fact of these different definitions makes a discussion of the topic difficult. Without a common understanding of the terms involved, it's hard to frame the nature of the problem, much less reach consensus or a conclusion.
<br />
<br />Having firmly inserted my foot in it on that point, let me shift mid-post to the Enron case, which I am involved in on behalf of the bond purchasers that lost money during the company's collapse. It's clear to me that the primary culprits as identified in the media -- the top officers and Andersen -- are going to get hammered, at least civilly. Not so clear, but vitally important from both a legal and economic standpoint, is what is the liability of the outside directors of Enron? Legal: what are, or should be the boundaries of directors' duties to inquire into management's practices? If you answer "minimal" or "none", then why have a board anyway? Doesn't that make the concept that directors are to look out for and answer to the shareholders and creditors a joke, and a sick joke at that, given the billions of losses due to fraud at Enron? Just what were these folks doing for their $300,000 annual stipends? Attending quarterly meetings and rubber-stamping management decisions, apparently. On the economic side, it's a grim fact that, even if the aforementioned primary culprits are denuded of their assets to pay claims, there will still be multiple billions of unsatisfied losses. As between the directors, who, the facts may well show, were merely negligent and not actually in on the fraud, and the innocent shareholders and creditors, where should those losses land? When the really guilty can't pay the whole freight, the slightly guilty have to pick up the slack until the innocent are made whole.
<br />Joehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02349540553796643057noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3285420.post-95474182002-02-09T08:30:00.000-06:002002-02-09T09:08:04.000-06:00<h3>NOW WITH ARCHIVES!</h3>
<br />On the passing chance that folks might want to refer to old posts that have disappeared from the main page, I've created <b>Archives</b> pages which can be accessed from the links at left.Joehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02349540553796643057noreply@blogger.com0