Today I had the privilege of participating in jury duty. As I was called two years ago and served a day, I knew what to expect. Both times I was in the selection pool but never sat for a trial. The last time I was in a courthouse was about a year ago, but that is unrelated.

The day started at 7:45 when I reported to the Orange County Superior Courthouse. I was one of about 150 prospective jurors. After we watched a short feel good video about jury duty, they parceled us out to different courtrooms.

From the pool of prospective jurors, people were called out and sent to specific rooms in groups around 50. In each courtroom the presiding judge gives a quick summary of the matter being tried. My case involved the taking of an automobile (it was only taking a vehicle with the intention of depriving the owner of its use, which I was told was not as bad as other vehicle thefts). Since it was a criminal case, they selected 12 people at random from the pool and 6 alternates to sit in the jury box. The judge had every prospective juror state their basic information and asked them case specific questions like their experience with car theft (from both sides). He also asked if anyone had a reason to distrust the police or any of the witnesses based on their language or ethnic background. The attorneys wrote themselves notes on Post-its about each of the jurors as they were questioned.

The judge also asked jurors if they understood different legal ideas. He used examples to explain concepts like hard v. circumstantial evidence and accessories to a crime. While the judge who presided over the case did use humor, his stories were not as enjoyable as the ones I heard from the judge during my previous service. The following example is from a Judge at the Westminster Courthouse I heard two years ago.

Possible v. Probable
Every Wednesday morning before coming to work I put my trash cans on the curb in front of my house. As I am pulling out of my driveway I see the garbage truck a few houses away picking up the neighbor’s trash. I never see the trash man empty my garbage cans, but every Wednesday I come home and find my cans as well as all the other ones on my street empty. Then I came home one Wednesday and a neighbor kid tells me my trash was not taken by the man in the garbage truck, but instead by aliens from Mars. Is it possible aliens from Mars took my trash? Yes. Is it probable the aliens took my trash? No.

Back to today, a number of people gave reasons why the current time was a bad time for them to serve on a jury. While some of the people’s excuses were legitimate, some were attempts to get out of serving on the case. The judge explained he could defer their service by a few weeks, but they would still be back in to serve. After realizing this, many of the people decided serving then was as good as later.

After the judge excused a few people, replacements were called to the jury box; I was one of them. After the defense and prosecution talked and questioned the jury for 15 minutes the action quickened. Each side could kick off 10 jurors for any reason. The little Post-its of the defense and prosecution then came in handy. They alternated rejecting people. There was no hesitation; both of them knew exactly who they wanted to kick off.

On its first or second opportunity, the prosecution kicked me off the jury. I was shocked and semi-offended. I think I would be the kind of disciplinarian who would send someone to the chair for stealing a bike. This happened last time two years ago; the prosecution kicked me off at the first chance. There is something prosecutors don’t like about me being on a jury. Maybe Physics and Classical Civilization are a secret code for I vote for acquittal.

After I was excused from the case I returned to the jury assembly room and they told me I was not needed anyone. I left at 2:30 in the afternoon.

During the day I remembered something Charles Wiley had said when he spoke on campus last year. When he was a young man during WW II, he was drafted into the executive branch and served for four years in the military. Today we are drafted into the judicial branch and asked to serve for a few days a year.

I hope we all respond to the call as our grandparents did.

(Not that it really matters what the topic of the post is about, since the comments are likely to be about Israel, but hey.)

If you’ve been paying any attention at all to the GOP race, you know that by far the biggest issue to come out of the recent debate was Giuliani’s squishiness on abortion. That issue has only snowballed with the revelation that he donated to Planned Parenthood several times during the 90s. And so on and so forth.

I’ve just been thinking a little about Giuliani and his views on abortion. His whole shtick has been “I hate abortion, but I think it’s not my place to make that decision.” I think the whole “personally pro-life, but legally pro-choice” is a pretty common pro-choice position (I was once that way myself, back in high school). But it really isn’t one that holds water. Because the question becomes (and this is what I asked myself near the end of high school, when I became pro-life) why do I “hate” it? Most people who do - myself included - have an aversion to it because we believe that it is tantamount to murder - that a fetus is a human being and alive from the moment of conception. Otherwise, there’s no real reason to be opposed to abortion. And the question then becomes, well, believing that, can I really say that I think that’s a moral decision each person has to make? The answer I came to was no, because it’s not just a personal moral decision - it’s one that affects two people, one of whom is not a party to the decision. No matter how “live and let live” you may be on moral issues, I think it’s a little difficult to take that view on abortion.

So, obviously, from that, as I said before, if you don’t believe a fetus to be a living human being, there really is no case against abortion. I thought about this for a while, during a review session when I should have been learning poli sci, and I came to the conclusion that Giuliani’s “I hate abortion personally” thing could make sense. I guess it’s still possible to hate abortion, even if you don’t believe a fetus to be alive, if you are the type of person who gets very deeply upset about people not taking responsibility for their actions. But I dunno…even if that is the case, yeah, I guess Giuliani’s position would be coherent morally…but that’s sort of a jerk reason to hate abortion.

Anyway, all that reasoning comes to naught, because it turns out today that Giuliani believes abortion to be morally wrong.

I can respect a lot of pro-choicers who just don’t believe that a fetus is alive. I think they’re wrong on their premises, but given that premise they’re basing their reasoning on, they’re coming to absolutely the correct conclusion.

On the other hand, to actually believe that abortion is the taking of a human life but to still say you think it should be legal is completely incoherent. Giuliani is digging himself into a very, very deep hole here.

At around 8:20 this morning I went to the third floor of Le Conte Hall. When I got there about 15 students were sitting on the floor waiting for 9:00. As time progressed the line I was in got longer, stretching from 368 east down the hallway all the way to the door to Old Le Conte. Among the 50 people I could see there was a GSI for Physics H7B holding office hours in one of the lines. What would bring all these people here this early in the morning? Why would I ditch my 8 AM class for the first time this semester?

Stephen Hawking

He is possibly the greatest living theoretical physicist. Hawking definitely has the best publicity of any physicist I know. He is also coming to campus next week.

Part of a new program, On the Same Page, the College of Letters & Science encourages incoming freshman to read good books. They sent a copy of Hawking’s A Briefer History of Time to incoming freshman. I wish they had this kind of program when I was a freshman, but knowing my luck I probably would have been unexcited by the author they found.

While the talk in Zellerbach is sold out, Hawking is giving a special talk about his life in physics just for Physics and Astronomy majors and faculty. I learned about this last night from the Physics majors email list.

There are three points I want to make:
1) Students who are truly interested in a field are out there and just need to be given opportunities.
2) Declaring your major has benefits. You get to do stuff open only to majors and get emails about work opportunities and internships.
3) Physics is awesome!

On Wednesday the Daily Cal ran a piece about Berkeley Blogging. I have a few comments to make, considering I have been doing just that for a year.

First I should mention I feel left out. The Daily Cal did not mention us at California Patriot. Even though last year we got an honorable mention in their Best of Berkeley (the best was the live journal community, but I don’t think they are a blog), we are not news enough. I would think a student run conservative blog that discussed Berkeley would be worth a note but I apparently. I would be curious to know how many links the Daily Cal gets to their site from here compared to the other mentioned blogs.

My ideas of blogging are similar to Beetle’s. What makes a blog unique is the coverage of things or informed analysis that you can’t find elsewhere. Anyone in the country can write about national politics and events, but a person who knows and talks to the movers and shakers in a field or carefully follows an obscure topic has something beyond the normal fare. Beetle has the best coverage of the ASUC in the world because he talks to some of the important people and has followed everything the ASUC has done for the past several years.

A Case Study: ASUC Mess Over the Summer

One interesting example of blogs’ usefulness was seen in the ASUC elections mess last summer. The only print paper that covered it regularly was the Daily Cal, and they only published twice a week, and even then some bad reporting or a desire to not assign blame obscured what was happening. The blogs filled this vacuum. Calstuff, Beetle Beat, JKoo, a few others, and me provided information as it happened and filled in the gaps. There were also people who were directly involved in the happenings writing online, like Ben Narodick and Andy Ratto along with experts in everything ASUC, like Beetle.

One of the other advantages of having these online updates and commentaries is dialogue. Any incorrect information or bias could immediately be challenged. A lot of the stuff online placed the Student Action party and some of its members in a negative light (I was one of them and still stand behind my conclusions). People engaged in discussion about this assignment of blame presenting arguments and countering them. There were so many anonymous supporters of Student Action they got the term SA-anon bots. There were cries of bias against SA, but at any time a Student Action supporters could have started a blog to counter what was said, (I even offered to publicize such a blog but was not indulged by anyone).

In short, the blogs and their interactive format were the best and most timely source of information. In this way and for these reasons among others, print newspapers are being overshadowed.

Another advantage of the online medium is the possibilities for links. So far in this post I have linked directly to half a dozen different articles or websites I have mentioned. You an instantly look at the sources I mention and not simply take my word on what they say.

There is also decal in progress this semester about blogging. If you get a chance check them out. The Catalytic Triad has even posed a few thoughts on blogging.

It’s probably a little late to ask all y’all for predictions, since as I write this they’re introducing the team captains, but that’s okay. I’ll just make mine, and then you can laugh at me when it turns out to be wrong. (My record on sports predictions this year has been awful - I called every single series in the MLB playoffs incorrectly, although I did get the BCS championship right.)

My heart is with the Colts and I’ll be rooting for them all the way, but I always as a rule call the game for the team with a better defense, and so I gotta say it’ll be 23 - 17, Bears. The combination of Brian Urlacher and what appears to be a steady rain shower will be too much for Peyton Manning. Let’s hope I’m wrong about that, though.

Anyway, feel free to make your predictions, though seeing as how the kickoff is imminent you don’t have too much time left.

I’ve posted a couple times here already, but I never got around to formally introducing myself. My name’s James Fullmer, and with Pat moving on to bigger and better things I’ll be helping Chris keep this place updated.

I’m definitely not the libertarian Pat is (few people are) so the blog will probably be taking a little bit of a different direction, politically. I don’t really fit into any of those nice premade labels like paleo-con or neo-con or ex-con - if any of you have read the book Crunchy Cons, by Rod Dreher, that describes my views fairly well, but even there I have some areas of disagreement - so I’ll refrain from trying to explain myself and just let you figure things out as I go. In the next couple of days I’ll post my score from that OKCupid politics test Pat posted up here a couple months ago, along with an explanation of why I think it’s a totally bunk test that can’t accurately represent one’s political views.

Anyway, just a little about myself, I’m currently the Managing Editor of the Patriot. I’m a third year Business and Poli Sci major with a City Planning minor, and like Chris and Pat I’m originally from Orange County - specifically, Fullerton - California. My main political claim to fame is that President Nixon went to my rival high school, though this was long before my own high school was actually built, so I guess I can’t take too much pride in that fact.

That’s all for now. Peace.

As you may or may not know, I graduated in December after the longest and shortest three and a half years of my life. As my time at UC Berkeley comes to an end, so does my position with the California Patriot. I’ve enjoyed my time assisting with this student publication, and I know that my successors will be able to pick up where I left off on both the magazine and this blog. So I’d just like to leave you guys with a few random closing thoughts…

Politics is the most unsatisfying of interests. Much better to be happily obsessed with sports or celebrity gossip than face the inevitable disillusionment of a political junkie. It’s like a game you can never win. Sure, your political party can “win”, and “win” big, but you need to sell your soul and become a partisan hack to really enjoy these victories. To see all of these smiling faces celebrating the GOP in 2004 or the Dems in 2006 is pretty mind boggling. Your favorite team didn’t just win the Super Bowl, your favorite celebrity didn’t just release a sex tape, so what’s there to be excited about? Your party defeating the “other” party so they can push things you really don’t believe in and give lip service to the things you really do? Because that’s what has happened before and that’s what will happen again. Do any of you actually want to admit that you actually approve of what one or the other of the two parties are doing in practice? If so, either reexamine your beliefs or, more likely, take a closer look at what your politicians are doing. I hate politics. If only it weren’t so interesting…

Do something. Besides academic stuff. Yeah, academic stuff is important and I wish I had spent more time on it, but a lot of other things go on at school too. Get involved with groups on campus or start your own. The experience will probably come in handy later on. My obsession with politics lead me to the Patriot for all these years. Even though I disagreed with much of what was printed, I personally got something out of it and I’m happy to have helped our countless writers and artists get something out of it too by getting them published each month.

Tolerance, please. If there’s one thing you should really learn from Berkeley, it’s to cherish individual diversity and look beyond what seems obvious. In less enlightened times and places, diversity can be the scapegoat for hatred. Hating others simply because of their race, religion, nationality, sexual orientation, political orientation, social class, and so on. Instead, why not choose to like others because of shared tastes or compatible personalities? The things that actually matter in defining ourselves as individuals. And the only way to really know an individual is to put your prejudices aside and find out. The reality is, there’s six billion of us and we’re all minorities of one. Why is this such a radical viewpoint?

So that’s about it. I regret not posting more these past few months; I could never get back into the habit. I hope my libertarian rants weren’t too tiring and that they weren’t too out of place with the rest of the Patriot. I hope someday they’ll be the norm… Finally, I just wanted to thank everyone who actually read the crap I posted for the last few years. Maybe I’ll find a new blogging outlet, once the withdrawal kicks in…

It’s been fun.

This is what I was going to post before our server went down last month.

—

What do you think about last night’s results?

I’m happy that the Republicans lost Congress. I’m happy that the people of Michigan have passed their own version of Prop 209, a ban against the disgusting practice of affirmative action. That’s about it.

Arnold won; I don’t care. The state GOP has embraced the left, and they’re celebrating. The only Republican that I really cared to see win, Tom McClintock, didn’t again. I thought he would pull through based on the early results, but my constant refreshing of the results page said differently. Based on the proposition results, the people of this state also love endless spending and apparently approve of government thugs pissing on our private property rights. Passing Prop 90 would have made the night, but freedom never wins. Maybe the masses will turn around once they start feeling the unintended consequences of overwhelmingly passing Prop 83.

Outside of California, freedom lost too. Voters want a government so powerful that it can dictate which adult relationships are legal and which aren’t. Voters want a government so powerful that it can dictate how much a worker is worth, destroying the job opportunities for that worker. Voters want a government so powerful that it can dictate what chemicals you aren’t allowed to use: not for recreational purposes, not even for medical purposes. Voters want a government so powerful that we no longer have to worry about antiquated notions such as tolerance and liberty.

To everyone who has been celebrating the Democrat victory, enjoy the high while it lasts. In a couple of weeks, you’ll come to the sobering realization that your party didn’t win, but it was the other party that lost. There are no winners. There is virtually nothing positive to be excited about in today’s America. There has been no real change. People still hate freedom. And we are those people.

My election rant:

Let’s face it, a large portion of conservatives and libertarians would like to see the Republicans lose big tomorrow. They truly deserve it. Though some polls are showing the GOP catching up in the polls, I’d rather they not pull through. If they do, the party leadership will take it as a sign that they can get away with whatever they want. And conservatives and libertarians will continue to be ignored, at no political cost. Sorry Republicans, but I support limited government. It’s taken me a couple years to realize that most Republicans don’t. I hope the party (that I am still a member of) goes down in flames tomorrow.

I hope the Democrats go down in flames too. Your party’s candidates may win tomorrow on the sole virtue that they are not Republicans. If you have anything to celebrate, it will be the fact that it is now your party’s turn to screw over the country. Enjoy it while it lasts, because the voters will want to be screwed by Republicans again in a couple of years. This is how it has been for over a century, and this is probably how it will continue to be.

Here’s a poll for you guys to ponder:

Among those saying they will vote for the Democratic House candidate, twice as many say it is because they want a change in leadership (54 percent), while others say it is because they agree with the policies of the Democratic Party (21 percent).

And another poll:

Queried about their views on the role of government, 54 percent of the 1,013 adults polled said they thought it was trying to do too many things that should be left to individuals and businesses. Only 37 percent said they thought the government should do more to solve the country’s problems.

And finally:

Many adults in the United States believe there should be a viable alternative to Republicans and Democrats, according to a poll by Princeton Survey Research Associates for the Pew Research Center for the People and the Press. 53 per cent of respondents believe there should be a third major political party in the country, up three points since June 2004.

Guys, we obviously hate the two choices that we are presented with each and every election. But why do we continue voting for them? And why do we vote for someone we disagree with in an attempt to punish the other side? It makes absolutely no sense. You should vote for someone who shares your values. And if both sides are equally bad, don’t vote for either one. I’m surprised that this isn’t how everyone else operates.

So on to why I’m voting Libertarian and why you should too:

If you’re a libertarian, registered Libertarian or not, you will be helping a growing political movement. I predict that in the next couple of years, the party will reach a tipping point. In some places, the party is polling double digits, and may even win a few seats in state legislatures, as well as playing the “spoiler” in many races. Check out Hammer of Truth to see how far the party has come, in terms of professionalism and polling. Vote for liberty.

If you’re a conservative Republican who wants to punish the GOP, why help the Democrats in the process? What looks better for conservative values? A 60-40 Democrat advantage? Or a 50-40-10 Democrat win, with 10% for the Libertarians? At least with the Libertarian buffer, the Dems can’t imply that they have a mandate. Plus, you’ll force the Republicans to move libertarian and not left, which would be the result if it appeared that much of the country supports the Democrat agenda. Vote for small government.

If you’re a progressive Democrat, then you can help destroy the Republicans. If you just help the Democrats achieve an overwhelming majority, you are essentially supporting the political status quo. The Republicans will just take a few years to recover, modify their message slightly, and return to power. It’s happened before, and it’ll happen again. However, if you support the rise of an emerging party, you will give the Republicans something to worry about. Throughout American history, parties have come and gone. It’s not unprecedented that, in just a couple of years, a party could fall from grace so quickly. Imagine elections where only the Democrats and Libertarians were serious contenders. Whoever wins, at least you’ll come out ahead on social issues and foreign policy. Vote for a better alternative.

If you’re a partisan Republican or Democrat, you’ll avoid being a hypocrite. Your parties do not live up to what they supposedly stand for. Check out these wonderful ads by Washington’s Libertarian Senate candidate Bruce Guthrie, a politician I wish I could vote for. Though these ads expose the hypocrisies of partisan Democrat voters, a similar series of ads could be made about partisan Republican voters. Don’t vote for a politician that doesn’t share your values. Vote your conscience.

Here’s hoping for a Republican loss tomorrow, and for the coming libertarian victory.

The Chronicle has been running a series of stories about the underground sex slave trade. San Francisco is apparently a major center of the multi-billion dollar black market and Mayor Newsom thinks it’s time to crack down:

San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom is developing a plan to fine and possibly jail landlords who let massage parlors operate as brothels in their buildings… “It’s time to let these traffickers know San Francisco is not the city to be operating in,” Newsom said… Newsom said he’s even open to the idea of putting pictures of johns on billboards — something that has been tried in Oakland.

America’s most “progressive” city taking its cues from the Scarlet Letter… Don’t get me wrong, sex slavery is unquestionably wrong. However, are all of the prostitutes at these brothels forced to perform against their will? I would guess that some women actually choose to work in the field. Likewise, customers, or “johns,” also willingly choose to be involved in an exchange of money for services. The intent is to shame those who knowingly exploit sex slaves. More likely, those that get caught will be publicly humiliated for a victimless crime. The end result will be an industry driven even deeper underground, solving no problems and creating many more.

The logic is just too much for Newsom and other moral crusaders. But at least they’re doing something, right?

“We’ve spent $1 million already, and we revoked one massage license permit in a year,” he said. “I think we need to keep on it, but I also think we can bring building inspectors in to do more with the landlords.”

This is the classic Warrior mentality: spend a lot, accomplish little. Pump more money to fight the underground market that your policies have created. Win a few battles here and there, but the War was lost from the start. Need proof?

In 1994, New York police were able to shut down all the known illicit massage parlors in Nassau County by fining landlords up to $1,000 a day until they evicted unlawful tenants. Landlords who refused to evict faced criminal charges of permitting prostitution and criminal nuisances. Police also persuaded the major regional newspaper to stop running ads for massage parlors.

But, a decade later, after money dried up for the special enforcement program, the massage parlors were back, said Donna Hughes, a sex-trafficking expert at the University of Rhode Island.

Some actually realize that there is only one solution, and it’s staring us in the face:

“We need to know what we are talking about, what’s really out there, before we jump to conclusions,” [Supervisor Jake McGoldrick] said. “Maybe we should examine legalization, like in New Zealand or the Netherlands, and recognize contractual, consensual sex has always been, and will always be, a part of human culture.”

But others want to ignore the facts:

Newsom says straying into conversations about morality won’t do anything to help trafficked women.

“This is not a problem of political resolve,” he said. “The worst thing we can do is muddle this issue with the broader debate of prostitution — we need to stay focused on trafficking because that’s where the abuse is.”

Muddle the issue? I can’t even believe that Newsom is this blind to reality. He would rather throw millions at a problem just to say that he did something than actually help solve the problem. The worst thing to do is not talk about the broader debate of prostitution and how criminalizing it has contributed to the problem of sex slavery. This is not about the morality of prostitution. This is about the morality of laws that punish choice and create chaos. This is about attacking the causes of problems rather than the effects. Why don’t we ever hear about sex slaves from Nevada?

It’s fine if you don’t think prostitution is a good thing (and I don’t think so either). You don’t even have to agree with the philosophy that adults should be able to do whatever they want with other consenting adults. But if you willingly ignore the tragic consequences that are directly and indirectly caused by prostitution prohibition, and act as if you’re trying to help, then who’s the real whore?

So I was hanging out with a center-left friend (the kind that gives me the most lip about affiliating with Republicans) and the topic of free speech came up. Someone else had mentioned the most recent story involving the Westboro Baptist Chuch, a.k.a. the “God Hates Fags” folks. These reprehensible people were planning to protest funerals of the Amish children killed in the recent school shooting. They cancelled the protest in exchange for media time. Apparently my friend thinks that they should not be given airtime and that they should be shot (or, at the very least, be locked up for harassment). I couldn’t believe what I was hearing.

I whipped out the First Amendment (verbally speaking, of course), to no avail. He said that hate speech at funeral protests is a perversion of free speech. I argued that supporting free speech means even supporting speech that makes you sick. He replied that if that was what free speech really stands for, then he doesn’t support it. I was shocked.

Some states are trying to restrict these protests. The ACLU is trying to fight back. Growing up GOP, I had always heard bad things about the ACLU. At the same time, I had been reading about how Klan members and Neo-Nazis had been denied their free speech rights in the past, and how groups like the ACLU defended their rights in face of widespread opposition. Even before I had realized I was a libertarian, I considered defense of free speech an important part of my moral code. I thought it was noble, just, and even heroic to defend those that you totally disagree with, but who are still entitled to their liberties just the same. I don’t understand how anyone could believe otherwise. I fully support the ACLU on the issue (putting aside my major fundamental disagreements with them on issues like affirmative action and anti-discrimination laws).

On a related, but different topic, the Volokh Conspiracy posts about a violent attempt to prevent the founder of the Minuteman Project from speaking at Columbia. According to a protestor from the school’s International Socialist Organization: “These are racist individuals heading a project that terrorizes immigrants on the U.S.-Mexican border …. They have no right to be able to speak here.” And because of that, he doesn’t get to speak? That’s disgusting.

Free speech has enemies from all over the political spectrum. Censorship is no more a tool of the right than it is a tool of the left, and by that, I mean that it certainly is in both cases. Luckily, free speech has defenders from all over too. Yet, it seems kind of depressing that almost two and a half centuries after its founding, America is still fighting battles over one of the most fundamental liberties.

Execution by lethal injection is about to go on trial in California:

Attorneys for Michael Morales, who was sentenced to death for the 1981 murder of Terri Lynn Winchell in Lodi, will try to show that California’s procedures violate the 8th Amendment to the Constitution because they may inflict unreasonable pain upon inmates.

The case has ramifications not only for the 638 individuals scheduled to die in California but for inmates in other states, including Maryland and Missouri, where court challenges to lethal injection are also pending…

The issue may wind up before the U.S. Supreme Court.

The goal here is to ban a potentially “cruel and unusual” execution method. However, I believe that the big picture goal is to end the death penalty alltogether. What I wonder, in cases like these, is whether the wrong strategy is being used.

Suppose that the lethal injection (in its current form) is ruled unconstitutional. Wouldn’t the state just find change the chemical composition of the injections, or use an entirely different “approved” method? The winners of the case have spared the condemned only from the “cruel and unusual” part of an execution, not the execution itself. Of course the victory may be of inherent value (preventing suffering), but does it advance the larger cause?

I think it could even hurt the cause. Hypothetically, what if a mixture of chemicals existed that was scientifically proven to execute someone blissfully? What happens to the current strategy of knocking down individual execution methods on the basis of “cruelty”? All of that time was spent arguing the specifics of each method at the expense of arguing the bigger picture point. End result, the public is satisified with compromise while the activists return to square one.

The same pattern also applies to ending the War on Drugs. Medical marijuana, though a legitimate issue in itself, is not the same as full-blown legalization. The time spent arguing the medical uses of the plant does nothing to advance the philosophical arguments against prohibition. In fact, the whole issue gives credence to the notion that there has to be a good reason for a drug to be legal (and thus government has a role). If and when medical marijuana is legalized thoughout much of the country, what next? Argue for the medical use of another illegal drug? Square one.

Same thing for those wishing to outlaw abortion by first outlawing partial birth abortion, or those wanting to completely privatize schools by first supporting school vouchers. If the vast majority of people are satisfied with the compromise, then does that dilute the support for the larger issue? Is compromise worse than losing?

The counterarguments that I can think of are two: One, the subissue is something worth fighting for and at least a step in the direction. Two, the subissue can be a trojan horse by at least getting people to reconsider their viewpoints.

I don’t know. Any thoughts?

Sorry about the lack of blogging. Honestly, there’s just not that much in the news these days that I feel motivated to blog about. So allow me to return to the letters to the editor that I’ve ignored for some time now. There, in the profound and profoundly stupid rantings of our fellow humans, I can always find inspiration.

In today’s Chronicle, Justin van Zandt of San Francisco writes that liberals should raise more children to compete with conservatives:

People say it’s “socially responsible” to have 0-1 kids. As a liberal Democrat raising four in San Francisco, I ask: Are you thinking about this and not selfish concerns? If so, adopt children. If all liberals, gay, lesbian and straight, had or adopted two to three kids from here or abroad, we’d get future liberals.

Liberals adoping children helps alleviate the problem of children without parents while also allowing the liberals who are concerned with population control to honor their beliefs. I’d say that a child having at least one loving parent is always a good thing when compared to the alternatives. Yes, even in the case of homosexual adoptions. So even if spreading ideology is an ulterior motive, one can hardly argue against (and should mostly applaud) those that choose to help children in need.

Moving on to the idea that ideology is transfered from generation to generation… Is this always the case? No one will argue against the fact that a child is profoundly impacted during the process of “growing up” (in both obvious and subtle ways). Yet how often is it that a grown child believes exactly what his or her parents believe? Will all of the children now growing up in religious right Republican households vote that way 20 years from now? Same question for the children growing up in progressive left families. Is the political landscape of the future solely determined by today’s family compositions? Or do social factors play much more of a role? I personally believe in the latter, given the massive and seemingly unpredicatable political shifts that seem to come every 20 years.

Switching gears again, van Zandt unfortunately slips in some arrogant condescention:

A well-raised kid here grows up with better culture, education and experiences than is possible in Utah or similar spots.

How can he even state this with a straight face? This is the kind of elitism that the left so conveniently ignores while railing against the other “-isms” of the world.

“I’m better than you because you grew up in Utah.”

“I’m better than you because you are black.”

On the surface, the latter seems much more offensive. However, I personally believe that the two are equal expressions of intolerance: Hate based solely on subjective notions of value when comparing things that are not inherently dangerous to others. This may seem like a radical idea, and I think that’s because it is. Both the left and right have much to learn when it comes to true tolerance. If van Zandt’s children do pick up his ideology, then I can only hope that some external social force helps guide them toward a more enlightened understanding of tolerance.

Which brings me to my last point that brings together all of my recent thoughts. Over the weekend, I finally had the chance to view the movie Thank You for Smoking. Let me say that I’ve finally found a movie (and a great one to boot) that says the things that I believe. I really enjoyed the dynamic between the father and his son, as the father tries to teach his son about how he sees the world. The twist is that the father has a libertarian worldview that makes much of the country uncomfortable. So, at least in my opinion, by giving his son the opportunity to learn about choice and freedom and tolerance, he deserves the top spot in the Hall of Fictional Fathers.

I guess I can see where van Zandt is coming from, trying to raise his children to believe as he believes. If and when I have my own children, I hope I can do as great a job as the dad from the movie. The left and right still rely on selective notions of tolerance to support their convoluted beliefs. All I would need to do is pass on the principle of tolerance, and liberty naturally follows. Can it be that easy?

Today the Governor issued this statement about the economy:

“In August, California added 37,000 new jobs, nearly 30 percentage of the 125,000 jobs created nationwide. I am proud that since taking office we’ve seen over 600,000 jobs created for California.  The Golden State continues to help lead the way to economic prosperity - this is terrific news for all Californians and the country.  We have created a positive business climate. We’ve turned our economy around, cut taxes and lowered workers compensation costs. California is the economic engine for the nation.”

I couldn’t agree more with the Governor, and am very pleased to see businesses thriving in California again, and people able to find work. The Governor’s economic policies are working.

We are creating jobs.