The ad in question

For anybody who wanted to see the ad my last post was about, here you go.

UPDATE: Added a post title.

Free speech is good, even when idiots talk

I sent this in to the Lantern as a guest column. I kept it to 750 words so there were some things I would like to have said that I couldn't, but I think I get the point across:

The recent ad by FrontPage Magazine in the Lantern (rightfully) attracted a lot of negative attention. The sample of letters published by the editors all lamented the Lantern’s decision to publish it, claiming in various ways that the ad offended the standards of the community. Clearly, this is true, as the outcry against it showed. The ad was offensive on several levels; not only to Muslims, but to all of us who believe in religious tolerance, or, for that matter, basic logic and argumentation. I do not need to detail its flaws, and the letter writers of January 25th mostly didn’t feel the need to do so either. Indeed, they are obvious to the vast majority of people on this campus. I highly, highly doubt that anyone who read that ad without being already predisposed to view Muslims negatively was convinced to do so by what they saw.

But to those of you who think the Lantern should not have published this ad, I ask: Where did those community standards come from? In the Lantern of 1912, things much worse than that ad could have been written about Muslims (to say nothing of African-Americans, Catholics, Jews, and many other groups) and it would have been considered unremarkable by many on this campus and throughout our society. What has changed since then? The answer to that question, I believe, is that a free society talked these issues out and new, more inclusive, values have emerged. Admittedly, this process isn’t always pleasant; it often works specifically through incidents of offensive speech. In this particular case, through the Lantern’s publication of the ad, important issues were brought to the consciousness of everyone. Are those who believe the Lantern should not have published this ad really so worried about their ability to rebut its claims that they would rather not have this conversation? Are they so pessimistic about the critical thinking skills and common sense of the Ohio State community that they believe that it would be better for everyone to simply not talk about this?

On Sunday (1/29/2012) I read the statement (sorry, I can't find it on the web; if you want to see the whole thing, email me) from Javaune Adams-Gaston, Vice President for Student Life, in the OSU Weekly email sent to graduate and professional students. She said (in part): “Ohio State works hard to build a culture of inclusion, equity, and appreciation for diverse peoples and ideas, so it is disheartening when those efforts are undermined by instances of discrimination. This is not how we treat one another, especially at an institution of higher learning.” This is a very interesting statement that deserves to be unpacked.

First, it is an answer to the question I posed earlier. The answer seems to be that indeed, OSU’s administration (or, at least, one member of the administration) seems to have such a low opinion of all of us that they think they need to protect us from instances where we might need to critically evaluate a speaker’s claim. Evidently, they do not trust that we will not draw unwarranted conclusions from shoddy evidence like that prevented in FrontPage’s ad, and thus, they think that we cannot effectively participate in the marketplace of ideas. I find this troubling, especially given that developing such skills are one of the most important reasons we all are here.

Second, I believe that this statement reflects a fundamental misunderstanding of where a “culture of inclusion, equity, and appreciation for diverse peoples and ideas” comes from, and what the threats to such a culture are. A culture of inclusion does not arise because administrators from the Student Life office tell us we should have one. Rather, it is a byproduct of the free inquiry that we engage in here. It emerges from the encounters we have here with people of different beliefs and backgrounds. If our culture had been imposed from outside of us, it might be so brittle that a quarter-page ad in the Lantern could undermine it. Fortunately, our culture comes from within us, and is made of much stronger stuff. I believe the reaction to the ad is evidence that this is so.

understand the inclination to protect people from speech they will find offensive. Nobody enjoys reading something like the ad we all saw. However, it is important to recognize that some good came from the exchange that resulted. By having this conversation, we all did our part to build an inclusive culture at Ohio State. If the Lantern had shut the conversation down before it started, we would have been poorer for it.

Lawrence O' Donnell, and real liberalism

I saw this picture in a few different places on the web, and everywhere I saw it, I saw an accompanying argument about the party affiliations of the people who did those things. To be honest, I don't think that matters. The relationship between ideology and party affiliation is sufficiently fluid over the length of time they're talking about that you just can't tell much. More importantly, people should answer for (and celebrate) their own actions and beliefs, not those of others.

I happened to see this picture for the first time on the same day that I saw this Walter Russell Mead piece in the American Interest. Among its contentions is that many of those who claim the label "liberal" are engaged in a conservative, or even reactionary, project designed to preserve unsustainable levels of public spending against the increasingly obvious signs that doing such would demand a substantial diminution of human liberty. This sentiment goes back a long way and might be best identified with Friedrich von Hayek's essay (PDF, sorry) "Why I am Not a Conservative." I would suggest that the true heirs of those who brought us equal rights under the law (and remember, segregation was by no means a creature of free society) are those who are fighting for free speech against those who would muzzle it for those they disagree with. The true heirs of those who designed welfare programs to lift people out of poverty are those who are trying to put those programs on a sustainable footing and match them with a tax policy that will allow for the economic growth necessary to pay for them, not those whose strategy is to combine tax breaks for politically favored activities with big increases for others. The friends of liberty are those who realize that capitalism means profit and loss, not those who paid off the politically favored with taxpayer money, in defiance of the rule of law.

I wear the label of "liberal" with pride. You, Lawrence O'Donnell, are unworthy of it.

Liveblog!

Health care is now political

I am amused by the waaaaaaaaambulance (NSFW) needed by the lefty blogosphere over the Stupak amendment.

Guess what, people. If health care is a government function, now every benefit is subject to the political process you love so much, including some you don't want to talk about. This is the way the government works. I do support the Stupak amendment, obviously, but this issue points nicely to one of the major reasons why the approach we're going to get with health care is not the best way. Market solutions don't work perfectly, but they do save our system from being thrown up for grabs into a public choice nightmare.

In which I respectfully disagree with my friend

My good friend Buckeyenewshawk is a Democrat, but he is a reasonably sensible guy and we agree on most things. Far worse than his creeping socialism, however, is his blindness to the virtues of Gus Johnson. Listen to this and tell me that Gus is not one of the most excellent announcers in the business. A great moment calls for a great call, and Gus delivered. I can only imagine what Joe Buck would have come up with: "Hmmm, Brandon Stokely seems to have the ball. How about that, Troy?"

Detroit Labor Day Parade

No word in this story about whether or not anybody looked around and saw what the crown jewel of American industrial unionism was like today.

In which I try not to show off my ignorance too violently

At the request of my boy Buckeyenewshawk (who you should be reading, despite his being a few big steps to the left of this blog), here are some thoughts on US/Russia relations. I don't often agree with Matt Yglesias, but focusing on the things we can do, like nuclear disarmament, is probably a good goal for this meeting. Christian Brose at the indispensible Shadow Government agrees, but strikes a more thoughtful note:

That said, let’s be honest about what that means for our interests: It means that Obama has just invested a lot of time and effort to secure an agreement to reduce U.S. and Russian nuclear stockpiles to a level that could still annihilate the world several times over. This may be an achievable goal, but it is hardly a pressing one -- not when Iran is speeding toward a weapon of its own, and the United States and Russia cannot seem to find much agreement on how to proceed on that.

The post continues to talk about the reasons why agreement on Iran is going to be difficult to reach, and it comes down to gas:

Right now, Moscow benefits from Iran’s isolation from the West. Not only are Iran’s formidable gas reserves not accessible to European users, preserving Russia as the Continent’s major supplier, but alternate routes for Central Asian energy that could traverse Iran are also not possible.

There are a lot of wheels turning here, but it's important not to get too excited about nuclear disarmament. There's a lot of other stuff to worry about.

An American Classic Turns 50

This year is the 50th anniversary of a Pulitzer Prize winner, and one of my favorite novels, Advise and Consent by Allen Drury. It is the tale of Bob Leffingwell's nomination to be Secretary of State and the convulsion it causes. It's not exactly great literature, but it is tightly plotted and exciting. It leads off a 6-book series featuring one of the great men of American literature, Orrin Knox. Even I, who broadly agrees with Mr. Drury's political leanings, find his later work (like, say, Come Nineveh, Come Tyre, in which a liberal President falls flat on his face) a bit much. Advise and Consent, however, represents the work of a Washington insider at the height of his powers.

Happy 233rd, USA

The Declaration of Independence of the Thirteen Colonies
In CONGRESS, July 4, 1776

The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America,

When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. --That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. —Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain [George III] is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.

He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.

He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.

He has refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of Representation in the Legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only.

He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.

He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.

He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected; whereby the Legislative powers, incapable of Annihilation, have returned to the People at large for their exercise; the State remaining in the mean time exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within.

He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands.

He has obstructed the Administration of Justice, by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary powers.

He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone, for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.

He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harass our people, and eat out their substance.

He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the consent of our legislatures.

He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil power.

He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation:

For Quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:

For protecting them, by a mock Trial, from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States:

For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world:

For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent:

For depriving us, in many cases, of the benefits of Trial by Jury:

For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences:

For abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighbouring Province, establishing therein an Arbitrary government, and enlarging its Boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these Colonies:

For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws, and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments:

For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.

He has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his Protection and waging War against us.

He has plundered our seas, ravaged our Coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.

He is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to compleat the works of death, desolation and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty and perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation.

He has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high Seas to bear Arms against their Country, to become the executioners of their friends and Brethren, or to fall themselves by their Hands.

He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages, whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.

In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.

Nor have We been wanting in attentions to our British brethren. We have warned them from time to time of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the circumstances of our emigration and settlement here. We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the ties of our common kindred to disavow these usurpations, which, would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence. They too have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our Separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, Enemies in War, in Peace Friends.

We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by the Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States; that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.

New Hampshire

Josiah Bartlett, William Whipple, Matthew Thornton

Massachusetts

John Hancock, Samuel Adams, John Adams, Robert Treat Paine, Elbridge Gerry

Rhode Island

Stephen Hopkins, William Ellery

Connecticut

Roger Sherman, Samuel Huntington, William Williams, Oliver Wolcott

New York

William Floyd, Philip Livingston, Francis Lewis, Lewis Morris

New Jersey

Richard Stockton, John Witherspoon, Francis Hopkinson, John Hart, Abraham Clark

Pennsylvania

Robert Morris, Benjamin Rush, Benjamin Franklin, John Morton, George Clymer, James Smith, George Taylor, James Wilson, George Ross

Delaware

Caesar Rodney, George Read, Thomas McKean

Maryland

Samuel Chase, William Paca, Thomas Stone, Charles Carroll of Carrollton

Virginia

George Wythe, Richard Henry Lee, Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Harrison, Thomas Nelson, Jr., Francis Lightfoot Lee, Carter Braxton

North Carolina

William Hooper, Joseph Hewes, John Penn

South Carolina

Edward Rutledge, Thomas Heyward, Jr., Thomas Lynch, Jr., Arthur Middleton

Georgia

Button Gwinnett, Lyman Hall, George Walton

Palin 2012!

Because why waste a good candidate on Barack Obama?

Seriously, what a maroon.

On Wal-Mart and Big Business

Wal-Mart's decision to join up with Democratic health care reform efforts seems pretty unusual. We even saw Matthew Yglesias writing that it was a blow to the solidarity of the business class. It shouldn't be all that surprising, though, if you think about it in terms of this 1979 WSJ editorial.

Centralizing power over anything, including health care, is likely to lead to special pleading, and even more power in the hands of big institutions that can plead best. Is that really what we want?

Happy Canada Day, and the public option

A happy Canada Day to all of you, particularly the Canadian with whom I'm privileged to share my joys and sorrows every day.

I suppose Canada Day is a good day to talk about health care. The debate about the merits and demerits of the public option, to me, leaves out something important. I'm a little fuzzy about how the public plan is supposed to generate competition and put pressure on private insurers to cut costs. If that's going to work, then why are we in the position we're in? Private insurers are already competing for business, aren't they? If competition isn't working now for some reason, why would it work when you introduce a public option? It seems like whatever mechanism is preventing market forces from working the way they do in other markets will still be working with the public option in place.

By the way, "All the private insurers are just EEEEEVIL people who would deny their grandmother care to save 50 cents" is not an answer to this question. Presumably, if the market worked properly, people would shun health insurance companies that unfairly denied them coverage in favor of ones that paid promptly when they were supposed to. The fact that this doesn't seem to happen suggests that we need to make the individual health insurance market more competitive and give consumers data they need to make good choices, not that we need to hand over the keys to big government. We'll see what form the Health Insurance Exchange ends up taking; that may do more to help than the public plan.

While I disagree with pretty much everything he says about the subject, Ezra Klein at the WaPo is a good source of information on these issues. I particularly recommend this post from today.

Update: Maybe George Newman's op-ed today will spark some more discussion around these issues. I couldn't agree with it more.

AP book club: Coming of Age in New Jersey

Today will be the first entry in what might be an occasional series, if I don't get bored with it. Welcome to the Attempted Polymathematica Book Club! When I read a book, I might share with you what I think about it.

I just finished Coming of Age in New Jersey by Michael Moffatt, an anthropological study of Rutgers students in the 1980's. There are two chapters on the sex lives of his students, and of course the prurient parts got the most attention after the book was released. If you're interested in that stuff there's lots of detail here. The most interesting part to me, though, was the last chapter on the school lives of the students. He noted that a substantial minority of his sample was vigorously involved in their education and were proactively choosing good classes with an aim to expanding their horizon. It was certainly possible to skate by, but those who wanted to could benefit from a fabulous education.

Another interesting point was his observation that before the 1960's, collegiate culture was distinctive from adolescent culture as a whole, whereas by his time (and certainly now) it is not. The increasing number of people seeking college educations is probably one cause of this -- I wonder what the broader implications of this change are for higher education as a whole.

By the way, if you want to see what I'm reading, there's a Goodreads gadget on the right side of the page that shows the books I'm in the midst of. Take a look, and if you have suggestions for things you think I'd be interested in, let me know.

Economics slapfight

I guess when you win a Nobel you don't have to argue, you just get to call your opponents stupid. Check out this takedown of Krugman by Bryan Caplan. I'm not qualified exactly to judge the economics here but name-calling is a poor substitute for argument.

Remember Nothing, Forget Nothing

From the brilliant political mind of K-Lo, on George Voinovich's retirement. . .

An alternative to the RNC chairmanship for Ken Blackwell? Senator Blackwell?

Seriously? Is the goal here to become a 20% (excuse me, 36%) rump?

I think Sarah Palin has hit a nerve

Check this out. Choice quote:

As a woman who does not believe what Palin believes, the thought of such an opportunistic anti-female in the White House -- in the Cheney chair, no less -- is akin to ideological brain rape. What this Republican blowup doll does with her own insides in accord with her own faith is her business.

The internets have seen some nasty things written on both sides in this election. This might be the nastiest.

We might actually win this thing after all, if this is the best our erstwhile opponents can do.

Uh, Josh

From TPM:

Why did Fred Thompson accuse Barack Obama of not opposing infanticide?

Think I'm exaggerating? Look at his words ...

And we need a President who doesn't think that the protection of the unborn or a newly born baby is above his pay grade.

And McCain approved it.

Hey, Josh, the reason Fred Thompson accused Barack Obama of not opposing infanticide is that he doesn't.

Back to blogging

So, now that the spring semester is over, I definitely want to try this blogging thing again.

Meanwhile, I have a new link to the Visual Bookshelf app from Facebook down below on this page. Check it out; it's really cool.

I, for one, welcome our new Google overlords

If you look to the right you can now see my shared RSS items from Google Reader. I recently switched to Google Reader from Outlook for my RSS needs, and you can share the benefits.

Aren't you excited?