President Obama nominated Sonia Sotomayor to the Supreme Court and conservatives are gearing up for a fight. They are not finding a lot of ammunition so far, but there is one bullet they find particularly potent:
So Sotomayor thinks that policy is made in the Courts of Appeal. If it wasn't so absolutely and incontrovertibly true, it might just be appalling.
The United States is a common law country, and it has been since its inception and our legal roots go back hundreds of years to the English common law system. Common law is a system in which the law is developed over time by judicial decisions which hold precedent over subsequent decisions. Just about every basic law we have was developed by courts over hundreds of years of decisions, from criminal law to contract law to property law to torts and on and on.
This is opposed to a civil code jurisdiction which is governed by, just that, a civil code. The United States is moving in that direction, codifying most of our laws, but in true civil code jurisdictions like France and South American countries the courts hold no precedential weight.
So what does this all mean? It means that judges make law all the time and have done so for centuries. Sotomayor's comments in the Youtube clip were in response to a question about the differences in being a law clerk in a district court (trial court) and the Courts of Appeal. Trial court decisions hold no precedent. Other trial courts can follow or not follow another trial court decision as they please. As a result, trial judges look narrowly at the law and facts before them and decide accordingly.
Appellate court decisions do hold precedent and thus the judges need to have a more broad view of the law in making their decisions. They need to think about how the decision will affect other courts and litigants in the future. They need to think about how a decision fits in with all the other pieces of law that surround it. They absolutely must make policy decisions. Their job would be impossible if they did not, and the legal system would be in disarray because no courts would be thinking about the big picture. It is silly to act like appellate courts should not consider policy when making their decisions.
Legislatures and Congress, for example, often pass laws that are worded vaguely or subject to multiple interpretations. Sometimes they do this on purpose and sometimes out of oversight and sometimes out of incompetence. It is up the judiciary, then, to divine the legislatures intent (if possible, because often its not) and interpret the law accordingly, with an eye toward the effect of the decision on future actions and litigation. This is one ways courts "make" law, by interpreting statutes. This type of analysis requires consideration of public policy.
It is equally silly to rail against judicial activism. I suppose judicial activism is where a court overturns a law enacted by the legislature or enumerates a right or activity as legal/illegal where legislatures have not spoken.
As to the first, that is often the exact role a judge must play, and it is done all the time by both conservatives and liberals. I can find just as many decisions of conservatives overturning laws they don't like as you can liberals doing the same thing. If a law is unconstitutional, irrational, or unsupported by facts it is the courts' duty to overturn that law. This is part of the principle of checks and balances that is essential to our system of government.
As to the second, the courts are often (almost always, really) on the front lines of constitutional issues. The Constitution is an amazing document. It was purposely written broadly to allow for the inevitable changes in society. The Framers could not possibly have imagined a society so complex and different from the one they lived in, and yet they drafted a Constitution that is equally applicable and useful today as it was over 200 years ago. But what it means is that society is necessarily going to view certain provisions differently than had been done previously.
So when an issue of constitutionality comes before a court where Congress has not acted, it is often required of the courts to make hard decisions. In fact, it is the express duty of the Supreme Court to be the final interpreter of the Constitution. Courts often find themselves in the position to announce new or altered interpretations of the Constitution, and time and public opinion usually bare those decisions out. The Courts are not always right, but they do a fine job in the face of big and difficult problems.
Over the next few months we are going to hear a lot about judicial activism. Just remember that "judicial activist" is simply a code phrase for "liberal" and nothing more. There are serious and interesting debates about the role of the judiciary branch in the United States, but this really isn't one of them.
Rabu, 27 Mei 2009
Selasa, 26 Mei 2009
Term Limits
"We have learned by sad experience that it is the nature and disposition of almost all men, as soon as they get a little authority, as they suppose, they will immediately begin to exercise unrighteous dominion."
The Washington Post recently posted a funny story about Senator Orrin Hatch test driving a hybrid Hummer for the media. First of all, I applaud the good Senator for trying to take the lead on the issue of increased fuel economy and technologies. The story, however, is about Sen. Hatch's basic incapability of driving a car. He could not distinguish between the brake pedal and gas pedal, he did not know how to start a car or even know if it was on or not, and he could not perform basic maneuvers.
I don't think I'm going out on a limb here in suggesting that perhaps Senator Hatch has it a little too cushy in his position as Senator which he has held since 1977, a total of 31 years and counting. Hatch is notorious for campaigning against the incumbent, Frank Moss, in part because 18 years in office was too long and he, Moss, had lost touch with his constituency. I have no doubt that Sen. Hatch meant what he said, but it is all too clear that Joseph Smith was right: once a person gets what they think is a little power and authority, they find it suits them rather well and they'd just as soon hold on to it by any means necessary, thank-you-very-much.
One very obvious exception to this is the Father of our country, George Washington, who would easily have been reelected for the rest of his life had he so chosen, but instead was hesitant to even be elected for a second term, and was adamant that two terms were enough for any President. This set a precedent that was only broken once, by FDR, who was elected to four terms (though he died shortly after the fourth term started). Soon thereafter we got the Twenty-Second Amendment which official limits the president to two terms.
There was a major push for a Constitutional Amendment requiring term limits in Congress in the mid-90's. The limits would have been six two-year terms in the House and two six-year terms for the Senate. The Amendment was voted down 227-204, short of the two-thirds majority needed to keep the Amendment process going.
So system we get instead is one of Congressional Stagnation. Incumbents are re-elected to Congress more than 90% of the time. Most never face a primary challenge, many do not face any opponent at all, and those incumbents that are challenged are challenged by under-funded candidates without any really support (Pete Ashdown, anyone?). This is a vaguely democratic system, but not by much.
And the American people suffer. We don't get fresh, new ideas out of Congress. We don't get varying ideas and healthy debate out of Congress. We don't get leaders who are willing to take risks on important new ideas. We don't get representatives who are accountable to their constituencies. Instead we get entrenchment. We get leaders who are only interested in getting re-elected. We get status quo, no matter what the status quo happens to be. Change happens a a glacial pace (which is good in some areas and very, very bad in others). We get intellectual dishonesty passed off as cool-headedness. We get cliques. We get increased pork spending because that is why people keep sending their ineffective representatives back to Washington, seniority alone. We get more and more influence from special interests.
I firmly believe that federal term limits would revitalize our government. I think such a system would attract interesting new voices and ideas to the national debates we have on important issues. It would attract talented leaders who are more interested in progress and innovation as opposed to power-mongers who are only looking for a life-time gig. I actually find it fascinating that there is not a more sustained and organized push for federal term limits because I can't think of a single good reason to not limit terms. If our greatest leaders can achieve so much good in eight years as President, I certainly think that our greatest leaders in Congress could achieve great things in twelve years.
But the catch is: how do you get a bunch of men and women who are, by definition, power-hungry to limit their own power?
The Washington Post recently posted a funny story about Senator Orrin Hatch test driving a hybrid Hummer for the media. First of all, I applaud the good Senator for trying to take the lead on the issue of increased fuel economy and technologies. The story, however, is about Sen. Hatch's basic incapability of driving a car. He could not distinguish between the brake pedal and gas pedal, he did not know how to start a car or even know if it was on or not, and he could not perform basic maneuvers.
I don't think I'm going out on a limb here in suggesting that perhaps Senator Hatch has it a little too cushy in his position as Senator which he has held since 1977, a total of 31 years and counting. Hatch is notorious for campaigning against the incumbent, Frank Moss, in part because 18 years in office was too long and he, Moss, had lost touch with his constituency. I have no doubt that Sen. Hatch meant what he said, but it is all too clear that Joseph Smith was right: once a person gets what they think is a little power and authority, they find it suits them rather well and they'd just as soon hold on to it by any means necessary, thank-you-very-much.
One very obvious exception to this is the Father of our country, George Washington, who would easily have been reelected for the rest of his life had he so chosen, but instead was hesitant to even be elected for a second term, and was adamant that two terms were enough for any President. This set a precedent that was only broken once, by FDR, who was elected to four terms (though he died shortly after the fourth term started). Soon thereafter we got the Twenty-Second Amendment which official limits the president to two terms.
There was a major push for a Constitutional Amendment requiring term limits in Congress in the mid-90's. The limits would have been six two-year terms in the House and two six-year terms for the Senate. The Amendment was voted down 227-204, short of the two-thirds majority needed to keep the Amendment process going.
So system we get instead is one of Congressional Stagnation. Incumbents are re-elected to Congress more than 90% of the time. Most never face a primary challenge, many do not face any opponent at all, and those incumbents that are challenged are challenged by under-funded candidates without any really support (Pete Ashdown, anyone?). This is a vaguely democratic system, but not by much.
And the American people suffer. We don't get fresh, new ideas out of Congress. We don't get varying ideas and healthy debate out of Congress. We don't get leaders who are willing to take risks on important new ideas. We don't get representatives who are accountable to their constituencies. Instead we get entrenchment. We get leaders who are only interested in getting re-elected. We get status quo, no matter what the status quo happens to be. Change happens a a glacial pace (which is good in some areas and very, very bad in others). We get intellectual dishonesty passed off as cool-headedness. We get cliques. We get increased pork spending because that is why people keep sending their ineffective representatives back to Washington, seniority alone. We get more and more influence from special interests.
I firmly believe that federal term limits would revitalize our government. I think such a system would attract interesting new voices and ideas to the national debates we have on important issues. It would attract talented leaders who are more interested in progress and innovation as opposed to power-mongers who are only looking for a life-time gig. I actually find it fascinating that there is not a more sustained and organized push for federal term limits because I can't think of a single good reason to not limit terms. If our greatest leaders can achieve so much good in eight years as President, I certainly think that our greatest leaders in Congress could achieve great things in twelve years.
But the catch is: how do you get a bunch of men and women who are, by definition, power-hungry to limit their own power?
Rabu, 20 Mei 2009
The Haves and the Have Nots
There are two stories in the Deseret News that offer a nice little contrast. In the first, the DesNews scrutinizes the political donations of the Huntsman family. The article states that the family, as a whole, donated about twice as much to Democrats as to Republicans (but this is not what the post is about). In the second, the DesNews finds that 82% of low-income families are fully employed and still not able to meet the basic necessities of modern life, such as food, shelter, and health care.
So what we have here in Utah, in part, which is a microcosm of our nation as a whole, is on the one end a very successful family worth billions of dollars and on the other end 94,000 working families with 243,000 children, struggling to keep a home or apartment, food on the table, and basic health care.
You should know right now that I am in kind of a liberal/upset mood, so I'm going to get a little indignant here.
This is ridiculous and it makes me angry. I have no beef with the Huntsmans, they donate a lot of time and money to charitable causes and they seem like good people. But we've created a society where two people with the same drive and work ethic live in two separate worlds. In one world your family owns several mansions and offers you the best education and best connections that money can buy, and in the other the kids are in over-crowded classrooms without physical and psychological security or basic healthcare. In one world you expect to inherit millions of dollars from the family business and in the other you inherit callouses on your hands and a healthy distrust for a society that will just wear you down.
And yet all we hear is that the government better not touch my money. The government better stop encouraging lazy people to live off the Nanny State. The government is singularly ill-equipped to deal with social problems. The Invisible Hand will sort it all out!
All of which is nonsense. The rich receive so much more benefit from society and the government each day than the poor do in years. The rich grow rich from the physical labor of the poor. The government is not perfect, but we have seen again and again the injustices of a laissez-faire philosophy. We have seen slavery, monopolies, gender and racial inequalities, depressions and recessions, and the like.
I'm not calling for socialism, and I'm not calling for complete income parity. I'm calling for a society that fosters the hopes and dreams of all of its members, each of whom has something important and essential and meaningful to offer. I'd like to see better public schools that give every kid a chance to learn and succeed, affordable higher education available to anyone that wants it (including more emphasis on vocational schools), a public health care system that makes sure every family has their basic health care needs met, and no family (absolutely zero families) worrying about what they are going to eat tomorrow because the cupboards are empty.
This is what being a liberal is all about. Equality. Do those beliefs make me less of a Mormon than a conservative? I openly scoff at the idea.
There are plenty of ways liberals and conservatives can work together, and I respect many, many conservatives and think they present a lot of good ideas. But the goal of both political ideologies must be equality and security (which are completely intertwined), and you can't just come to the table with ideas that merely reinforce a system that leads to the rich getting richer and getting more opportunities, and the poor getting poorer with fewer opportunities.
If conservatives want to champion less government involvement that is fine, but that is not enough. They have to come up with ideas that replace government action that promotes equality. Can we rely on individuals acting independently with human compassion alone to create justice and equality? History has shown that we cannot. The only society that I can think of that achieved such total equality was this one, and I'm not sure we should just sit around and wait for that to happen again any time soon.
So what we have here in Utah, in part, which is a microcosm of our nation as a whole, is on the one end a very successful family worth billions of dollars and on the other end 94,000 working families with 243,000 children, struggling to keep a home or apartment, food on the table, and basic health care.
You should know right now that I am in kind of a liberal/upset mood, so I'm going to get a little indignant here.
This is ridiculous and it makes me angry. I have no beef with the Huntsmans, they donate a lot of time and money to charitable causes and they seem like good people. But we've created a society where two people with the same drive and work ethic live in two separate worlds. In one world your family owns several mansions and offers you the best education and best connections that money can buy, and in the other the kids are in over-crowded classrooms without physical and psychological security or basic healthcare. In one world you expect to inherit millions of dollars from the family business and in the other you inherit callouses on your hands and a healthy distrust for a society that will just wear you down.
And yet all we hear is that the government better not touch my money. The government better stop encouraging lazy people to live off the Nanny State. The government is singularly ill-equipped to deal with social problems. The Invisible Hand will sort it all out!
All of which is nonsense. The rich receive so much more benefit from society and the government each day than the poor do in years. The rich grow rich from the physical labor of the poor. The government is not perfect, but we have seen again and again the injustices of a laissez-faire philosophy. We have seen slavery, monopolies, gender and racial inequalities, depressions and recessions, and the like.
I'm not calling for socialism, and I'm not calling for complete income parity. I'm calling for a society that fosters the hopes and dreams of all of its members, each of whom has something important and essential and meaningful to offer. I'd like to see better public schools that give every kid a chance to learn and succeed, affordable higher education available to anyone that wants it (including more emphasis on vocational schools), a public health care system that makes sure every family has their basic health care needs met, and no family (absolutely zero families) worrying about what they are going to eat tomorrow because the cupboards are empty.
This is what being a liberal is all about. Equality. Do those beliefs make me less of a Mormon than a conservative? I openly scoff at the idea.
There are plenty of ways liberals and conservatives can work together, and I respect many, many conservatives and think they present a lot of good ideas. But the goal of both political ideologies must be equality and security (which are completely intertwined), and you can't just come to the table with ideas that merely reinforce a system that leads to the rich getting richer and getting more opportunities, and the poor getting poorer with fewer opportunities.
If conservatives want to champion less government involvement that is fine, but that is not enough. They have to come up with ideas that replace government action that promotes equality. Can we rely on individuals acting independently with human compassion alone to create justice and equality? History has shown that we cannot. The only society that I can think of that achieved such total equality was this one, and I'm not sure we should just sit around and wait for that to happen again any time soon.
Sabtu, 16 Mei 2009
Congrats to Jon
http://www.sltrib.com/news/ci_12382105
China, eh? That's a very interesting move by Obama. Definitely not something I was expecting; were there any rumors running about in Utah Democratic circles? It does make the 2012 race more interesting by potentially removing him from it. At the same time, it'll burnish Jon's foreign policy credentials for a possible run at the Presidency in 2016.
China, eh? That's a very interesting move by Obama. Definitely not something I was expecting; were there any rumors running about in Utah Democratic circles? It does make the 2012 race more interesting by potentially removing him from it. At the same time, it'll burnish Jon's foreign policy credentials for a possible run at the Presidency in 2016.
Kamis, 14 Mei 2009
A National Sales Tax
I tend to keep out of tax reform debates because, frankly, I'm not smart enough to keep pace. I used to brag about how I haven't taken a math class since high school, but now that my kids are getting to be school-aged I am beginning to fret about when, exactly, they will surpass me. I'm thinking I have until junior high before I have to start learning (or re-learning) along with them to help out with homework.
So I'd heard of the proposal for a national sales tax, but didn't think too much about it, until I recently heard it boiled down to this: "We should tax consumption, not productivity." Stated that way, it seemed incredibly sensible to me, so I decided to dig a little deeper. You can play along by Googling consumption tax or national sales tax.
Basically, because that's the way my mind has to work in this area, a national sales tax would eliminate the income tax, so you would get the full amount of money you earn, and replace it with a tax on new goods and services purchased.
One of my pet peeves with our society is how consumption-oriented it is. We have to have the bigger house (with higher energy bills), we have to buy the bigger car (with lower fuel efficiency), we feel like our self-worth is measured by possessions and owning more and more. Wouldn't we be better off learning how to live more efficiently and focusing more on the simple pleasures of life? And even though I am a liberal and, as the stereotype goes, love big government, I think we all would love a more efficient government.
A national sales tax would seem to be a step toward both. First, it would likely encourage saving and investment over consumption. Here are some quotes from modern-day prophets on staying out of debt and living within our means:
President Heber J. Grant: “From my earliest recollections, from the days of Brigham Young until now, I have listened to men standing in the pulpit . . . urging the people not to run into debt; and I believe that the great majority of all our troubles today is caused through the failure to carry out that counsel.”
President Ezra Taft Benson: “Do not leave yourself or your family unprotected against financial storms. . . Build up savings.”
President Harold B. Lee: “Not only should we teach men to get out of debt but we should teach them likewise to stay out of debt.”
President Gordon B. Hinckley: “Many of our people are living on the very edge of their incomes. In fact, some are living on borrowings. . . I urge you to be modest in your expenditures; discipline yourselves in your purchases to avoid debt to the extent possible. Pay off debt as quickly as you can, and free yourselves from bondage.”
Americans, as a whole, spend more than they earn. Bankruptcies continue to climb. Very few people had created a safety-net for the current economic crisis (which I have heard many refer to as the Great Recession). A tax on consumption (ranging anywhere from 15-30%, usually pegged at about 23%) might encourage more savings, thus creating a more stable society and economy. It would also encourage investment, leading to greater capitalization of business. Increased savings would reduce stress, interest payments, and becoming beholden to banks.
Second, under the current income tax system, individuals and corporations spend hundreds of billions of dollars every year just complying with the income tax requirements. The code is so long and so complicated that it is astonishing to me that the system even works. A national sales tax would virtually eliminate the tax code bureaucracy, eliminate the need to ever file a tax return again, and some have even suggested it would eliminate the need for the IRS completely under certain conditions.
The downside, and there are always downsides, is that it is inherently regressive. The poor must spend nearly every penny they earn in the marketplace, whereas the rich spend an increasingly small amount of their wealth on goods and services. This means that the poor would spend a larger percent of their money on taxes than the wealthy, which is the opposite of what our income tax has always been.
This alone is enough to torpedo the idea, for me and most Americans, but there are ways around it. The most common is the annual or monthly prebate or rebate check which would eliminate the tax for those living below the poverty level, and lessen it for those making otherwise low incomes. Another idea is to eliminate the tax on essentials, like food and medical expenses, and/or create a higher tax on luxury items.
So I like it because of its simplicity and its propensity to encourage Americans to save and invest. I am leery because it is potentially very oppressive for the poor. I am by no means completely sold on it, but it is an interesting way to look at tax reform. Thoughts?
So I'd heard of the proposal for a national sales tax, but didn't think too much about it, until I recently heard it boiled down to this: "We should tax consumption, not productivity." Stated that way, it seemed incredibly sensible to me, so I decided to dig a little deeper. You can play along by Googling consumption tax or national sales tax.
Basically, because that's the way my mind has to work in this area, a national sales tax would eliminate the income tax, so you would get the full amount of money you earn, and replace it with a tax on new goods and services purchased.
One of my pet peeves with our society is how consumption-oriented it is. We have to have the bigger house (with higher energy bills), we have to buy the bigger car (with lower fuel efficiency), we feel like our self-worth is measured by possessions and owning more and more. Wouldn't we be better off learning how to live more efficiently and focusing more on the simple pleasures of life? And even though I am a liberal and, as the stereotype goes, love big government, I think we all would love a more efficient government.
A national sales tax would seem to be a step toward both. First, it would likely encourage saving and investment over consumption. Here are some quotes from modern-day prophets on staying out of debt and living within our means:
President Heber J. Grant: “From my earliest recollections, from the days of Brigham Young until now, I have listened to men standing in the pulpit . . . urging the people not to run into debt; and I believe that the great majority of all our troubles today is caused through the failure to carry out that counsel.”
President Ezra Taft Benson: “Do not leave yourself or your family unprotected against financial storms. . . Build up savings.”
President Harold B. Lee: “Not only should we teach men to get out of debt but we should teach them likewise to stay out of debt.”
President Gordon B. Hinckley: “Many of our people are living on the very edge of their incomes. In fact, some are living on borrowings. . . I urge you to be modest in your expenditures; discipline yourselves in your purchases to avoid debt to the extent possible. Pay off debt as quickly as you can, and free yourselves from bondage.”
Americans, as a whole, spend more than they earn. Bankruptcies continue to climb. Very few people had created a safety-net for the current economic crisis (which I have heard many refer to as the Great Recession). A tax on consumption (ranging anywhere from 15-30%, usually pegged at about 23%) might encourage more savings, thus creating a more stable society and economy. It would also encourage investment, leading to greater capitalization of business. Increased savings would reduce stress, interest payments, and becoming beholden to banks.
Second, under the current income tax system, individuals and corporations spend hundreds of billions of dollars every year just complying with the income tax requirements. The code is so long and so complicated that it is astonishing to me that the system even works. A national sales tax would virtually eliminate the tax code bureaucracy, eliminate the need to ever file a tax return again, and some have even suggested it would eliminate the need for the IRS completely under certain conditions.
The downside, and there are always downsides, is that it is inherently regressive. The poor must spend nearly every penny they earn in the marketplace, whereas the rich spend an increasingly small amount of their wealth on goods and services. This means that the poor would spend a larger percent of their money on taxes than the wealthy, which is the opposite of what our income tax has always been.
This alone is enough to torpedo the idea, for me and most Americans, but there are ways around it. The most common is the annual or monthly prebate or rebate check which would eliminate the tax for those living below the poverty level, and lessen it for those making otherwise low incomes. Another idea is to eliminate the tax on essentials, like food and medical expenses, and/or create a higher tax on luxury items.
So I like it because of its simplicity and its propensity to encourage Americans to save and invest. I am leery because it is potentially very oppressive for the poor. I am by no means completely sold on it, but it is an interesting way to look at tax reform. Thoughts?
Selasa, 12 Mei 2009
On Manny and Steroids and Human Nature
There is no more over-written-about subject on the internets than steroids in baseball. I have tried to remain aloof. I have tried to reserve judgment. I have more or less navigated my way through the stages of grief quietly and introspectively. But now it has hit a little too close to home and I must make my completely unoriginal thoughts on the matter known.
It recently became known that Manny Ramirez, currently on the Dodgers, formerly of the Red Sox, has been suspended for 50 games, or about one-third of the season, for taking performance enhancing drugs. The offending substance was hCG, which is, and I find this amusing, a female fertility drug that steroid users inject at the end of a cycle of steroids to get their bodies back to normal (I think the term of art is, "cycling out").
Manny's excuse is that it was prescribed, just an innocent mistake. We've heard that one before. Some other reactions to getting caught with steroids or, more generally, performance enhancing drugs (PEDs) are:
Anyway, like I said, this newest PED revelation about Manny hit a little close to home. I am someone who loves baseball, and I love the Red Sox. I am too old for this, I know, but it is what it is. My wife swears I came to tears when the Sox finally won the World Series in 2004 after an 86-year drought, and again when I bought the complete DVD's and watched the moment again. I say hogwash, but she is adamant. I almost named my dog Manny a few years ago to honor the greatest right-handed hitter of the generation who propelled the Sox to two World Series championships. And he's a druggy.
I was initially surprised and saddened. But that wore away pretty quick. Nothing should surprise us anymore in this regard. And then I remembered this take on the situation from baseball thinker extraordinaire, Bill James:
Another factor to consider is that advances in medicine and pharmaceutics has blurred the line between what is cheating and what is therapeutic. We can now remove ligaments from our ankles and insert them in our elbows to treat elbow injuries (the so-called Tommy John Surgery). We have medication that treats illness and allergies far better than in the past. We have corrective laser surgery for our eyes to make us see better.
Of course, we can see a distinction between these advances which are deemed safe and legal and corrective, as opposed to PEDs which fewer players are presumably willing to take because of long-term health risks and illegality, and which put the person on an unhuman level of ability and strength that the other treatments don't, but it really isn't so cut and dry. Especially in the heat of the moment with millions of dollars on the table.
So I don't end up angry, or sad, or give up the game completely. I try to remember how I felt when this happened. How I feel when I play catch in the backyard with my boy or watch one of his little league games. I try to remember that these are all still just humans and that, like the rest of the population, some are cheaters, some are jerks, some are idiots, some are genuine, some are honorable, and some are just completely normal except for the fact that they can throw a ball 95 mph and nail a precise target. Or hit a round ball coming in at 95 mph with a round bat, 400 feet and make tens of thousands of people cheer and forget about life for a moment.
Knowing this almost makes the game seem more real, in a finding-out-there-is-no-Santa kind of way. I feel a little nostalgic for the cleaner past, but more human knowing the truth.
It recently became known that Manny Ramirez, currently on the Dodgers, formerly of the Red Sox, has been suspended for 50 games, or about one-third of the season, for taking performance enhancing drugs. The offending substance was hCG, which is, and I find this amusing, a female fertility drug that steroid users inject at the end of a cycle of steroids to get their bodies back to normal (I think the term of art is, "cycling out").
Manny's excuse is that it was prescribed, just an innocent mistake. We've heard that one before. Some other reactions to getting caught with steroids or, more generally, performance enhancing drugs (PEDs) are:
- Complete silence in the face of overwhelming evidence;
- Testifying before Congress, untruthfully, while wagging an indignant finger, that you have never, ever taken steroids;
- Feigning like you don't speak English;
- Tromping around in a hissy denying it and filing lawsuits against accusers even though the entire world -- seriously, everyone -- knows that you took steroids;
- Admitting you did it when you were young and stupid but, for real, just the once and I totally didn't like the way it made me feel;
- Admitting that you did it when you were young and stupid for a just a few years but you are over it now (until more evidence comes forth);
- And so on.
Anyway, like I said, this newest PED revelation about Manny hit a little close to home. I am someone who loves baseball, and I love the Red Sox. I am too old for this, I know, but it is what it is. My wife swears I came to tears when the Sox finally won the World Series in 2004 after an 86-year drought, and again when I bought the complete DVD's and watched the moment again. I say hogwash, but she is adamant. I almost named my dog Manny a few years ago to honor the greatest right-handed hitter of the generation who propelled the Sox to two World Series championships. And he's a druggy.
I was initially surprised and saddened. But that wore away pretty quick. Nothing should surprise us anymore in this regard. And then I remembered this take on the situation from baseball thinker extraordinaire, Bill James:
"You give me the opportunity to earn $22 million a year by taking steroids, I’ll shoot the pharmacist if I have to. I’m not saying it’s right. I’m not saying I shouldn’t be punished for shooting the pharmacist. I am saying it is self-righteous to pretend that I don’t have the same human failings that these guys do, and further, if you are insisting that you don’t have them, I don't believe you."
Another factor to consider is that advances in medicine and pharmaceutics has blurred the line between what is cheating and what is therapeutic. We can now remove ligaments from our ankles and insert them in our elbows to treat elbow injuries (the so-called Tommy John Surgery). We have medication that treats illness and allergies far better than in the past. We have corrective laser surgery for our eyes to make us see better.
Of course, we can see a distinction between these advances which are deemed safe and legal and corrective, as opposed to PEDs which fewer players are presumably willing to take because of long-term health risks and illegality, and which put the person on an unhuman level of ability and strength that the other treatments don't, but it really isn't so cut and dry. Especially in the heat of the moment with millions of dollars on the table.
So I don't end up angry, or sad, or give up the game completely. I try to remember how I felt when this happened. How I feel when I play catch in the backyard with my boy or watch one of his little league games. I try to remember that these are all still just humans and that, like the rest of the population, some are cheaters, some are jerks, some are idiots, some are genuine, some are honorable, and some are just completely normal except for the fact that they can throw a ball 95 mph and nail a precise target. Or hit a round ball coming in at 95 mph with a round bat, 400 feet and make tens of thousands of people cheer and forget about life for a moment.
Knowing this almost makes the game seem more real, in a finding-out-there-is-no-Santa kind of way. I feel a little nostalgic for the cleaner past, but more human knowing the truth.
Senin, 11 Mei 2009
The Revolution Will Not Be Authorized
"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." (Thomas Jefferson, The Decalaration of Independence)
"After the Revolution, of course, there was no king and that changed the conditions under which revolt was justified. There were some Americans, such as the farmers of western Massachusetts in the 1780s, who because of economic distress rose up to close the courts and prevent debt collection. Samuel Adams, the most radical of the Boston leaders in the Revolutionary movement, adamantly opposed these rebels. The reason he gave was that revolution was unnecessary in a republic because all officials were elected by the people. The people in western Massachusetts were rebelling against themselves, or, what was more likely, a faction of special interests was attempting to advance its own cause under the guise of a revolution of the people." (Richard L. Bushman, I Have A Question, June 1976)
Recent polls show that a large number of Republicans in Texas and Georgia support the idea of secession. As politically active people we often get worked up over policy issues. Is this sort of response justified? Are we justified in resisting the government in an attempt to live within our "rights"? These questions and more were part of an excellent "I Have A Question" article (linked at the end of Richard Bushman's quote above) in the June 1976 Ensign. While these are not statements of doctrine by General Authorities per se, they do provide excellent guidance about the topic. And, as the title of this post suggests, sedition and revolution are generally not a good idea and only appropriate in extreme circumstances.
Now, people may have different definitions of "extreme". Having survived the Bush years, I can attest to the feeling of powerlessness one gets when your political views aren't represented nationally. In my opinion the Bush administration engaged in egregious crimes, both against our laws and against humanity -- torture, illegal wiretapping, going to war without justification, politicization of the federal bureaucracy and so forth. None of those things, however, meet the standard of appropriate cause for revolution. We have in this country a representative government, one formed of elected officials who are accountable (ultimately) for what they do. They may not get prison time, but they won't hold office forever. Therein lies the key to the appropriate expression of political discontent.
The left, collectively, discovered a far more powerful form of protest -- the ballot box. Various organizations were formed to raise money and fund candidates who more closely represented our views. Much of this organization was organic; I contributed on many occasions to causes and candidates whom I felt were better suited to running the country and worth my time and effort. Apparently a number of people felt the same way, enough so that I was (and still am) reasonably satisfied with the outcome. And now, with a president in power who I felt was the best man for the job, comes the real "revolution" as laws are changed and policies enacted that generally align with what I think is right and proper. I don't agree with everything the Obama administration is doing, but I feel like the time and energy I've invested in supporting his and other's elections were well-spent.
So to Republicans and other right-leaning individuals feeling discontent, I say you should focus on building your party. Chances of converting "liberals" to your point of view are slim to none. While I don't think the current Republican platform will attract Independent voters, that's not to say a few modifications and a better infrastructure couldn't swing things your way. During the Bush years there was a lot of talk about the Republican party being the "party of ideas". Well, now is the time to identify new ideas with true value (both practically and politically) and work to implement them.
Langganan:
Postingan (Atom)