Second chances for violent teenage criminals

This article raises interesting questions and tells a relevant story about the circumstances under which it may be appropriate to give a young person a real chance at rehabilitation after they commit a heinously violent crime. I'm inclined to think that circumstances could move me to fall on either side, but it also seems to be something of a crap shoot. I suppose the testimony of expert psychologists and criminologists, as well as the details of individual cases, could go a long way to providing a basis on which I would be comfortable making a decision one way or the other. However, it just seems impossible to reliably predict the future behavior of a child. I certainly wouldn't have wanted anyone determining the outcome of the rest of my life based on a single emotionally-charged action of my life as a 13-year-old. It really highlights the grave importance of having thoughtful judges.

Imitation is the highest form of flattery

The key paragraph of this article for me (bold italics are mine):

"Over the past 20 years, the World Bank and some rich nations Malawi depends on for aid have periodically pressed this small, landlocked country to adhere to free market policies and cut back or eliminate fertilizer subsidies, even as the United States and Europe extensively subsidized their own farmers. But after the 2005 harvest, the worst in a decade, Bingu wa Mutharika, Malawi’s newly elected president, decided to follow what the West practiced, not what it preached."

Those tomatoes at Burger King come from somewhere...

When I was at the U. of A. I used to see protesters outside Taco Bell on the corner of Speedway and Campbell every Friday as I recall. It was a while before I discovered what specifically they were trying to accomplish. It turned out they were encouraging a boycott because of poor treatment of tomato pickers that supplied Taco Bell. Eventually, after several years, Taco Bell made some concessions and the calls for boycott ended. Well, according to Eric Schlosser's column in The Times, it didn't quite stick. Burger King is leading its fast food brethren in the charge to reverse the trend initiated by the Taco Bell concessions. So when you see the protesters outside Burger King, that's probably why they're there. If you're in Tucson, Dirtbag's on Speedway has better burgers anyway.

Trials and tribulations of blogging

To the handful of people who might actually be checking out my blog on a semi-regular basis for new content, you've obviously realized that it has been slow in coming. A lot of the time I'll read something and it will spark me to think of something I'd like to write. I'll start doing some additional research, because I want to confirm and fortify my thesis and ideas before putting it out there for everyone (a.k.a. all 8 of you) to see. By the time I've spent a few hours reading and refining my ideas in my head, I've often lost the impetus to put them in writing. Sometimes it's because the original idea I had didn't hold up to the scrutiny of my additional research. Sometimes it's because I discover the issue is exceedingly complex and doesn't lend itself well to a relatively short blog post. Sometimes it's because I don't want to devote the time to writing well, and I don't want to publish something I've written poorly.

The moral of this story is that I'm going to try a different format, at least some of the time, and post a link or two to the most interesting thing(s) I read lately. Perhaps I'll add a question or comment, and leave it to you to decide whether it's worthy of your time. I tried to refrain from doing this when I started this blog, because there are countless others who already do it, and there's limited value in browsing through an endless array of other people's links (unless you share very similar interests). But in an effort to maintain some purpose for Thinking Thrice, I'm going to try it.

I'm getting the "school itch"

Maybe it's the fact that two of my friends just started law school, one is about to start her second year, and another is about to start a graduate program, but I'm feeling the urge to go back to school. I absolutely loved my undergraduate years. A lot of that had to do with the immense freedom I had to use my time as I saw fit. With the minor exceptions of the 12.5 hours per week I attended class, the few hours a week I did volunteer work, and the interspersed periods when I was employed part-time, I was free to pursue my studies when and how I wanted. The pursuit of my studies is what kept it interesting though, both assigned and extracurricular. Actually, the extracurricular is probably what inspired me the most. I certainly enjoyed a lot of the assigned readings and the topics I researched for some of the papers I wrote, but it was the educational path that I created myself (with the help of the authors I read, speakers I heard, and students and faculty I interacted with) that was so enthralling. For me, there are few things as enjoyable as discovering a new idea or piece of history and then spending hours researching it, discussing it with others, and formulating an opinion about it.

Of course, towards the end of my undergraduate studies, I was getting the itch to do something, instead of just studying it. So perhaps I'm destined to transition back and forth between the two.

California's June 3rd election could be the most important of 2008

If you think that the most important election of 2008 is for the new president of the United States, then you may want to pay attention to California's primary on June 3rd. That's not the day California will hold their presidential primaries. It's the day that an initiative may be on the ballot to change the way California apportions its electoral votes in the general election for president. Right now, as with the overwhelming majority of states, the recipient of all of California's electoral votes is the winner of the popular vote within California. Initiative # 07-0032, the Presidential Election Reform Act, would instead apportion California's electoral votes by the winner of each congressional district, with the remaining two going to the winner of the popular vote. The most likely practical effect of this change is that the Republican nominee for president will receive a bump of about 20 electoral votes. If this had been the case in 2000, then we wouldn't have had Bush v. Gore decided by 9 judges in D.C. and no one would have had to pay much attention to Ohio in 2004.

I am all for reform of the Electoral College, or more precisely for its elimination entirely. It apportions votes in a "winner-takes-all" manner that ascribes greater value to the votes of persons in states with smaller populations or lower turnouts. However, the proponents of this initiative can't argue it's about changing the system to make it more fair, because it doesn't fundamentally change the methodology of how votes are distributed. There would still be a "winner-takes-all" system; it would just be at the district level instead of the state level.

I'm not sure the backers of this initiative are making the fairness argument though, at least not the one I would make. While the "organization" backing it is called Californians for Equal Representation, their mailing address leads back to the law firm that represents the California Republican Party. And the spokesman for this organization seems to be focusing on how this is more "fair" to Californians, because it will encourage candidates to campaign in the state instead of taking for granted what the result will be. However, this claim doesn't hold up to scrutiny either. The problem with that argument is that because of gerrymandering, almost none of the districts are competitive. Of the fifty-three 2006 U.S. House races in California, a whopping three had a less than 10% margin of victory, and only one had a less than 5% margin. I'd surmise that about 50 (or over 94%) of those districts still won't get much attention. Sooo...what this all boils down to is the Republicans wanting about 20 more electoral votes than they would likely get otherwise, which may be just what they need to get the presidency. Since Californians for Equal Representation's spokesman said the "...backers want to create a better democracy," I wonder if they'll help fund a similar initiative in a nice big red state like Texas. Or perhaps they'll lobby on behalf of the measure being pushed in the Democratically-controlled North Carolina legislature to do the same thing, except North Carolina has also been red in presidential elections for the last 30 years.

As I said before, I'd support Electoral College reform, but I don't think it should be done in a way that is clearly geared towards helping one of the political parties. After all, President Bush would still be in office if there had been no Electoral College in 2004, but an individual's vote in California would have carried the same weight as one in Ohio.

Am I capable of subjecting myself to scrutiny in the way that I do others?

Sometimes when I feel the urge to accuse someone of hypocrisy, I try to reflect on whether I've been hypocritical in a similar fashion. After all, to call someone hypocritical regarding behavior that I myself have engaged in, is itself...hypocritical. But, can I begin to know my own hypocrisy?

Take for example the Dick Cheney video in the previous post (apparently I had more to say than "surreal"). If he were to watch that, would he simply say that the circumstances were sufficiently different in 1994, and the drastically different actions taken in 2003 were justified? Or would he think he was mistaken then, or hypocritical now? Or perhaps he wouldn't recognize himself. This column cites research that suggests the Vice President or I may not be able to recognize our "hot" state behavior when we are in a "cold" state. In other words, when we are emotionally or physically charged, our behavior can become so irrational or visceral as to be unrecognizable to us -- and were we able to scrutinize ourselves the way we do others, we would see this.

If this is true, and it seems likely that it is to some degree, though perhaps not for all people in all circumstances, what limits must I place on my criticisms of others to avoid hypocrisy, and the loss of credibility that follows? I'm not sure that we can be sufficiently critical of our own criticisms. That is why I feel it's necessary to subject my beliefs, arguments, and criticisms to the skeptical eye of my opposition. Where I may fail to recognize the weakness of my position, my intellectual opponent is sure to see it.

I have long felt that the President has failed to expose himself to a sufficient number of advisers who would challenge the recommendations of his inner circle. Would the invasion of Iraq have taken place, or have been executed as haphazardly as it was, if the President had received the advice of the Dick Cheney of 1994, instead of only the Dick Cheney of 2003? Unfortunately, it seems there are troubling examples that our next president may be equally unwilling to face down the intellectual opposition and test the justificatory basis of his or her ideas. Time will tell...

I have nothing to say, but...surreal...

Oops, I guess I should have asked, will they pass it?

I spoke too soon. I guess that's what I get for hoping that the Congressional leadership could actually get this done. I'm referring to what I wrote about in my last post, "Will he sign it?". You see, the bill wasn't quite passed. It had to go back to the House, and ultimately be reconciled by the two chambers. And certain House members (i.e. John Dingell, not surprisingly a representative from Michigan), are trying to strip the bill of the provisions that will require increases in fuel economy standards.

I admit, this bill is not the "holy grail" that will ween the U.S. from its dependence on foreign and domestic petroleum to fuel its automobiles. And it would inevitably include pork in the form of subsidies for alternative fuels like corn ethanol or coal-to-liquid in order to wrangle together enough votes for passage. But I believe that requiring the vehicles on the market in the future to have better fuel economy than the vehicles on the market today is a good first step.

I disagree with those who think this will have no effect on consumption, like Randy Salzman. Mr. Salzman's argument is partially based on the anecdotal evidence that when he purchased a more fuel efficient vehicle, he started driving more often than he was before that, offsetting some or all of the benefit of the increased fuel efficiency. However, he's not arguing that he miraculously found new places that he wanted or needed to go to. He acknowledges that he "...opted to commute as much as possible on [his] bicycle..." beforehand. Most people are not commuting on their bicycle as much as possible now, so most people would not see the increase in driving that Mr. Salzman experienced. He also cites David Greene's “Estimating the Fuel Economy Rebound Effect for Household Vehicles in the U.S.” which may provide an argument that is not based on anecdotal evidence. I admit to not having read it, so I can't evaluate it.

I don't disagree with Mr. Salzman's argument advocating an increase in the gas tax, the revenues of which he believes should be put to use creating alternative transportation options. That also seems to me to be a necessary, though not sufficient piece of the puzzle. There is evidence suggesting that high gas prices have had a limited impact on people's behavior, primarily affecting their most discretionary behavior, such as traveling for vacation. Indeed as the article indicates, "[a] recent Washington Post/ABC News poll found that gasoline would have to reach $4.38 a gallon before Americans would significantly cut back on their driving." I have encountered similar polling data in the past, albeit with a lower number as the "tipping point," which suggests to me that we should consider alternatives to just increasing the cost of driving...for example, increasing the fuel efficiency of the vehicles we drive.

Will he sign it?

In President Bush's last State of the Union address, he stated his desire to increase fuel economy standards for passenger cars. The Senate just passed a bill that would accomplish that goal, though in a manner different than what the President had been proposing. The House has also committed to these changes (in fact it was a House bill that the Senate passed, although an amended version), so it seems that the President will have something on his desk sooner than later.

Another less discussed component of this issue, though perhaps as significant in many ways, was the overhaul of the fuel economy estimates by the EPA earlier this year. Since the Corporate Average Fuel Economy standards that are to be raised by the bill are based on the EPA estimates, the accuracy of the estimates is critical to ensuring the bill has the intended effect. Admittedly, the new EPA estimates still aren't where they probably should be, but they are no doubt better, and they promise a more significant impact than there would have been if the old methodology had been maintained.

So the question I have is, will he sign it?

Looking in the mirror

I just finished reading Into the Wild today. It's about a man named Christopher McCandless who had an upper-middle class upbringing in suburban Virginia. After graduating from Emory University in 1990 with near-perfect grades, he donated thousands of dollars of savings to charity, cut off contact with his family, and embarked on a cross-country trip. A little more than two years later he was found dead, apparently having starved to death, in the Alaskan woods outside Denali National Park. I'm not really giving away the story, since most of what I've just written is expressed by the author in the opening pages.

What struck me most were the similarities between McCandless and myself, particularly in terms of the contradictions he struggled with. Some of these qualities are not uncommon to be sure (i.e. not wanting to be told what to do), but the characteristics we may have shared run deeper than that. Despite his fierce independence, he struggled with the desire to both be alone and not lose out on the benefits of sharing intimate time with others. He rejected, on philosophical grounds, many aspects of "American life," but simultaneously excelled, and at times seemed comfortable, within that same institutional framework.

Part of what the author conveyed in the book regarded correspondence he had received from people who read a magazine essay on McCandless that was the predecessor of Into the Wild. Many people were harshly critical of McCandless's behavior, calling him reckless and incompetent. However, I would surmise that many of them would probably see similarities between themselves and McCandless if they took the time to look. In fact, most have probably engaged in similarly risky behavior and were lucky enough not to suffer the potential consequences, or perhaps they weren't courageous enough to act on their convictions and desires in the first place.

I don't condone the fact that McCandless made some unnecessarily risky decisions (decisions that under different circumstances may have put others in harm's way, and undoubtedly led to emotional despair for his family), but in the end he was pursuing his dreams in a way that most of us never do, and only he paid the consequences for it.

Is something wrong with this picture?

As a component of a recent USA Today/Gallup poll, the following two questions were asked of 1,007 adults:

1. Do you think that evolution, that is, the idea that human beings evolved over millions of years from less advance forms of life is definitely true, probably true, definitely false, or probably false?

2. Do you think creationism, that is, the idea that God created human beings pretty much in their present form at one time within the last 10,000 years is definitely true, probably true, definitely false, or probably false?

Fifty-three percent of respondents replied to the first question that it was definitely true or probably true. And 66% of respondents replied to the second question that it was definitely true or probably true. I found this startling, not because so many people believe in creationism (I've seen polling data in the past with similar results in that respect). I was surprised by the fact that 25% ignored the law of noncontradiction.

I am aware that some who want to simultaneously accept certain conceptions of evolution and creationism will tweak the definitions of those terms to make them compatible (i.e. the six days of creation are metaphorical "days"). However, the definitions promulgated in the polling questions are mutually exclusive.

I am also aware that there is a school of thought that rejects the law of noncontradiction. However, I don't think 25% of the population has pondered Hegel's dialectics, which itself is in dispute.

Whatever one believes about evolution vs. creationism, I just don't understand why one would reject the intuitive concept that the same thing cannot both be and not be. We even have cliche sayings about it -- you can't have your cake and eat it too and you can't have it both ways. Maybe it's just me...

Antichrist, bird vomit, horse crap...?

A few days ago, I was browsing Amazon.com's book section to see what the presidential candidates have written. I came across Hillary Clinton's book Living History, which was written a few years ago. I noticed that Amazon has a feature that allows customers to "tag" items they sell with terms that among other things, aid other customers in finding that item through a site search. The tags for Senator Clinton's book were viciously derogatory, some of which I've listed in this post's title.

I'm not a strong Clinton partisan or opponent. I believe Senator Clinton is an intelligent person and capable politician, some of whose policy positions and actions I support, and some that I oppose. While I certainly can understand someone taking a stronger stance than I do in opposition to her political activities, or even her personal life, I don't understand what engenders such strong, apparent hatred.

I suppose the most reasonable explanation would be that her opponents are angered by her voting record, or her political position as a liberal Democrat generally. While Senator Clinton's political actions have not always fit the "liberal" mold, some non-partisan analyses have indicated she is one of the more liberal members of the Senate. So I checked another book, written by John Kerry, another presidential candidate who by the same analyses I linked to above was similar in his "liberalness" to Senator Clinton. A Call to Service: My Vision for a Better America had one common tag with Living History, "crap," clearly not eliciting the same level of negative response. Perhaps, it is because Senator Clinton is a female, liberal Democrat. So I looked at a book written by Nancy Pelosi, probably the next most prominent female, liberal Democrat at the moment, and it didn't receive any tags at all.

Obviously, the little analysis of Amazon book tags that I conducted has virtually no epistemic value, for many reasons, not the least of which is that Amazon book taggers are not a representative random group, but it does make me question the dynamic that exists to promote such an emotionally charged response to Senator Clinton. It should be noted that she won her last Senate race with 67% of the vote, almost 12% more than in the previous race, so her detractors may be fewer in number once they learn more about her. Also, depending on which poll one looks at, Senator Clinton would be competitive with any of her potential opponents in a general election race. However, some polling indicates that her ceiling of support may be lower than most other candidates at this point in a presidential campaign. Hopefully, if Senator Clinton does become the Democratic nominee, the discourse in the mainstream will not devolve to the point where her opponents are referring to her as an antichrist.

Political "dirty hands" and epistemic concerns for voters

As I follow the political activities of the presidential candidates, I wonder what sound conclusions I can draw from what I hear them say given the nature of the political arena, and its tendency towards creating an environment that promotes "dirty hands" decision-making. In this context, I'm referring to the possibility that politicians may promulgate a position they are morally opposed to in order to curry favor with a certain segment of the electorate, presumably rationalizing that their being elected will allow them to pursue a greater good.

The problem of "dirty hands" relies on certain assumptions and has been expounded by a variety of theorists, but the term itself seems to have originated with Sartre's play Les Mains Sales or The Dirty Hands. However, Laurie Calhoun, and perhaps others, believe its roots date back to Plato's Apology. In any case, the basic idea appears similar to a utilitarian calculation (however, as Calhoun points out, the "calculation" itself is difficult to make, even for someone who subscribes to a teleological moral philosophy) where sometimes it is necessary to decide between two moral wrongs in order to accomplish some end.

While the "dirty hands" scenarios I've seen most often involve political leaders faced with decisions of whether to go to war where innocents will be killed to stop a genocide or whether to torture suspects to attempt to acquire information that could save lives, I am speaking here of a different example, one less obvious, but perhaps ultimately not less important. As I stated above, politicians may be faced with a decision to forsake a position they believe is morally justified, for one they believe is not, based on the belief that they will not be elected to office otherwise, and will therefore be unable to pursue a greater moral goal.

I am more inclined than I once was to accept the necessity of politicians compromising their moral principles under certain circumstances (as Michael Walzer asserts, guilt is a necessary mental state for a politician to justify a "dirty hands" decision). As Hoederer exclaims to the idealist in Sartre's play, "...you invoke purity as your rationalization for doing nothing." To maintain all of one's moral principles absolutely as a presidential candidate would likely lead to defeat, and ultimately accomplish nothing (although Suzanne Dovi argues the politicians unwilling to compromise their morals are critically necessary).

Here I am more interested in exploring the problem voters have in forming beliefs about politicians who may be engaging in "dirty hands" decision-making. This may lead to the electorate believing that candidates represent positions that in reality their moral compasses, absent electoral concerns, would steer them away from. In response to this epistemic concern, I propose it is necessary for voters to base their decisions on more than what candidates say and write, and what is said and written by others about them, during their current campaigns.

Most presidential candidates have been engaged in public service for many years prior to their declaration to run for president. That provides a body of evidence regarding not just what they said they would do before having been elected or appointed to a prior public office, but also what they did once there. If, for example, a trend exists where there has been little or no change in candidates' policy positions over an extended period of time, I would surmise that regardless of what the candidates are currently stating, their long held position is likely the one they would take if elected. Conversely, if candidates have displayed a tendency to change positions regularly in response to then current public opinion, that type of behavior also will likely follow them into office.

Similarly, many political operatives that advise candidates throughout their campaigns have worked on prior political campaigns, or in other capacities that may expose their political beliefs. As such advisers often accompany candidates who win into office, their apparent ideologies could be indicative of the type of advice and information the president would receive. Since a president relies on advisers and deputies to analyze and convey an otherwise overwhelming amount of information, their espoused positions may be as enlightening as any other.

I am not suggesting that the expressed positions of candidates during the current campaign be ignored. To do so would assume much more than could be justified with the limited information we as voters have. However, I think the evidence is ample to suggest that the current crop of presidential candidates has engaged in some "dirty hands" decision-making that requires us as voters to do some digging to ensure as best we can the validity of our own decisions.

A piece of the puzzle

I first heard about Kiva.org on a Frontline World episode a couple months ago. It is an organization that facilitates microcredit between individuals. Basically, I whip out my credit card and give some money to a small business of my choosing in one of a variety of developing countries around the world. Kiva, a non-profit based in California, works with local microfinance institutions or "field partners" to identify appropriate loan recipients. The beneficiaries of the loans then put the monies to use creating or expanding their small businesses, and eventually pay back the loan. I, the original lender, would receive no interest. The interest is paid to the field partner to cover their operating costs. However, as of now Kiva is reporting a 100% repayment rate.

I'm the first to admit that this model is problematic in terms of combating global poverty as a whole. I have two primary concerns. The first is that microcredit doesn't address the root causes of global poverty or the institutional failures that perpetuate it. The second is that the success of microcredit could be used as an excuse to supplant rather than supplement other efforts that are being -- or should be -- made to alleviate global poverty.

However, for me as an individual, the aforementioned are nothing more than excuses. After all, I can provide a microloan and simultaneously continue advocating for what I perceive to be systemic solutions. Kiva is a means by which I can have a direct and almost immediate impact on another individual or family. The money I waste on frivolous purchases in the average month could have a tremendously positive impact on people's lives who are far less fortunate than I, and who would use the money with greater care.

Furthermore, there are notable advantages to microcredit over traditional remedies. Empowering people to become self-sufficient is a sustainable solution. At some point in the future, the same people who have lifted themselves out of poverty with my assistance may be in a position to aid those around them who did not benefit from microcredit.

What does it mean to be "qualified"?

I've been hearing about the Justice Department controversy for quite some time now, but I only recently put several pieces of the puzzle together. Here's what I figured out...it's not revelatory, but it was news to me.

On NPR, there have been several discussions about it on the Diane Rehm Show, which I often listen to on the way to work. There had been mention of the hiring of a relatively inexperienced person to a high level Justice Department position. I later found out this was Monica Goodling.

On Real Time with Bill Maher, an HBO show that mixes comedy and serious discussion about current events with a panel of eclectic guests, Maher has several times referred to "Pat Robertson's Law School" and its "150 graduates who were hired by the Bush administration." (See video below.) Sometimes it's hard to determine if Maher is making something up to serve a comedic purpose, so I wasn't sure if such a place actually existed.

Well, it's actually called Regent University School of Law, it was founded by Pat Robertson, and there have been a significant number of its graduates hired by the federal government, including Monica Goodling (read about it here). The school was founded in 1986, but not accredited until 1996. It's ranked in the fourth tier (otherwise known as the last tier) of U.S. News' 2007 law school rankings and only 40% of Goodling's class in 1999 passed the bar exam on their first attempt. To be fair, U.S. News does indicate that its bar passage rate has improved to 61%. And maybe one of their newest faculty hires, John Ashcroft, will lend some credibility to the school, since apparently he was a voice of reason within the Bush administration.

I must say I was surprised to find that even the Merriam-Webster Dictionary's definition of "qualified" is very open to interpretation...

Temperance in criticism

Anyone who knows me well, knows that I’m fairly cynical about the “greatness” of this country I live in. But in moments when emotion doesn’t get the best of me, and when I genuinely consider the opinions of those with whom I generally disagree, I find myself tempering my instinct to demonize these United States and all that they contain.

I criticize the press for not adequately reporting on the important issues of the day, which I know they’re missing because I’ve read about them in sources that I deem reliable. Then it hits me, what was mentioned in a journalists’ roundtable on NPR, and which I’ve thought of before, I’m reading about these things that are “under-reported” in the same press that I’m criticizing for under-reporting them. Even Noam Chomsky himself, someone whose intellect I’ve long admired, and whose criticism of the press is particularly strident, has littered the reference sections in his many books with the names of hallmarks of the mainstream media. He himself is relying on those who he criticizes, as am I.

I often jump down the throat of my government, with all its corruption and inefficiency sometimes tempting me to drop the “civil” from the “civil libertarian” description that I use to describe an element of my political ideology. However, even as I criticize the daily operations of the government entity for which I work, I can step back and see that when a sufficient number of citizens overtly express their displeasure with the way things are, their representatives take notice. For example, ethics legislation recently passed the U.S. House, and a similar bill has passed the Senate. Is it as far reaching as I would have liked? No, but if it remains intact after it is conferenced, and passes with the overwhelming majorities it has already received, it will be difficult for the President to veto it. A bill like this is a significant victory for average citizens who want a government more responsive to their wishes, because no lobbyist wants their influence curtailed, and few members actually want fewer perks. These bills are a direct response to voters' wishes expressed during the last election.

Lest anyone reading this think I’ve turned to the dark side and become a “patriot,” be sure that my tendency to criticize – hopefully constructively – is not at an end; however, I’m going to try to add someone to the long list of those subjects of my critical eye…myself.

P.S. While I have previously considered the thoughts I wrote about here, this column prompted me to put "pen to paper" so to speak.