The Supreme Court handed down three monumental decisions this week: on the ACA, on discrimination and on gay marriage. This post deals with the two I've read, on the ACA and same-sex marriage. Common to both is the holistic interpretation taken by the Court, rather than nitpicky, language parsing, strict constructionist interpretations we've seen in the past.
The ACA
Four things in the Court's ruling seem noteworthy. First it wasn't the usual 5-4
decision, and since one might have expected 4-5 that's two who "switched sides".
Second, it puts to rest for the moment the question of health care - though not doubt those opposed to the bill on principle (that principle seeming to have been being that it was proposed by a black man) will continue their attempts to deny access to health care to tens of millions of people.
Third, it allows centrist Republican presidential candidates to avoid the question of what they'd replace it with if it were to be repealed. This is a tough question since ACA is not universal health care (that "socialist cancer on society" if Fox is top be believed (which, of course, it should not) ) but a tweak to the existing insurance system, one originally proposed by a moderate Republican. While providing greater access though risk pooling, it does nothing to reduce the outrageous cost of health care in the US. Inadvertently, Obama pulled a 'Tony Blair'; taking a centre right position, making it impossible for the center right to respond without moving still further to the right (which they duly did).
Fourth, it lets law-makers off the hook for drafting poor legislation. This is a problem since it paves the way for more longer convoluted bills that pander to special interests by absolving them from the very basic responsibility of drafting commonsensical, coherent legislation. In turn that helps lobbyists since law-makers will spend even less time carefully reading the bills they sponsor and vote on; and that's bad for representative democracy.
Gay Marriage
Justice Kennedy, writing for the majority noted that the institution of marriage has changes over the years: "These new insights have strengthened, not weakened, the institution of marriage". That seems a stretch' suffice it to day I think that marriage has endured as an institution despite a changing social climate; first the individuals wanting to marry, rather than their parents, were given the right to make that decisions for themselves, and as women's second class status was gradually replaced by more equal treatment so the was forced to adapt accordingly.
What is curious in the matters is why marriage should have been a state matter in the first place, given the widespread understanding on both sides that it is an almost universal and long standing human institution.
In arguing that marriage is necessary to create a stable environment in which a child can grow up and then noting that children are only the result of sexual relations between a man and a woman, the dissenters completely ignore adoption and in-vitro fertilization, to means by which same sex couples can have children. Unless they are advocating a ban on gay adoption, then by this argument they should support gay marriage.
But the dissenters say they are not arguing on the societal merits of the case but more narrowly on whether it is the Courts role or the States' to make the determination of what marriage should be. To the extent that marriage confers advantages, any state law that restricts access to those advantages to one group or another must be considered unconstitutional under the 14th Amendment guaranteeing equal protection under the law, as the majority suggest. The argument that the Framers did not specifically address the question of marriage and left the "whole subject of the domestic relations of husband and wife to the States doesn't mean that the Court can't ensure that rights are not being trampled on by the States, just as it did in its civil rights decisions.
The dissenters' next argument is risible; they turn to the dictionary definition from 1828! I'm sure there are quite a few words whose meaning has changed since then; and a dictionary is simply a reflection of widely understood meanings at the time, something that takes from the culture and times, not dictating it.
Justice Scalia, joining with the dissenters, but writing a separate opinion, lamented, melodramatically, the threat to democracy, of the Courts intervention. He notes that "when the Fourteenth Amendment was ratified in 1868, every State limited marriage to one man and one woman, and no one doubted
the constitutionality of doing so". But the same was true of slavery and racial discrimination; and that's something that the Course has (rightly) weighed in on. And where was this anti-activist sentiment when he ruled on Citizens United, changing in profound ways the entire democratic political process.
He is also wrong that: "judges are selected precisely for their skill as lawyers". There are other criteria involved in their selection (and ratification); most people seem to think that political views matter too. If not, there wouldn't be such a party-political bun-fight over the Justices' nominations.
Scalia's opinion is notable for it's "Mr Angry" tone, not the measured legal prose: "The opinion is couched in a style that is as pretentious as its content is egotistic" or sentences starting "Really?", "Huh?" and "What say?" (Page 8). And then, without a trace of irony, he finishes his rant with: "The stuff contained in today’s opinion has to diminish this Court’s reputation for clear thinking and sober analysis".
It's probably not the last we'll here of either issue, but it seem to be two steps in the right direction.
Sunday, June 28, 2015
Sunday, June 21, 2015
Nature or nurture? Reflections on 'American Sniper'
After watching "American Sniper" this morning, Judith asked me what I thought. That was a difficult question partly because I know from experience she wouldn't agree with my views, but partly because I had a variety of reactions to the film. In what follows, I'm not going to deal with the errors and deceptions at the very top that took the US and a few of its allies into Iraq, nor with the blunders, political and strategic, made while the campaign was being conducted, but focus more narrowly on the portrayal of Chris Kyle and the implications of the way Clint Eastwood chose to represent him, both in Iraq and back in the US, in his film.
First, I felt it was poorly made. It didn't tell a particularly coherent story, nor was the character development convincing. Too much time was devoted Kyle's work in Iraq, and too little to the disconnect he and other veterans feel when getting back to the US. One scene that did work was was late in the film, after his last tour; he is seen sitting in a bar shortly after a fierce battle, and behind him the television news is reporting on basket ball. Another were the scenes, all too brief, of his interaction with wounded veterans.
The scene in which Kyle kills the Iraqi sniper stuck me a almost comically fanciful; there was nothing for him to shoot at, yet miraculously, he hits this unseen target over a mile away. There are two things wrong here - either Kyle had a better view of his target than the film showed so while he was an exceptional at his job he wasn't supernatural; or he took a shot in the dark, and while lucky, put all his fellow marines and SEALs in danger.
This was not the only point in the film where artistic license may have painted an unfortunate picture of US activities in Iraq. The decision to go door to door routing out Kyle's nemesis seemed to be based more on emption than strategy. I was left with the sense that dedication and commitment of a lot of brave men and women was being squandered through poor decision making, tactical and organizational miss-steps, and a lack of a clear strategy. I was left wondering whether the film was accurate, which reflects poorly on the running of the campaign, or whether the story was embellished and hammed-up for dramatic effect, which reflects poorly on its iconic director. Of course it may be a bit of both, but I hope that while the top level political decision making was deeply flawed, the mid-level tactical decision making was, in reality, better than was portrayed in the film.
Another powerful scene was the footage at the very end, I assume real, of the crowds who turned out to watch Kyle's funeral procession. No question that he was exceptionally effective at what he did; but would there have been this kind of turnout for the battlefield medic who had saved the most lives? I doubt it. And that speaks to a disturbing trait, the celebration of violence against "the other", a manifestation of intolerance and a lack of empathy and understanding. This has broader implications than the demonetization of Arabs or Muslims; it is also manifest in hate crimes at home against gays or blacks or Latinos. Ironically, despite the heroic portrayal of a patriotic cowboy turned military super-star, what fuels the hatred and violence is usually fear. It also underscores the sentiment that problems can be resolved by the use of force, which we have seen recently see in the militarized police response to numerous situations of unrest and protest.
That's not to say that there aren't a lot of people who hate what America stands for (not, incidentally, a simple construct) and who are hell bent on killing Americans and destroying what they consider evil. But we seem unable or unwilling even to see the conflict through the eyes of impartial bystanders, let alone our adversaries.
While watching film I was struck by recollections of WWII movies I'd seen growing up that recounted, indeed glorified, the heroism of resistance fighters in Norway ("633 Squadron") and France. Those portrayed in American Sniper, a little clumsily, as the villains of the piece could easily be seen in the same light as the WWII heroes of the resistance by those who consider themselves under occupation. And if the argument is made that the US is not an occupying force in Iraq because Iraq has its own government, think of the Vichy government. Some Americans feel contempt for the French for collaborating with the Germans; but do they think the same way about the Iraqi government and those willing to support it?
Is this widespread xenophobia, fear, hostility, aggression and an infatuation with projection of power through force a universal human trait or is it something country specific? Ultimately, I am left only with questions, not answers, and the sense that the world is complex and often rather depressing.
First, I felt it was poorly made. It didn't tell a particularly coherent story, nor was the character development convincing. Too much time was devoted Kyle's work in Iraq, and too little to the disconnect he and other veterans feel when getting back to the US. One scene that did work was was late in the film, after his last tour; he is seen sitting in a bar shortly after a fierce battle, and behind him the television news is reporting on basket ball. Another were the scenes, all too brief, of his interaction with wounded veterans.
The scene in which Kyle kills the Iraqi sniper stuck me a almost comically fanciful; there was nothing for him to shoot at, yet miraculously, he hits this unseen target over a mile away. There are two things wrong here - either Kyle had a better view of his target than the film showed so while he was an exceptional at his job he wasn't supernatural; or he took a shot in the dark, and while lucky, put all his fellow marines and SEALs in danger.
This was not the only point in the film where artistic license may have painted an unfortunate picture of US activities in Iraq. The decision to go door to door routing out Kyle's nemesis seemed to be based more on emption than strategy. I was left with the sense that dedication and commitment of a lot of brave men and women was being squandered through poor decision making, tactical and organizational miss-steps, and a lack of a clear strategy. I was left wondering whether the film was accurate, which reflects poorly on the running of the campaign, or whether the story was embellished and hammed-up for dramatic effect, which reflects poorly on its iconic director. Of course it may be a bit of both, but I hope that while the top level political decision making was deeply flawed, the mid-level tactical decision making was, in reality, better than was portrayed in the film.
Another powerful scene was the footage at the very end, I assume real, of the crowds who turned out to watch Kyle's funeral procession. No question that he was exceptionally effective at what he did; but would there have been this kind of turnout for the battlefield medic who had saved the most lives? I doubt it. And that speaks to a disturbing trait, the celebration of violence against "the other", a manifestation of intolerance and a lack of empathy and understanding. This has broader implications than the demonetization of Arabs or Muslims; it is also manifest in hate crimes at home against gays or blacks or Latinos. Ironically, despite the heroic portrayal of a patriotic cowboy turned military super-star, what fuels the hatred and violence is usually fear. It also underscores the sentiment that problems can be resolved by the use of force, which we have seen recently see in the militarized police response to numerous situations of unrest and protest.
That's not to say that there aren't a lot of people who hate what America stands for (not, incidentally, a simple construct) and who are hell bent on killing Americans and destroying what they consider evil. But we seem unable or unwilling even to see the conflict through the eyes of impartial bystanders, let alone our adversaries.
While watching film I was struck by recollections of WWII movies I'd seen growing up that recounted, indeed glorified, the heroism of resistance fighters in Norway ("633 Squadron") and France. Those portrayed in American Sniper, a little clumsily, as the villains of the piece could easily be seen in the same light as the WWII heroes of the resistance by those who consider themselves under occupation. And if the argument is made that the US is not an occupying force in Iraq because Iraq has its own government, think of the Vichy government. Some Americans feel contempt for the French for collaborating with the Germans; but do they think the same way about the Iraqi government and those willing to support it?
Is this widespread xenophobia, fear, hostility, aggression and an infatuation with projection of power through force a universal human trait or is it something country specific? Ultimately, I am left only with questions, not answers, and the sense that the world is complex and often rather depressing.
Saturday, June 20, 2015
Charleston, SC
Columbine, Sandy Hook elementary school, Fort Hood, Virginia Tech, Aurora Theatre, The Sikh temple shooting... those are the ones I can remember. But there are many many more. The last time in which a full calendar year passed without a mass shooting was 2002; and before that 1985. And as tragic as this is (on average 34 people killed every year) it pales by comparison to the number of homicides by gun which were averaging over 26 EVERY DAY (data for 2006 to 2011). The majority (72%) involved handguns and almost 80% were obtained legally.
Sunday, June 14, 2015
Bernie
Bernie Sanders, who decried the US political system as corrupted by big money donors, was asked whether that meant the politicians were corrupt. He seemed a little caught off guard; perhaps he was thinking "yes" but realized that he really couldn't say that on national television.
His answer should have been, I think, a firm 'no'. They are simply doing what they must to survive in the system of campaign finance rules. It's the system, not the people in it, that is flawed. They are no more to blame than CEOs pursuing a profit - that's their job - even if that means doming something we don't like but which saves the company money and which we haven’t legislated against. It's the role of government to set the rules of the game and regulate the incentives in order to get the outcomes we collectively want.
Of course that's harder to do when those we are asking to change the rules are the beneficiaries of the current system. But at least we need to be clear about the problem and then we can examine what that leads to; perhaps then we might elect representatives whose mandate is changing the rulers of the game.
His answer should have been, I think, a firm 'no'. They are simply doing what they must to survive in the system of campaign finance rules. It's the system, not the people in it, that is flawed. They are no more to blame than CEOs pursuing a profit - that's their job - even if that means doming something we don't like but which saves the company money and which we haven’t legislated against. It's the role of government to set the rules of the game and regulate the incentives in order to get the outcomes we collectively want.
Of course that's harder to do when those we are asking to change the rules are the beneficiaries of the current system. But at least we need to be clear about the problem and then we can examine what that leads to; perhaps then we might elect representatives whose mandate is changing the rulers of the game.
Asymetry
The abstraction: suppose country A provides arms to, and trains, a local militia, B, in country C.
Question: is country A an evil interfering superpower, at least as seen by those in C fighting the local militia, B?
If A is Russia and C is Ukraine, the answer is yes. If A is the US and C is ISIS (with ambitions to be a state ), the answer one generally gets is 'no'.
But to those who have been oppressed by the Shiite-dominated Iraqi government, and who think (perhaps wrongly) that ISIS is their salvation, I imagine that's the way the US will be seen if it continues to support Iraq's sectarian government.
Richard Hass (on FZs' GPS) noted that incrementalism is leading nowhere. But getting in more robustly isn't the right answer (as Larry Ellison noted wrt. Apple "we tried that experiment"). So something completely different is needed. Most serious thinkers seem to have concluded that Iraq as a single entity is a non-starter now. So the questions should be: 1) what does a partitioned Iraq look like and 2) how does it get there as painlessly as possible?
Question: is country A an evil interfering superpower, at least as seen by those in C fighting the local militia, B?
If A is Russia and C is Ukraine, the answer is yes. If A is the US and C is ISIS (with ambitions to be a state ), the answer one generally gets is 'no'.
But to those who have been oppressed by the Shiite-dominated Iraqi government, and who think (perhaps wrongly) that ISIS is their salvation, I imagine that's the way the US will be seen if it continues to support Iraq's sectarian government.
Richard Hass (on FZs' GPS) noted that incrementalism is leading nowhere. But getting in more robustly isn't the right answer (as Larry Ellison noted wrt. Apple "we tried that experiment"). So something completely different is needed. Most serious thinkers seem to have concluded that Iraq as a single entity is a non-starter now. So the questions should be: 1) what does a partitioned Iraq look like and 2) how does it get there as painlessly as possible?
Tuesday, June 9, 2015
Through the looking glass
The Economist had an article last week on the threat to the reinsurance industry from catastrophe bonds. I was struck by the thought that AIG got into trouble by creating a product (credit default swaps) that looked like insurance but for which it didn't have the competences needed to price the risk accurately. Now we have financial firms substituting bonds for reinsurance -- which looks to an outside an awful lot like the same things in reverse.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)