Month: February 2010

Conor Friedersdorf made a list.

Today on the Dish we noted more ugliness from CPAC here, here, here, here, and here. Ambinder questioned its existence. Truly ugly shit here. Someone at NRO actually dissented on torture. A reader further undercut Thiessen's thesis and a slew of Catholic bloggers targeted him as well.

Andrew and a member of Catholic Charities despaired over the Church ending its adoption services in DC. He also responded to why he hasn't addressed the Austin attack yet while Greenwald went right ahead. Details and video of Andrew's appearance at Cato here. Palin got called out on her treatment of Trig. Dissent of the day here and here.

— C.B.

Video re-posted from earlier today (podcast available here). A reader writes:

I watched your appearance at the Cato Institute in which you came to intellectual fisticuffs with Maggie Gallagher.

There was one point of debate on which I felt you had a strong argument against Maggie that you didn't use: Maggie was constantly trying to throw gay marriage off the table, and yet continued to put it back on the table herself, particularly when she referenced supposed violations of religious conscience related to laws that restrict discrimination by institutions whose religious beliefs define marriage as between a man and a woman.  In the context of that debate, she mentioned that part of what makes the traditional definition of marriage sacrosanct is that only a union between a man and a woman can produce new life.

I wonder why didn't you ask her: how does allowing homosexual marriage diminish the ability of heterosexual marriage to produce life?

Her response could've been nothing credible. The only way it would diminish the life-producing aggregate of heterosexual marriage is is heterosexual divorce rates go up after homosexual marriage becomes the law of the land.  And in every state where same-sex marriage is legal, divorce rates have either stayed level or actually dropped.  In fact, divorce rates are higher in states with outright bans on same-sex marriage.

I believe in the end, this is an argument about justice: in order for an injustice to be committed against a person or group of people, there has to be an injury.  Where is the injury to heterosexual marriage here?  How is the ability of a heterosexual marriage to produce life diminished in any way by granting same-sex couples the right to marry?  What is the injustice she claims exists?
 
Her citing public opinion is also interesting: public opinion about racial discrimination in many states was in the majority favoring discrimination prior to Brown vs. Board.  Does that make segregation historically correct in her eyes?  She may think it impolite to compare traditional marriage to racial discrimination, but she cannot avoid this question if she intends to be intellectually consistent: if she believes that public opinion polls should inform questions of social equality, she must necessarily believe that the majority support of segregation laws in many Southern States prior to Brown v. Board vindicated the policy of segregation. If on the other hand, she believes segregation was unjust, then she cannot reasonably use public opinion polls as an argument for her position; the majority has been wrong on questions of social justice in the past, so it ill suits anyone to rely on polls to vindicate their beliefs. As she said herself: she was Conservative when it was unpopular to be so.  To fight against public opinion when it opposes you and martial it to your aims when it is with you is not intellectually honest.
 
One last thing:  public opinion is often biased towards the status quo and easily manipulated by changes of public policy.  A generation after Loving V. Virginia was decided, people who grew up with inter-racial marriage being the norm no longer question it.  in fact, they take it for granted as something that anyone ought to be able to do.  This wasn't always the case.
 
So the final nail in the coffin for Maggie Gallagher is this: if same-sex marriage is legalized across the nation, and it remains so for the next several decades, a generation of Americans will grow up "with" same-sex marriage, just as a generation grew up in desegregated schools after 1954; and just as a generation grew up with inter-racial marriage after 1967.  We no longer question whether these decisions resulted in a more just society.  Yet at the time, they were extremely contentious.  This means, yet again, that public opinion is a terrible indicator of whether or not a policy is correct or just. It simply reflects the biases of a generation toward the status quo.
 
Until Maggie can answer as to what injury same-sex marriage causes to the "life-creating" potential of heterosexual unions (she can't), or is willing to come out in support of publicly supported segregation laws as vindication of her appeal to opinion polls in support of her position, she will be unable to make a convincing moral case against same-sex marriage; and indeed she can't, because there is no injury to speak of that would make same-sex marriage unjust to heterosexuals.

A reader writes:

I just read the following by Thiessen on the Corner:

In traditional war, when you capture an enemy soldier, once he is disarmed and taken off the battlefield he has been “rendered unable to cause harm.” But that is not true of senior terrorist leaders like KSM. They retain the power to kill many thousands by withholding information about planned attacks. A captured terrorist leader remains an unjust aggressor who actively threatens society — targeting innocent civilians in violation of the laws of war — even when he is in custody.

This is just a bogus argument based on a meaningless distinction. I mean, suppose the captured soldier in a "traditional" war is a high ranking officer with knowledge of the enemy's battle plan. Certainly, by Thiessen's definition, he would still be capable of inflicting harm by withholding information, yet Thiessen appears to be saying that torture is off limits for that individual. On the other hand, a relatively low-ranking al Qaeda operative with most likely little to no knowledge of operations outside of his particular cell (does anybody think that the idiot they convinced to put a bomb in his underwear has really been entrusted with information about planning for other Al Qaeda operations?) must be tortured.

The level of intellectual dishonesty gives me cause for despair.

A reader writes:

Having just finished my PhD coursework in environmental science and policy, I can speak to this morning's dissenter's many misunderstandings about how "climate change science" works.  Like creationists, the writer seems to be under the illusion that scientific debates are pretty much the same things as political debates, and "climate change scientists" is just another political camp, which includes everyone from Al Gore to the IPCC. 

NONE of the research presented in any of my readings, lectures or seminars claims that "the world will end" or that "winter will be something only old people remember".  Even media figures like Al Gore and scientists who've tried to wear the hat of media figures haven't made such claims, though they both often simplify or overstate the certainties in scientific work.

What we do know is that climate change will have different effects in different places and at different times.  More extreme seasonal fluctuations, both hot and cold, have been discussed for decades.  Certain places will probably get drier, others wetter.  Climate science often focuses on particular problems in particular places; coral reefs will almost certainly disappear as ocean acidification increases.  It will be harder to grow grapes in California.  Monsoon rains will probably lessen in India. 

Like you, Andrew, the horse I have in this race is called "not everything is he-said, she-said politics".  One of the few things we humans can be proud of is that we've set up an industry of knowledge-production that has consistently led us to robust truths.  In scientific discussion, I have to be careful about my arguments – I can't make outrageous claims like calling end-of-life planning "death panels" and keep my credibility.  Moreover, I don't have the luxury of pointing to some snow and claiming that's satisfactory evidence climate change isn't happening, or is happening, or anything.

Avent finishes off the debate.

Scott Morgan predicts that the "hype surrounding synthetic marijuana products, commonly known as Spice or K2, is growing and it's just a matter of time before the national hysteria kicks into full gear." He suggests:

Research into the drug's effects and possible risks is critical to protecting public health, but it's also an essential prerequisite to any discussion of making this illegal across the board. It's incredible that we've already got legislators in two states making moves to put people in jail over this stuff and they have no clue whether it's even remotely dangerous. Can't we at least indulge the pretext of some sort of scientific process here?

Douthat links to an article on prison rape in juvenile detention centers and makes the case for reform:

Prison will always be prison: Every society has to live with some level of institutional violence in the worlds it builds to confine its most dangerous elements, and there’s an inherent cruelty to incarceration that cannot be refined away. But there has to be a limit, as well. And what Americans have learned to tolerate (or rather, ignore) inside the walls of jails and prisons ought to churn our stomachs, shock our consciences, and produce not only outrage, but action.