Life, Liberty Property...And Language?

(This is another sort of "recycled" post, comprised of some comments I made in a class concerning language and immigration. The notion was posited that it is the responsibility of governments to "protect" and "promote" linguistic minorities. My comments follow.)

I just wanted to offer a few observations on the topic of government and the protection/promotion of linguistic human rights (LHR).It seems to me that anything that comes down from the UN, especially anything of a cultural nature, is a bit difficult from a sovereignty standpoint.

The difficulty, as far as I see it, comes in the terminology, namely the use of "protect" and/or "promote."Now, when I see the word "protect" used, I assume that this posits a negative rights standpoint as far as the government is concerned. What I mean is that the rights that people have intrinsically should be protected from the incursion/denegration from other actors in the society.

This, naturally, arises from an entire view of the role of government as protector of the natural rights of the citizenry, namely (to use John Locke's words) life, liberty and property. Beyond the protection of these rights, in a minimal state, the government can play no positive role; the actors in the society are left to themselves to perpetuate their culture without aid from the state.

When, on the other hand, I hear the word "promote," this denotes a more utilitarian, activist concept of the function of government in the field of rights. Promotion can mean a lot of things: the facility of institutions, the passage of legal protections and the provision of public funds. In my opinion, government enters dangerous territory (especially when it refers to culture) in taking an extremely activist role in such matters. Why do I think this, you ask?I believe that rights, at least the ones protected by the state, should derive from the rubric of life, liberty and property. These rights denote that the state should not be allowed to kill you, detain you or steal from you.

Can LHR be derived from any of these basic negative rights?Here again, I suppose this descends from one's understanding of "stealing." In the strictest sense (and the one that formed the spirit of much of law in the eighteenth and nineteenth century era of state-building), the only referent here is tangible assets. Is this proper?

As I said before, that comes with one's definition of the proper role of government.I guess the real issue is are LHR on the same level of rights as life, liberty and property? Should rights be categorized as such? And, if so, what responsibility should any state have for protecting them? If they don't protect them, can/should coercive, forceful action be taken against them?

(If you are interested in this topic further, check UNESCO's page on the subject for all of the official UN documents. Also useful is this page maintained by a professor of language and linguistics at the University of Essex.)

Illinois And The Fine Art Of Jiggery-Pokery

This will be a short one, just two more recent examples of the "culture of corruption" in Illinois politics, especially in Cook County.

• When they say culture, perhaps it was in a literal sense. Illinois has been called a "petri dish for corruption" by the National Association of Attorneys- General. So, how are the fine people of Illinois supposed to take this assertion by a bunch of government lawyers. Well, people of Illinois, consider the case of Wisconsin AG Peg Lautenschlager. I am sure she would be the first to down Illinois for being on the make, but, well, explain this away, top law enforcement officer in the state (be sure to watch the video). We don't mind corruption...means you don't have to bother with the forms.
• Hey, this is abuse of the system...civil servants getting away with flouting the law like that...oh, wait, this sort of deal makes that look like a sort of a fringe benefit. Were there kickbacks, brown-envelope jobs, payola...well, it got done, didn't it?

And the beat goes on...

(Oh, this is what jiggery-pokery means).

In The Good Old Summertime...

...there will be more posts.

I am currently engrossed in the end-of-year rush and feel like an academic air-traffic controller. I have projects, presentations and suchlike to finish. It always gets done, but the pressure is on.

Fear not, kind reader. The summer frees me up for more independent reflections and ability to publish in this space.

On the agenda are continued ruminations on impeachment of President Bush (we are taking the long route, naturally, so expect discussions of history, law, precedent, allegations and just war theory), immigration reform (at the behest of reader Eric Schneider), the nature of sovereignty and the proper role of government (an underlying theme of much of my thinking, but we will handle these directly), continuing coverage of politics in Illinois, Wisconsin and beyond and other topics of interest to me (and you, hopefully).

Read the piece below. Ahh, bad government at its worst.

No summer break for the intellect, ever. Blessing or curse? You decide.

George, Judy and Rod: Jail, Trouble, Lucky

Well, it has been quite a few weeks in Illinois politics indeed.

This past Monday, after a thirteen year investigation and a five month trial, former Illinois Governor George Ryan (R) was found guilty on all counts in his federal indictment.

This would be a big story by itself, but the added bonus of it coming down in a gubernatorial election year makes the speculation (at least for me) that much more dastardly.

For Ryan himself, good riddance. My grandfather said that he met George Ryan in 1960 when he was a Kankakee County Supervisor and did not trust him from that moment. Oh, if the rest of the state would have had the same experience. He rose through the ranks of the legislature and the Illinois G.O.P. to the rank of Secretary of State under Governor Jim Edgar. After Edgar decided to call it quits and not seek re-election in 1998, Ryan ran and beat a rather un-electable Democrat, Dawn Clark Netsch. He, at that time, at least seemed like the "devil we knew."

Illinois politics has a funny effect on people. No matter who the are or what they say, that ol' culture of corruption is a tempting mistress and most fall prey to her whims. We all knew that the new governor was a Springfield hack who would have his snout in the trough just like the rest of them. What was not counted on was that this corruption would get people killed.

No need to recount the whole story here (if you want me to, I will in subsequent posts), but the "licences for bribes" scandal exposed a web of racketeering, mail fraud and lies that all centered on Ryan, who decided not to run for re-election in 2002. This was the point when I realized that this would become serious, that there was much more at play that the normal downstate corruption that is endemic to state government in Illinois.

George Ryan is an egregious offender and liar who deserves the worst that can be given him. He joins the growing list of Illinois governors who have been convicted, forced out of office or in general acted in an extremely shady manner. I am thinking of Otto Kerner and Dan Walker here.

As for the "blow-back" from this on the governor's race, Topinka may well feel it soon. She was in state government while all of this was going on (she has been the State Treasurer since 1994). Could she have done anything to stop Ryan and his dealings? Officially, maybe not. But as a leader in the GOP in Illinois, she certainly could have appealed to him from a party standpoint. Could it hurt her chances in the election? Maybe, just maybe.

Blago, of course, wasted no time in linking the two, saying that something could have been done. What does this mean for the incumbent governor? It is a sort of a late Easter present that he has not let go wasted (as the above article makes plain). This is just the sort of thing that he needed to portray his opponent as a Springfield insider who was anxious to support her friend George Ryan (although Blago is no outsider by any means and Topinka has not been friendly with Ryan for a while. Wonder why...)

My advice for Blago is the old favorite "timeo danaos et dona ferentes," which loosely translates as "beware of Greeks bearing gifts." In this case, it might not be Greeks but the Irish in the form of Patrick Fitzgerald, the dogged prosecutor who I think might get a nod for U.S. Attorney-General one day (or not; he's a little TOO good at his job. But, here again, people said that about Elliot Spitzer). It is never good to be in Fitzgerald's radar, but it seems that Blago might be just there now.

Apparently, there were some interesting fund-raising methods that Blago may have had a hand in. In this investigation, there is constant reference to "Public Official A." This investigation, undertaken by Fitzgerald and his office, has not identified this mysterious official, but all signs point to Blago.

The election is in November. Seven months is an eternity in politics (remember the 1992 presidential campaign?) Anything can happen and I hope it does. Politics is my favorite bloodsport.

When it comes down to real issues, though, don't kid yourself. We are just deciding which lunatic will run the asylum for the next four years. Barring that, engross yourself in these people and their curious ways. It is better than the zoo and the animals act thousands of times stranger.

Shannon's (Crash) Landing

No, no. I did not crash land (at least in any literal sense).

Rather, a situation was brought to my attention that underlines much of what I think is wrong with bars/music venues today.

I come to find out, through my good friends/best damned band around The Wanderers, that a regular hang-out and show venue for them (and by implication, all of their crowd) has, shall we say, shifted paradigms. I am speaking of Shannon's Landing in Lansing, Illinois.

All euphamism aside, the place has turned into another example of why I hate bars and many of the people who go to them.

Apparently, the place has decided to "raise" its image by introducing brighter lights, flat-screen televisions, new dress for the staff and have removed the dart board.

In other words, they have turned a really great place (it overlooks a runway at an airport) in a unique location into another brightly lit, safe hang-out for the post-collegiate and miserable suburban yuppie crowd that seems to be taking things over everywhere in the southern suburbs of Chicago (my ancestral home).

Why is this bad, you ask? Isn't it good to change sometimes?

Well, as the old saying goes, change for the sake of change is the philosophy of the cancer cell.

The management has apparently made it clear that The Wanderers and "those types of people" who listen to them are no longer welcome no matter that they usually make for a financially successful evening for the establishment.

What this says is that spending power no longer is the great equalizer, at least as far as bars are concerned. Drinking culture in the United States, at least public drinking culture, can be seen to be more egalitarian than in, say, Great Britain where pubs often catered to certain classes of clientele (and moreso after the middle class began to do their drinking at home). Public places of entertainment, including bars, should openly welcome all paying customers that do not destroy property.

This should be even more apparent to these bar owners when they consider the regular crowds and the revenue brought in by a live music act, especially one that has the history of crowd-rallying of The Wanderers (I know this from first-hand experience).

Where does this leave us? With another unique neighborhood spot turned into a brightly lit Denny's with a bar; a place that is safe for granny and the kids and not filled with "those people" who might scare off the parish gentry. Just another "Irish" bar that has completely forgotten the sociocultural function of the pub in Irish society (as a site of local unity rather than a continuation of the divisions that the rest of society makes all too clear).

This is also a paean of the death of the "neighborhood tavern" in general. A place where people could go with their friends, where they know you, to drink and relax (with other adults, mind you) and maybe, just maybe, take in some local live music. A complete evening's entertainment and all should be happy, right?

Not right. This is a blatant case of judging a collective book by its cover. You, bar owner, are a business. That means, in the simplest sense, that you are in a pursuit to turn a profit that is greater than your losses. What you are not is a judge of the social acceptability of your patrons or their friends. You are also not imbued with the power to judge, from the mere sound of a band playing, that their fans MUST be "those types," unacceptable and therefore out of line with the "corporate philosophy (a term that I think is bullshit. The philosophy of corporations is to be profitable. Anyone who tells you otherwise is lying)."

I close by saying that I hope that the owners of this newly purged establishment get exactly what they hope for. Kids and old people are notoriously bad tippers and don't drink as much as a crowd there to see a band. Why don't you also ban smoking, just to make it complete. Hell, it's doing wonders for local bars in Madison. It would go over like a house on fire in your brave new tavern world.

Or, in a more poetic end, maybe one of those planes will misjudge the runway JUST enough...

On Wisconsin! On Ice!

I'd like to take this opportunity to wish the UW-Madison Men's Hockey Team the best in the playoff match against Boston College.

We all know that Bucky will bitch-slap the goofy accents right out of those New Englanders.

And, even if we lose, we can still drink you under the table, grind the table into sawdust, mix into an old-fashioned and drink it (all with the sawmill in the backyard).

It is a long bus ride back to Boston, especially with the sting of loss in one's nostrils and nursing the bottle welts that you will doubtless recieve in Milwaukee tonight.

Don't say I didn't warn you.

Know When To Hold 'Em, Know When To Fold 'Em...

...and know when to not bring up an issue.

No, seriously, thanks to everyone for the comments. I appreciate them.

My standpoint is basically that of a peronal rights issue when it comes to abortion, not really a moral one.

Is this because I have no morals? Possibly.

Is abortion morally wrong? Yes, if you think that ALL killing is wrong. Even then, it still might be.

Should there be a law banning it? Absolutely not. People need to have these decisions in hand, not the government.

Also bear in mind the nature of the author of the post. I am a bitter, cranky, eternally single libertarian who never plans on having anything to do with offspring of my own. I would never willingly saddle an innocent person with my severely defective personality. Perhaps it is best to take my opinions on these matters and ignore them. I realize that a lot of what I believe is kinda wacky (upon first hearing it).

So, here is another one for you (and something that I believe firmly).

I believe that you cannot truly own something unless you are able to sell it. This includes your body. So, this means that you should be able to sell yourself into slavery and prostitution should be legalized.

I think lots of things should be legalized, or have prohibitions removed from them.

Am I an anarchist? No, but I am running out of reasons not to be.

The Thin End Of The Wedge? South Dakota's Abortion Ban

Let it never be said that I agree with much of anything said or professed by Rush Limbaugh. He did, however, make a statement long ago about abortion being the "next civil war." While this sort of hyperbole is out of line (and also a large part of Limbaugh's schtick), this seems like one of those issues that will just not go away and there is no solution in sight.

Then comes, at the end of last month, a development in South Dakota that forced the issue back to the fore. The South Dakota State Senate passed what would be the strictest anti-abortion legislation in the nation. Governor Mike Rounds (R) is expected to sign the bill into law. Basically (if you did not read the above links) the law would outlaw abortion in every case unless the life of the mother was demonstrably at risk.

There are, naturally, many issues involved here. First, this seems to challenge the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision in the U.S. Supreme Court that protects the right to access to an abortion from the interference of the government. In this way, there does seem to be a challenge from a state to a pronouncement of a federal branch decision. This introduces problems of federalism and the issue of the legitimacy of judicial review, a precedent in American and British jurisprudence, but not a constitutional power accorded to the Supreme Court.

As to these issues, I think that it should be the states and not the federal government that makes these decisions and this is based on my conviction that the idea of judicial review, as instituted in the 1803 Marbury v. Madison decision is counter to the spirit of the Constitution and its delineation of the powers of the judiciary and also the separation of powers that lies at the heart of the federal system (as defined in the Tenth Amendment). So, in summary, I do not believe that it is within the power of the federal government, owing to the shaky precedent of judicial review, to enact legislation that is beyond the purview of the powers outlined in the Constitution. In this sense, I agree that South Dakota has the right to make its own laws concerning abortion.

I do not, however, in any way agree with the text or spirit of the law as passed in South Dakota. These sorts of laws, aiming at prohibiting what the state (or its rulers at the time) feel to be deleterious or morally wrong, strike at the very heart of our conception of human rights. If we consider property rights, what does a person own without question? It can be argued that there is no justification for private property as we (and the framers of our system) understood it. O.K., for now let's take that as stipulated. So, what do we REALLY own?

The answer, and I think this is plain to see, is ourselves, our bodies and minds. If this is not the case, then we are slaves in theory and in reality. This is not the case...at least not yet.

I believe, therefore, that while South Dakota may make such laws as they see fit, it is wrong to deprive people of sole province and dominion over the dispensation and condition of their person. People should be able to do whatever they want to their bodies, provided that it harms no-one else.

Then the issue becomes, if the foetus is indeed a "person," does this not require that it be protected from the above mentioned liberty of the person over, well, their person. I think not and it is because can a foetus truly be said to have full, conscious and abiding control over its person? This cannot be the case when it is dependent on another for everything. When they become viable apart from the mother, then they are indeed people and subject to the natural rights that are possessed by all people.

How can a baby have rights? It can have rights because it can suffer a wrong, such as neglect or abuse. Does this not then prohibit the killing of a foetus before it is born? No, simply because a foetus cannot survive without its mother but a baby, wether in it's parents care or someone elses, can.

Does this settle the issue. Of course not. It comes down to a matter of principle, and these can always be tricky.

One interesting "market reaction" to this law came from, of all places, the Oglala Sioux Tribe. The chief of the tribe wants to open up an abortion clinic on tribal lands, stating (rightly so) that tribal lands have a measure of sovereignty beyond that of the U.S. government or any state or locale. I say to that, good show. Way to react to a need and desire of the people that is taken away by the state.

May your venture flourish in these tough times where the rights to basic personal dominion are threatened by moralizing politicos who favor an exclusive religion from the inclusion of basic human rights.

"Cap The Knife" Cuts Out

It was announced this morning that former Defense Secretary Caspar Weinberger died at the age of 88.

He served, most notably, as President Ronald Reagan's Defense Secretary from 1981-1987. For more, read this extensive (and quite flattering) biography from the Department of Defense.

I always thought that it was a joke that he kept his old nickname, which hints at his affinity for economies and saving money. Why, you ask?

Well, he presided over one of the most wide-ranging and costly defense-building projects that could have ever been imagined. It was estimated that during Weinberger's tenure, the U.S. defense budget rose 43% over its levels at the height of the war in Vietnam. That's quite a lot, no?

We were, however, locked in a showdown with the perfidious and shadowy Soviet Union, and we were experiencing a period of economic expansion. Then again, it left massive budget deficits that basically insured that George H.W. Bush would be a one term president because of the economy, stupid.

The claim that it was Weinberger that pioneered the idea that we should "spend" the Soviets into submission is kinda true, kinda false. First off, the U.S.S.R. in the mid-1980's was in a rather sad state of repair. With the death of Yuri Andropov AND Konstantin Cherenenko in 1984, and a young Mikhail Gorbachev (young for a Soviet premier, anyway) at the helm, the Evil Empire never looked weaker. Years of failed economic planning, party bureaucratic torpor, the ill-concieved invasion of Afghanistan (1979) and a general culture of corruption and ignorance came to a head in these years. I hate to make this judgement, but I think it was only a matter of time. The U.S.S.R.'s days (as it had existed since the 1920's) were numbered.

So, you ask, was the massive spending on defense a good thing. You naturally realize that this is an extraordinarily complex issue that is hard, perhaps even dangerous, to cover in so short a space, but here goes...

Budget deficits? Bad.

Mutually assured destruction? Worse.

Impeachment in America: Law. Precedent. Ambiguity.

In considering the notion that the current president, George Walker Bush, should be impeached for various offenses, it is important to review the Constitutional laws governing this process and their precedents in the U.S. legal system's "ancestor," English common and constitutional law.

First, the U.S. Constitution. Impeachment is discussed in Article II, Section 4, in one sentence no less. For those who do not feel like clicking the link, here is the text of that section:

The President, Vice President and all civil officers of the United States, shall be removed from office on impeachment for, and conviction of, treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.

Well, simple enough, right? Not at all (as anyone who was conscious in 1998 will remember). The term impeachment is often wrongly understood as the actual removal of an official from his or her office. The impeachment, however, is merely the presentation of the charges against the accused (much like an indictment in a criminal case). The process of removing an official from office involves the impeachment, the presentation of evidence and then the subsequent vote on the charges by the responsible legislative body.

Historically speaking, the indictment power was discussed in the period that surrounded the writing and adoption of the U.S. Constitution between 1787 and 1789. In the most notable of these discussions, The Federalist Papers, Alexander Hamilton discusses the topic of impeachment.

In Federalist No. 65, Hamilton argues that it should be the Senate (with some members of the House of Representatives to serve as managers of the trial) that should serve as the court of impeachment. To allow the people to hear such trials would be, in Hamilton's estimation, to imflame popular passions. Hamilton's pathological distrust of the people aside, he only discusses the nature of the power briefly, at the beginning of the document.

There, Hamilton says that impeachment should be undertaken in cases of "misconduct of public men, or in other words, the abuse or violation of some public trust." It can be seen that this notion does not exactly match with the notion as defined in the final draft of the Constitution.

Taken together, the ambiguous terms from the Constitution and Federalist No. 65 present the central problem of calling for the impeachment of a federal official. Namely, what are "high crimes and misdemeanors" and what is an "abuse or violation of the public trust." These words will become quite the nub of the problem.

Perhaps it is germane to point out that the Constitution is the law of the land and The Federalist Papers are not. Still, they should provide further nuance to an understanding of this most confusing part of the U.S. Constitution.

The fact that there needs to be a set procedure for the removal of federal officials is obvious. What is not are the aforementioned terms and their meaning not only to us in the present, but also in divining the influences on people such as Alexander Hamilton to see if this issue can be made clearer.

Next time (at least the next time I feel like writing about impeachment), we shall look at the English precendent, use and possible influence on the Constitution and its provisions for impeachment. In England, briefly, the impeachment power was (up until the early modern period) taken to mean punitive action against anyone, official or not. It was in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries that its sole use as punishment for those protected by the Crown (officials, that is) developed. This will be our focus.

More broadly, I intend to trace these precendents, look at three historical examples from the American past. Two from the nineteenth century (Chief Justice Samuel Chase in 1801 and President Andrew Johnson in 1868) and one from the twentieth century (Bill Clinton in 1998) will provide us with good consideration into the possibility of an impeachment of the current president.

After this is established, then we will look at possible charges against him, the likelihood of an impeachment/conviction and the broader implications of these (in the words of Former Chief Justice William Rehnquist) "grand inquests."

Until then, why not check out the Impeachment Information Center, an excellent source maintained by the Law School at the University of Pittsburgh.

Loose Ends And Echoes From The Past

Yes, I will continue on with impeachment soon, but I was on vacation for a week.

One might say that one disengages one's normal activities during vacation and does the opposite, mightn't one?

Well, for me the norm is thinking and other such academic bric-a-brac. I was, you will be pleased to know, able to disengage this for an extended period.

Whiskey helps, as usual.

It was a busy week. Friends getting married, my dad's birthday, St. Patrick's Day For The Reinforcement Of All The Worst Stereotypes About The Irish. It was jam-packed and, riding the bus home in the middle of the night, I realized that exhausted was hardly the word.

The sight of the capitol and Lake Monona was truly a sight for sore eyes (and legs and liver and damn near everything else). It is not because I wanted to leave my family and friends. Far from it.

I have not been sure what location is really "home" anymore. This was discussed in a seminar I had last semester but, as with most things academic, no agreement was reached and the discussion could have gone on ad nauseum.

My current "base of operations" is clearly Madison, WI. That is also where my books, ties, washrags, flatware, Funkmaster Flex medallion and other material things currently have their home.

I still, however, find myself calling Oak Forest "home."

I guess you really never can truly go home.

This adage does not help much, but oh well.

Lastly, good to hear from Otto von Bozzi. Too long, my brother, too long. Everyone else, too. Thanks for looking in.

Back to the usual boringness this week. I promise.

It Ain't Gettin' Easier...

The lack of response to my last post, even from my usual "commentators," has caused me to wonder.

Is this space becoming too "heavy," laden with concerns of a questionable nature?

Have I become "ivory tower," catering to intellectuals and ignoring the seemingly more pressing issues of life?

Well, I thought that the nature of power in government is a constant concern, given how much people just loooooove to complain about the government and its faults. I thought that, through examining the roots of power in government, we might come to some answers that would be directly pertinent to our times.

Will I just lighten up already?

Not on your life. Those who know me know that I am not like that.

To lay out the agenda, I may have one more piece on the last topic, introducing ideas of separation of powers and government by contract (think Thomas Hobbes, not Jean-Jacques Rousseau here).

Then, I was struck by a (syndicated) article in the Sunday Wisconsin State Journal last week.

It seems that Garrison Keillor is calling for the impeachment of President Bush.

When such a figure as Keillor calls for such a course of action, it bears notice. He is best known for his Prarie Home Companion on NPR and wistful tales of Lake Woebegon, not being, well, a political hack like me.

I think this can segue nicely into a discussion of impeachment, the laws for it, some historical case studies of it (there are only two), and a reflection on this course of action.

If you want to see me lighten up, stop by on a Friday night, not before.

Bring whiskey.

Power To The People: The Impossible Dream?

In my reading for classes this week (and for the past few actually), I have been forced to confront some thorny issues concerning the nature of government, the location of sovereignty in a system and the fact that government by consent might not make sense or even be remotely practical.

It is often strange how this happens, especially for historians. We confront what are supposedly dusty ideas of the past and, lo and behold, we are confronted with the same issues that plague us from their day to our own. I guess that people always come back to worrying about the same issues.

The specific period in question here happens to be England in the seventeenth century. More specifically the decades leading up to the English Civil War. The debates then extant were concerned with the locus of power in society and had been so for some time. On one side of the issue were the ideas and partisans of such people as Jean Bodin and Sir Robert Filmer. Bodin argued in his Six Books of the Commonwealth that sovereignty is indivisible and is not based on any sort of contract. It descends from God, through Adam (leader of the first human community) to kings (or, by implication, other forms of government). Bodin also argued that it can never be within the right of the people to oppose a king unless his actions are sinful, and even then all they can do is pray or flee the country. For Bodin, then, sovereignty lies not with the people, nor did it ever. The people did not cede the right to govern to the king and it was not in their power to do so. There is no social contract and therefore no limits on the power of the king. While, however, the king is enjoined to rule justly, there is no requirement that he do so.

These arguments were further extended by Sir Robert Filmer in his Patriarcha. Filmer argues that the authority of a king is like that of a father in a family. A father should be just but firm and should (get ready for this one) have the right of life and death over his children. In the same manner, a king rule his people this way. Filmer quotes often from Bodin, agreeing that sovereignty cannot be divided because it descends from God perfect and whole. He, therefore, rejects the idea of popular sovereignty and the separation of powers. This also, implicitly, rejects the idea of the social contract by which the people allow themselves to be governed in exchange for the freedom of the "commonwealth." Filmer asserts that to divide the power of government is to open the society up for anarchy and a non-extant rule of law.

Filmer argues that consent to be governed cannot be possible because this would involve a "meeting" of all the people of earth to cede the right to their rulers. It would also call into question the idea of elective versus successive monarchy. When the king dies, for example, is the transfer of sovereignty natural to his heirs or does it devolve to the people, to be given again upon the accession of a new monarch? Filmer firmly believes the former, stating that without the ability for commonwealth consent, it is only natural that the succession be maintained. While this argument may seem to be a sort of reductio ad absurdum, it bears consideration in the light of the question of the origins of government power.

On the other side are two different groups of theorists, the "monarchomachs" and (more historically specific) those who argued for the power of parliament during the English civil war. First, the monarchomachs (if you are not familiar with this term in general, read Lecture Five in John Neville Figgis's 1907 classic Studies in Political Thought From Gerson to Grotius.) Their ideas were basically that there WERE situations in which the king could be deposed, thus implying that his authority was not complete and that it DID descend from a consent from the governed. In his De jure magistratuum in subditos, Theodore Beza (John Calvin's "right-hand man") argues that, while it is not in the purview of the people to resist, it is the job of the magistrates and other "minor officials" to assure that the king governs for the benefit of the commowealth. If he does not, he can be deposed and Beza gives examples of this. Similarly, George Buchanan in De jure regni apud Scotos, asserts that if the king does not rule with justice and is swayed by evil-doers or flatterers at court, he can similarly be deposed of his power because that power exists from a consent of the governed.

The term "consent" presents a problem. While Filmer's argument seems to be fallacious, it must be considered how exactly the entire human race entered into such a contract with their leadership and that this contract can stand the test of time and history. The answer, as far as I am concerned, is given by John Locke in his idea of "tacit consent." But, back to the negative case...

Another group of thinkers who challenged the unfettered power of the sovereign were several parliamentarian pamphleteers of the seventeenth century in England. They were responding to the reign of Charles I and more specifically to his reluctance to call Parliament to serve as the legislative/appropriative body of the kingdom. One of these, Henry Parker, was concerned with the fact that the king fled to Scotland, leaving Parliament sitting in Westminster. In his Observations upon some of his Majesty's late answers and expresses, written in 1642, he posits that Parliament sits as the grand council of the nation and is instrumental in advising the king and performing one of the essential functions of government: a conduit between the people and the state. While, according to the like of Bodin and Filmer, Parliament was to serve as the magnification of the king's power, it can be seen in Parker's thinking that a different mode of government was coming to light. One where the legislature was not the king (the idea of the king as lex loquens, or "the law speaking," as expressed by Charles's predecessor King James I), but was the proper duty of the Parliament with the king retaining the executive function.

What relevance does this have for us? Consider these questions:

• Is our system of government inherently flawed? Is it for any of the reasons given by Bodin or Filmer?
• Does a contract exist between the governed and the governors? If so, explain how this is.
• Parker argued further that the Parliament could act in the king's stead. Is this a usurpation of power or a practical move for expediency?
• What do you make of Filmer's argument concerning consent?
• If we live in a society that does NOT have a contractual base of power, from whence does sovereignty descend? For these men, it was from God. What of a "secular society" such as our own?
• Are these just dead English/Swiss/Frenchmen whose ideas died when liberal democracy became the "norm?" Were they, in other words, swept into the old dustbin when John Locke came around (remember Locke was reacting to Filmer in the Two Treatises of Government)?
• To really extend the argument, did our society eventually arrive at the best form of government? Was Francis Fukuyama right?

Think on that, whydon'cha?

Further Reading

If these subjects interest you (and why wouldn't they), why not read these other great works?

• Philip Hunton, A Treatise of Monarchie. Another English Civil War-era pamphleteer, he argues that limited monarchy is the only way to protect people from evil, deluded rulers.
• Samuel Rutherford, Lex Rex. More reasons, from a 1644 pamphlet, on limiting the unchecked power of the king.

There will be more to come on this topic, including Hobbes (and why I disagree with him), Locke (and why I agree with him) and more roots of our current situation.

Ignore it at your peril.

Timeo Danaos Et Dona Ferentes

When I heard this piece of news, I was momentarily relieved.

I understand that the jury may be out on the economic impact of the Madison smoking ban. What I could not understand, however, was the refusal of an exemption for cigar bars. No, this was not originally offered.

I should say cigar bar (singular) because to my knowledge, there is only one. Think about the owner of such an establishment when the government that rules your city basically tells you that you will go out of business.

To put it more plainly, who would go to an non-smoking cigar bar. Isn't cigar smoking a sine qua non of the cigar bar.

Why momentarily relieved, you ask?

Well, I thought that Mayor Dave had come to his senses and realized that compromises could be made and that maybe-just maybe-he is a more reasonable person than I had originally thought. This was not to be.

He makes two of the most annoying general arguments that are clearly fallacies of reasoning (read the article to pick these out).

Mayor Dave, I accuse you of commiting the "slippery slope" fallacy and that old favorite post hoc ergo propter hoc.

You see, dear magistrate, just because one action MAY lead to another, it cannot be asserted that it WILL. The "slippery slope" is false because it supposes a chain of cause and effect into the future which is clearly impossible.

Also, you will note that just because Event X precedes Event Y, it does not mean that X causes Y. Let's posit a fun example. My birth in September of 1977 preceded the election of Ed Koch as mayor of New York City by two months. One could say that the two are related.

A less extreme example. You have a chicken vindaloo for dinner. It is spicy and you have nothing to drink. You go out to get a beverage and, while on the way, are killed by ruffians. It could be said, were post hoc ergo propter hoc true, that your liking for spicy food caused your death.

But wait. Maybe I am committing the greatest fallacy of them all.

Yes, you guessed it. Argumentum ad verecundiam.

I supposed that the mayor, because he is the mayor, has some sort of higher faculty for diagnosing problems and hashing out solutions. Isn't that what politicians should do?

Should but don't. Silly boy. I know better than that.

Love Crazed Sex Goddesses

The title, unfortunately, is the best thing about this post. I am mired in laundry, Thomas Hobbes and fin-de-seicle Vienna. As Dubliners say about their cathedral (which has no spire) it is utterly pointless.

• NY Governor George Pataki (R) is not recovering from surgery. Why, if you are not related or a NY resident, should you care? He has made presidential noises in past months and it is a sure bet that he will not run again to remain in Albany. A dark horse? Yes, and this makes it all worse. You don't want a diseased president, do you? Well, they are all (to some extent) symptoms of systemic disease, but you get the picture. We are talking actual contagion here.
• Maybe this is the best man for the White House in 2008: Michael Jesus Archangel (R-Michigan). He is both Jesus AND the archangel Michael. Talk about yer holy package deal. I like the machete in the picture and his website is worth a read. Well, it proves that, in theory, any native born person over the age of 35 can run for president.

Can But Won't (Or And Did)

Today in particular, one such as myself feels compelled to speak on the subject of the "holy day of obligation" among people in personal relationships. Yes, I am naturally speaking of Valentine's Day.

One such as myself, you ask? As a relatively embittered and cynical person who would love to believe that people and their motives are inherently good (but keeps being presented evidence by the cosmos that they are the exact opposite), I also am in the delicate position of having a majority of my friends involved in relationships, either marital or otherwise.

Should this limit what I can and cannot say? Of course not.

So, indeed, what could I say (I am not saying that I will) about this hallowed day?

First, I could indeed make the practical and historical argument that the personality of St. Valentine is not on sure ground at all. It could have been one of three martyrs or simply (according to the ancient Romans), the day on which birds seemed to begin to mate. So there is that that I could, but may not, say.

I could also point out that this is another commercialized holiday where the feelings of people (the basest of these, I might add) are played upon by countless industries to fetishize these emotions, commodify them and make them just another part of our consumer society. That, however, would be too easy and not totally consonant with my beliefs. I think that if you are clever enough, within the law, to create demand out of nowhere and bilk idiots of their disposable income, you deserve every penny you earn and I only wish that I was as clever as you.

I could, it seems, extend that argument to the nature of personal relationships themselves. I could say that the exchange of gifts and, euphamistically, physical expression of emotion are part and parcel of the same process of exchange. Gifts are given, and in return, acts are performed. One might counter by saying that these certain salacious acts are done of will and for genuine feeling for the person. It cannot be argued, however, that it is natural for human beings to reciprocate when given something of value. What form that reciprocation takes, I would maintain, is not as important as the fact that it takes place. I could even go as far to invoke the crass desigantion of this day as "National Steak and a Blowjob Day." That is to say, that is something I could say.

Taking this argument even further, how can one argue that directly exchanging goods of value for services, be they "romantic" or otherwise is wrong? I am, naturally, speaking of prostitution. What laws that prohibit prostitution basically say is that you can yield temporary sovereignty over your body and its functions for free but not for a price.

How, then, is this consistant with a view that someone should be compensated for their exertions? Well, I guess they are, but why be indirect about it? It is when the exchange of money and the exchange of "emotion" come into direct contango that the problems seem to arise. Set this dichotomy in a society that has its moral basis (and, rightly or wrongly, many of its legal strictures) and very foundation in a group of Protestant English religious fanatics, and you are bound to get some interesting notions of marriage, relationships, prostitution and sexual morality in general. One could argue that.

We could take another path, and I could argue that only a fool or a slave willingly surrenders freedom for security and it is no different in a personal relationship than in society as a whole. At the end of the day, one should at least have dominion over one's person and mind. To not have this is slavery. When in a relationship, it seems that this freedom is abrogated time and again for the purpose of compromise and security, knowing that to render such freedom might serve to protect the basis of the relationship, whatever it may be. Interpersonal relatioships should be for the mutual betterment of the minds and souls of those involved and this condition cannot occur amongst unfree actors. What results is a dangerous mix of freedom and domination wherein neither party seems completely at ease with the results at any given time. That is, for example, another thing I could assert.

In closing, I realize that a lot of what I said above is hypothetical. It may not seem to apply to your situation. Remember, of course, that this is what I COULD say, not what I am indeed saying. Because someone would have to be a really horrible human being to believe those things I said, right?

Right?

Why The Irish Don't Speak Irish

This is a bit of a "recycled post." I wrote this piece for a discussion forum in one of my graduate seminars here at the UW. It is in a seminar concerning language, nationality and migration. My argument seems to be that the Irish language is certainly a huge part of Irish national identity but no-one seems to care that hardly anyone speaks/learns it anymore.

Let me know what you think.

First, how many speakers of Irish are there in the Republic of Ireland today? According to statistics provided by the Irish Government in 2004, there are 1,570,894 speakers in total. Of these, 339,541 reportedly use Irish everyday as their primary language. To give a little perspective, the population of Ireland is 3,917,203. Clearly, Irish is a minority language at least as a primary use language is concerned. Yet, Ireland is officially a bilingual state (Irish and English). Irish will even become a working language of the EU in 2007, owing no small part to the Irish presidency of the EU in 2003.

What is the connection between the Irish language and the history of Ireland in the last 200 years? To start with another question, when was the last time in Ireland's history when Irish was spoken by more than half of the population? According to the 1841 census (which yielded a population of 8.1 million), about 4 million of these reportedly spoke Irish as their primary language (1).

Who were these people, broadly speaking? They were laborers, cottiers, the working-class and generally the poorer and lower reaches of Irish society in what was still a predominantly rural society. They were concentrated mostly on the west coast in such places as Donegal and Galway (2).By 1851, however, the situation was markedly different. After the depridations caused by the Great Famine (1846-1851), it was reported that less than 25% of the remaining population spoke Irish at all and less than 5% were monolingual (3). This started what was to be seen as a long cycle of decline in daily usage of the Irish language. Why?

Demographically, the population was decimated by the Famine. Institutionally, English had (especially since the Act of Union in 1801) become the language of state, law, commerce, industry and (increasingly) church. Knowledge of English equalled social mobility. It was also the case that those who immigrated during the Famine were not Irish speakers nor were they the poorest people in Ireland. They were mostly English speakers from the south and west. This left a significant vacuum of population that needed to fill the essential workings of administration, business and "the system" in Ireland - a development that occasioned many more to learn and use English alone (4). This was also aided by the establishment of a system of national schools in 1830 that didn't instruct pupils in Irish at all (5).

Bearing this in mind, how did the Irish language become a central plank in the platforms of Irish nationalists in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries? After the collapse of the Fenian movement in the 1860's and the disappointment of the Land League in the 1880's, Irish nationalism, which had become political rather than revolutionary since the time of Daniel O'Connell in the 1830's, changed dramatically after the death of Charles Stewart Parnell in 1891. There were two dominant strains of nationalism: the old political nationalism represented by the Irish Parliamentary Party and John Redmond. There was also a new nascent cultural nationalism pioneered by Eoin MacNeill, Patrick Pearse and the Gaelic League. A central focus of this cultural nationalism was the "de-anglicization" of Ireland and the return of the Irish language.When did the leadership change?

After the Third Home Rule Bill passed in April of 1914, Redmond and the IPP thought that their path had finally made some real progress. This legislation was tabled indefinitiely upon the outbreak of the Great War in August of 1914. This blow proved fatal to the political nationalists, and it was from these elements (together with the cultural nationalists and socialist trade unions) that the new nationalism was formed, with the revitalization of the Irish language as a primary goal (6). It was this group that led the Easter Rising in 1916, presided over the rise and victory of Sinn Fein in the 1918 parliamentary elections and led Ireland into battle in the Irish Civil War (or Anglo-Irish War) in 1919-1921. This revolutionary generation would preside over Irish language policy for years to come (7).

Between 1925 and 1937, the constitution of what would become the Republic of Ireland was debated. The taioseach (prime minister), Eamon de Valera was in the forefront of this process. He fought with the IRA in the civil war and was a fluent Irish speaker. Under his leadership, the Irish language became a central part of the legal and cultural basis of the new republic. This was enshrined in the 1937 constitution which de Valera helped to draft (8).This did not, as we have seen, match the situation "on the ground."

Independence from Britain did not immediately spark feelings among the Irish people for independence from its language. As the "founding generation" passed from political life in the 1950's, a new generation of Irish politicans came to prominence and the Irish language was not a primary concern anymore. Starting with Taioseach Sean Lemass in 1961, Irish leaders began to look to industry, trade and a greater role for Ireland in Europe as their primary goal.

It was in this period that the "leakiness" of the official status of the Irish language began to show and it continues to the present. All legislation is supposed to be published in Irish and English, but it rarely is. To recieve a Leaving Certificate from an Irish university, students used to have to pass an exam in Irish, but this requirement was done away with in the 1970's. Also gone in 1971 was the requirement of Irish proficiency for positions in the civil service, military or Garda Siochana. This was all coupled with the increased move to the Gaeltacht (the Irish speaking areas) of English speakers and the general effects of Ireland's "turn towards Europe" beginning with their entrance into the Common Market in 1972 and leading through the "Celtic Tiger" of economic expansion in the 1990's (9).

In attempts to address this, the Official Languages Act was passed in 2003. It's intent was to expand the use of Irish in public lige and protect the linguistic and cultural integrity of the Gaeltacht (10). This act has not been in force for long enough to see any real effects on the state of the Irish language. The department responsible for the enforcement of the act, the Department of Community, Rural and Gaeltacht affairs, is (if their missions statements are to be believed) committed to the preservation of the irish language and the cultural milieu of its use. To do any less, the department believes, would be to relegate the key aspects of irish culture to the mists of history and to rob the Irish diaspora worldwide of their cultural and linguistic roots. In today's Ireland, however, this department often loses out for funding and support as Ireland continues to develop into a "modern" European state.

On the other hand, one can understand the position that the government finds itself in. Why continue to finance something that seems to inspire so little interest among the citizens? It is well for the diaspora to care about the language, but in the strict purview of government finance, is this a central concern? Has the Gaeltacht become a sort of linguistic cultural park financed with taxpayer dollars, effectively on life support? To quote one of my favorite television programs of all time, Yes, Minister, subsidies should be for art and culture and not for things people actually want. It is for things that they ought to have but don't.

NOTES
1. Gearoid O Tuathaigh, Ireland Before the Famine: 1798-1848 (Dublin: Gill and Macmillan, 1972), 157.
2. Brian O'Cuiv, A View of the Irish Language (Dublin: Irish Government Stationery Office, 1969).
3. O Tuathaigh, 158.
4. Ibid. (for the situation in Ireland). For immigration to the United States, see Reginald Byron, Irish America (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1999), 52-53. For the Irish diaspora in general, refer to Tim Pat Coogan, Wherever Green Is Worn: The Story of the Irish Diaspora (London: Hutchinson, 2000).
5. R.F. Foster, Modern Ireland, 1600-1972 (London: Penguin, 1988), 341.
6. K. Theodore Hoppen, Ireland Since 1800: Conflict and Conformity (London: Longman's, 1989), 130-131.
7. Ibid., 137-138.
8. James Lydon, The Making of Ireland: From Ancient Times to the Present (London: Routledge, 1998), 372-373.
9. See http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Irish_language
10. See several of the "sidebar topics" at http://www.pobail.ie/en/.

The Devil You Know

Well, this is indeed rare.

A political prediction that I made, based on my research, was right on.

According to a new Chicago Tribune/WGN poll, the front-runners in the Illinois governor's race are Gov. Rod Blagojevich for the Democrats and Judy Baar Topinka for the GOP.

If you read the Trib article, or just have a general sense of people and their level of satisfaction with Blago, one might wonder why he is in such a commanding lead. The old idea of the "incumbent's advantage" cannot be discounted. As I pointed out, outside of the Chicago area, Edwin Eisendrath does not have much recognition. Even around Chicago, he is known as a "Lake Shore Liberal," rich, socially liberal, but more retiscent on the wasting state money side. It can also not be ignored that his great moment of fame came over twenty years ago and many voters of today (barring political addicts like myself) don't remember him.

As for the GOP, Topinka's success in office (read: ability to massage the system and not get pinched) and generally moderate (read: unknown) stands on issues make her popular with moderates and some conservatives who are put off by the likes of Jim Oberweis and his "no-immigrants-unless-they-are-cheap-labor-in-my-dairy" stance. The poll states that 59% of likely GOP voters consider immigration reform a necessary plank in the party platform. Remember, though, this is among those identifying themselves as Republicans. While this may have a chilling effect in the primary, this issue will surely be dampened by the time the General Election rolls around in November.

Being a third-party voter, I am rarely ever right when it comes to politics. This, however, seems to be the classic "smell two piles of shit and tell me which smells better" debate.

Devil you know or devil you don't? At the end of the day, aren't they both still bad?

Man Is A Political (Party) Animal

When I was trying to decide what to do to cover the SOTU a while back, I weighed my options. I have no net access at home and I have a laptop computer that can be called "portable" in a loose, somewhat quaint sense. I could have sat here in the computer lab, watched a webcast and blogged real time. That, alas, was also not an option. As liberal as UW-Madison is with the liquor laws, I think a cooler in a computer lab would have been a bit much.

So, we are going low-tech to high(er) tech. Reproduced below for you, transcribed lovingly from the Blatz-soaked originals, is my "notebook" from the SOTU. I must warn you that I write fast and bad and, naturally, alcohol intensifies my already sub-par penmanship. First, a few facts...

Network of Choice - CBS. Why CBS? I also don't have cable and CBS was the least blurry.
Drink(s) of Choice - Blatz with "Sno-Shoe" Shots. Sno-Shoe is, for the uninitated (read:lucky), a 90-proof mix of brandy and peppermint schnapps.
Recording Equipment - OfficeMax legal pad, yellow, letter size and a pen. The barrel of the pen read "Grand Geneva Resort and Spa - Lake Geneva, WI." Yes, you needed to know that.

Without further ado, the notebook for the 2006 SOTU. Bracketed text was added for clarification after the fact.

• Cindy Sheehan already got arrested. Decided to get it out of the way early.
• "Pivotal speech?" I think not.
• "Renewed civility?" No matter how many times, it's still funny.
• Alito looks like my JR high math teacher.
• No civility with the midterm elections...What difference between GOP/DEM, [CBS News correspondent John] Roberts???
• Frist behind the prez. OOOOOHHHH...
• O.K., isolationism is bad.
• 122 democracies? Like Singapore?
• Fight for OUR freedom? O.K., but let others fight for theirs.
• Man, lotsa history talk, GWB.
• Sassy wink at dead Marine's family?
• Egypt, Hamas and Israel - never in a million fucking years.
• Liberty, the right of all humanity. O.K., natural law.
• ISOLATION IS THE WORD APPARENTLY.
• PATRIOT ACT - OH GOD NO!!! So, you don't really buy the whole liberty thing after all?
• "appropriate members of Congress" decide on wiretaps? FREEDOM/SECURITY...Hilary looks pissed.
• Econ policy lip service. I agree, but I don't think you really believe it. Isolation is indeed bad.
• How 'bout 100% tax cuts?
• Cut the deficit? Not with that defense budget you won't.
• Nice Clinton joke.
• HALF-CROWD APPLAUSE...they threw him off!
• Baby boom commission. O.K. FOR NOW. Why I am against government funded health care.
• Ouproduce America? NO? Why? UNIONS!
• Of course Frist likes medical liability reform.
• We are developing the tube technology.
• Ethanol? 6 years? Right...
• Depend on for. oil past? What of global trade?
• MATH AND SCIENCE EDUCATION A PRIORITY? WHATTHEFUCK?? JUST PUT ME OUT OF A JOB, WHYDON'CHA.
• Granted, humanities jobs are NOT high wage.
• Health of culture, activists courts + marriage, nat. disaster- what a catch-all. Decline? Maybe not
• Alito and Roberts in one sentence with half a cheer - oh fuck [playing the drinking game as I was, such a response was worth quite a lot].
• If life begts life, how are stem cells wrong? Seems logical enough
• No new AIDS infections? Oh, boy...
• History comes down to choice? How 'bout the choice to blunder?

Insightful? Maybe. Confusing? Sure. Coherent? Not really. In the moment? You bet.

Baseball For Nerds

Drop what you are doing and have some fun!

Play Supreme Court Baseball at the Oyez Project.

Well, I consider it fun so it is probably the exact opposite.