moral cosmopolitanism within a nationalist framework

In opposition to Simon Caney's view of cosmopolitan justice--that suprastate organizations are the natural and justifiable consequence of universal human rights--Margaret Moore, in the October 2006 edition of Social Theory and Practice, defends national sovereignty. Read "Cosmopolitanism and Political Communities" for the full treatment.

In this paper, I identify six arguments for differentiated political communities: three closely related, albeit distinct, justice-based arguments, two consequentialist arguments, and one argument specifically about the drawing of political boundaries but which is derivative on the value that political arrangements are intended to promote. The arguments examined are: (1) individual autonomy; (2) conditions of autonomy; (3) structural injustice; (4) fear of tyranny; (5) fear of fragmentation; and (6) subsidiarity. All the arguments discussed below are consistent with a commitment to moral cosmopolitanism, understood in terms of the claim that all persons qua persons have equal moral worth.7 They all appeal to universal moral goods that have to be weighed in an overall theory of (global and domestic) institutional design. They are relevant to the issue of the justifiability of differentiated political communities, and hence political borders, and four of the six arguments have implications for the related issue of where the borders should be drawn.

In one of the more relevant passages (to the current resolution, at least), Moore defends sovereignty as grounding autonomy.

A closely related but more persuasive argument for political jurisdictions focuses on the connection between political authority, culture, and a rich understanding of the conditions for the exercise of personal autonomy. The most influential versions of this argument are developed in relation to the protection of minority groups, but, because this argument rests on a particular account of the relationship of jurisdictional authority to the protection of group culture (not specifically minority group culture), it is best understood as an argument about the appropriate and justified relationship between jurisdictional authority and cultural group identity.

The most influential contemporary version of this argument involves essentially three claims: the first move in the argument attempts to establish a link between the collective good of culture and the exercise of personal autonomy; the second relates the good of culture to mechanisms for protection, especially the capacity to make collective decisions about culture; and the third is an equality claim, which is typically applied to minorities for the protection of their culture.

In a cosmopolitan suprastate--the likely outcome of a United Nations bent on valuing rights over sovereignty--minority groups and their cultures and languages vanish. Sovereignty preserves diversity and respects autonomy.

this is my 2000th post

Should I celebrate? Mourn the lost time? Take all the writerly energy I've been storing in a leaking lead-acid battery in the back of my brain and sit down and shut up and start the book I've been putting off and putting off because there's too much blogging in the way?

Should I go back and point out every post where I've been wrong, where no one's noticed? Thank every blogging neighbor by name or pseudonym for all the times I was linked to and didn't tip the hat? Finish categorizing all my posts so I can see which category dominates? Lose track of Adam Morrison and J.J. Redick already? Blog more about LD debate? Take more photos? Link more liberally?

I should stop using question marks.

Maybe this is the exposition, two thousand posts of character development.

Maybe this is the rising action, a roller coaster of conflict jolting toward the summit.

Maybe this is the climax. From here it's all denouement.

Maybe.

I blog for maybe.

Stick around.

taking rational basis to its rational conclusion

A while back I mentioned how the Washington State Supreme Court used "rational basis review" to uphold Washington's law limiting marriage to one man and one woman. Their reasoning: the state has a fundamental interest in procreation. After all, how else is it going to sustain its tax structure? Though I thought the Court's ruling was a bunch of bunk, I was roundly smacked down in the comments by a later anonymous interloper, who wrote,

Well, obviously you and Ms. Fairhurst are feeling rather smug about your superior talents in logic. Can you imagine? That entire legislature, along with five WSSC Justices, are nothing but morons! Irrational. In the words of Samuel Alito, in his criterion for the rational basis test, “stark raving mad.”

Oops… you should know better! “…there is no logical way…?” Big red flag there! Haven’t you ever worked a book of logic puzzles? A sucker bet to be sure.

A bisexual man is in love with another man. They want to settle down, get married. But they can’t get legal recognition for their marriage! Dreams smashed, they drift apart. Before long, the strapping young man meets a woman… love, marriage, sex, baby. The established definition of marriage has created a baby that otherwise wouldn’t have been.

A bittersweet outcome to be sure, but I think it is a decent logical refutation. Remember that the rational basis test does not require the legislators to be smart, it only requires them to have SOME RATIONAL BASIS for their belief that the legislation will advance a [state interest].

So maybe you aren’t such an exceptional logician? Maybe, just possibly, some of the legislators thought of other scenarios? That is why the rational basis claim is very, very rarely successful in overturning legislation. The legislature doesn’t need to have a GOOD plan, or a smart plan, they simply need a plan that is not 100% refutable by pure logic. Once you get past that, it is all a matter of opinion, and justices are forbidden from holding their opinions above those of the legislature.

Can't fight "pure logic." All would appear lost for the opponents of the Defense of Marriage Act.

Enter Gregory Gladow.

Proponents of same-sex marriage have introduced an initiative that would put a whole new twist on traditional unions between men and women: It would require heterosexual couples to have kids within three years or else have their marriages annulled.

Initiative 957 was filed by the Washington Defense of Marriage Alliance, which was formed last summer after the state Supreme Court upheld Washington's ban on same-sex marriage. In that 5-4 ruling, the court found that state lawmakers were justified in passing the 1998 Defense of Marriage Act, which restricts marriage to unions between a man and woman.

Under I-957, marriage would be limited to men and women who are able to have children. Couples would be required to prove they can have children to get a marriage license, and if they did not have children within three years, their marriages would be subject to annulment.

All other marriages would be defined as "unrecognized" and people in them would be ineligible to receive any marriage benefits.

"Absurd? Very," the group says on its Web site, which adds it is planning two more initiatives involving marriage and procreation. "But there is a rational basis for this absurdity. By floating the initiatives, we hope to prompt discussion about the many misguided assumptions" underlying the Supreme Court's ruling....

Cheryl Haskins, executive director of Allies for Marriage & Children, agreed with Gadow's group on at least one point about the initiative: "It's absurd," she said.

Haskins said opponents of same-sex marriage "have never said that the sole purpose of marriage is procreation."

"When we talk about defending the institution of marriage, we're talking about the union of a man and a woman," she said. "Some of those unions produce children and some of them don't."

With I-957, "you're dictating people's choices in a way that is utterly ridiculous," she said.

However, Gadow noted that the Supreme Court's majority decision specifically mentioned procreation throughout.

The opinion written by Justice Barbara Madsen concluded that "limiting marriage to opposite-sex couples furthers the state's interests in procreation and encouraging families with a mother and father and children biologically related to both."

To their credit, two of the staunchest supporters of gay rights in the Washington state legislature aren't backing the initiative, taking the polite and political way out and deferring to the rule of the legislature. But you've got to hand it to Gadow and crew for their Swiftian deconstruction of rational basis review.

All right, straight folks. Get procreatin'.


Update: As Ed finds, some people just don't appreciate irony.

Super Bowl ads among the worst ever

No, Nick Gillespie, it wasn't just you. As Seth Stevenson's rundown shows, this year's ads were some of the most banal, pathetic, or just plain dumb ever foisted on a willing public. Even one of the best ads, the Coke "Love" spot, was played to death in the multiplex before hitting the small screen.

This year we got cardiac beatings, men stripping over a crappy Chevy, chest-hair-pulling, rock-throwing, combover beards, and Mapasaurus. We also got the Web 2.0 / YouTubesque Doritos ad that threatens the entire advertising hierarchy. Sadly, it as good as anything Madison Avenue put up. The only thing we didn't get, thank God, were those stupid rock-em-sock-em robots.

On the plus side, we got Robert Goulet.

Update: Not only that, but their overall crappiness is scientific fact.

The most ineffective ad was from Honda, which showed participants were less engaged during the ad than they were when they looked at a blank screen.

Even ads for Budweiser beer, traditionally known for good-humored advertising, generated negative emotions, fMRI scans showed.

Their target group was 18-34 in age. My freshfolks, I should point out, generally found the Super Bowl ads hilarious, especially the Budweiser rock-paper-scissors spot. Maybe twentysomethings aren't as Will Ferrellish as advertisers like to think.

Sidebar: The Coke Side of Morality

1. Karma ("you give a little love and it all comes back to you")
2. Beowulfian immortality ("you're gonna be remembered for the things that you say and do")
3. Fizz ("La la la la la la la")

red light? green light!

Lacey is another metropolis succumbing to the lure of red-light cameras.

A Lacey City Council committee has authorized Police Chief Dusty Pierpoint to start the enforcement program. Pierpoint said he'd like the program up and running by July with cameras monitoring two intersections - likely ­Sleater-Kinney Road and Pacific Avenue, and Martin Way and Marvin Road.

Remember those blue lights that were installed at the intersection of Martin and Pacific? They were supposed to do the same thing. From The Olympian, April 22, 2003:

The police department has a new tool to deter motorists who run red lights. Called red-light indicators, these blue lights attached to traffic signals make catching violators easier. The light is attached to the back of the traffic signal and turns on the same moment as the red light.

They worked so well.

Anyhow, here's the funniest line of the story: "...the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety - which describes itself as an independent, nonprofit organization funded by auto insurers..."

"cosmopolitan justice" and the United Nations

Here's an article that might be useful for the most recent LD resolution, "Resolved: The United Nations' obligation to protect global human rights ought to be valued above its obligation to respect national sovereignty."

Titled "Cosmopolitan Justice and Institutional Design: An Egalitarian Liberal Conception of Global Governance," by Simon Caney, in Social Theory and Practice.

The abstract:

Caney argues that there should be suprastate institutions charged with protecting persons' fundamental rights--including, for example, their interest in security, a healthy environment, and not suffering from poverty--and mediating fairly between competing ideals of world order. This preferred world order thus posits a multilevel system of governance--one, that is, in which there are state-like political systems that possess considerable autonomy but are not fully sovereign, and in which authoritative decision-making powers are also held by regional organizations, global institutions, and substate political authorities.

Note that Caney doesn't defend the UN as an entity. Rather, his arguments show that national sovereignty must give way to human rights; if we adopt his reasoning, then, the United Nations ought to concern itself with the same priority of values.

Some of Caney's more specific arguments:

A number of considerations support the claim that the protection of persons' vital interests requires international institutions.

(1) First, international institutions are sometimes required to solve collective action problems and to implement just policies that would not otherwise be implemented. [Quality of life--disease, "race to the bottom," etc., require international governance.]

(2) [International organizations] are needed to allocate responsibilities. To explain this we need to grasp two points. First, I take it that any plausible account of eradicating global poverty requires embracing some positive duties of justice. We need positive duties of justice to cover cases in which people's fundamental interests are vulnerable because they are jeopardized by natural infirmities or natural disasters or because others have violated them. In each case an adequate protection of the interests requires more than a system in which people are said to be under negative duties. Even if people observe their negative duties, it remains possible that some have a very low standard of living, (a) because they are physically weak or senile or suffer from mental or physical handicaps, (b) because of natural calamities, or (c) because others have violated their negative duties. If we are concerned, as I think we should be, with protecting people's basic interests, then we need positive duties to aid the vulnerable when persons are disadvantaged because of (a)-(c).26... What is then required is an authoritative mechanism for allocating responsibilities....

(3) ... In many instances, however, injustice results because some actors (states, corporations, transnational associations) act unjustly. International institutions are therefore required to curb such behavior. They can do this in a number of very distinct ways. First, membership of international institutions is often of considerable benefit to member states, and international institutions are therefore able to use these benefits as an inducement to desist from unjust policies. For example, the European Union insists that those states that wish to join must comply with some principles of justice if they are to be accepted....

International institutions can also curb unjust behavior in a quite different way. As a number of international relations theorists observe, international institutions are often a means that the weak can employ. If there is a rule-governed international institution, then weak states are able to hold powerful states to account by ensuring that the latter adhere to the commonly agreed-on rules. Multilateral institutions thus constrain the actions of individual states: they offer a rule of law rather than an anarchy in which powerful states can simply avoid commitments that disadvantage them.31 ...

Third, and finally, international institutions may simply be able to prevent/punish egregiously unjust actions in cases in which those whose rights have been violated are too weak to defend themselves and in which their government is either unwilling or unable to stand up for their rights. These are the kinds of rationale that would justify the International Criminal Court....

(4) The last argument took states' preferences as given. That is, it addressed the problems that arise when states have unjust motivations and sought to find ways to discourage them from acting on these motivations. We can, however, go further. One further reason for endorsing a system comprising international institutions is that the latter can "socialize" other actors, including states, and inculcate in them certain social norms. This can serve an important role if it leads states with warlike or repressive intentions to embrace a less martial and more tolerant set of values. This argument draws on research in international relations on the phenomenon of "state socialization."...

(5) A further reason for international institutions is that in the modern globalized world, so much trade crosses into many different jurisdictions that it is sometimes unclear which system of laws and regulations applies to a specific firm or product. In some cases a system of purely national jurisdictions makes little sense when corporations straddle the world and are based in a plurality of different states and thereby governed by a plurality of different jurisdictions. Such is the extent of interdependence, and the complexity, that an international authority is needed to determine what jurisdiction applies....

A second, more ambitious, version goes beyond this and argues that, in some areas, trade is so globalized that the notion of national jurisdictions is of dubious applicability. On this view, an international institution is needed to perform a legislative role and create a system of common rules.... [S]ome phenomena, such as e-commerce, are so globalized that a system of global rules is needed for practicality's sake and hence that a global institution is needed to create these common rules...

(6) Suppose that major political actors (including firms and states) do in fact cooperate. Even this does not obviate the need for international institutions. It is possible, for example, that some will cooperate to further the desired cosmopolitan ideal but that not all will bear their rightful share.41 Some may bear an unfair duty and others may free ride or contribute less than their fair share. Given this, an international body is needed to ensure that the allocation of duties is fair...

(7) One final instrumental argument for international institutions proceeds as follows: The effective treatment of an issue requires a system in which the relevant agents can be held to account. In addition to this, accountability generally requires the identification of a particular actor who is charged with the responsibility of dealing with this problem. In short, accountability requires that we can point the finger at some particular agent and say that it is its job to deal with this issue.... the fewer actors there are, the greater the prospects for accountability.

If you set up a value structure on the Affirmative...

V: Human Rights
C: Positive Duties of Justice OR some other conception of justice that squares with the above

Some of Caney's arguments might neatly show the unique benefits of a suprastate organization that has the "last word" in competing rights claims.

At least, that's how I think it might work. Your thoughts, as always, are appreciated.

don't bet on sports: Super Bowl edition

Everyone is calling it for the Colts. Which is why I'm picking the Bears. 31-17.

I'll be liveblogging from a bunker in Elma, Washington. Stay tuned.

3:10
Just saw the family-and-friends-and-former-teachers intro. When the one dude says "New Orleans, Louisiana," the whole Big Easy feels the sting.

3:28
Hester takes it all the way back on the first play of the game. Sign of things to come, or shades of Ohio State? Remember who struck first in the BCS championship?

3:34
1. Urlacher tip. Almost intercepted.
2. Addai first down.
3a. False start.
3b. Tangled feet. Almost intercepted.
4. Swing pass to Addai for 8.
5a. False start. 3rd and 13.
5b. Interception on a long pass. Great protection; this one's all on Manning. Rough start for the Colts.

3:40
Rex Grossman's first pass is too high, but Berrian pulls it in for seven. Grossman's second pass is off his back foot, and nearly intercepted. The light drizzle is turning into a steady rain.

Salesgenie.com/tv? What the? Says dad: "So far I haven't seen any sterling advertisements." $20 gazillion per minute doesn't buy the same kind of quality it used to.

3:52
First TD for the Colts on a total defensive breakdown. Cover 2? Try covering one Wayne. Just after, the ghost of Tony Romo gets sweet revenge. 7-6, Bears. FedEx breaks a cardinal rule of Super Bowl ads, putting the "kicker" (a meteor striking a floating moon-man) before the brand name.

It's a fumble! It's another fumble! Dad says, "So far, this is a pretty exciting game." This is before the 52-yard dash by Jones.

4:02
It's 14-6 Chicago, and the Colts glow in the rainy haze. Three and out. Meanwhile, the commercials this year are perhaps the worst of all time. It's another fumble!

4:21
Chicago's defense bends, but doesn't break, holding the Colts to a field goal. 14-9.

Garmin? What the?

4:28
The Chevy HHR wins it for best and worst commercial of the day, and we're not even done with the first half. A bunch of normal guys start stripping and dancing outside an HHR as women cringe and cover their eyes inside. Good: funny. Bad: like AOL's "we cater to idiots," makes the wrong associations.

Oh, football? There's a game on? Right. Peyton Manning has settled into a groove, and the Colts are driving.

4:33
And they're in, 16-14. Meanwhile, my mom likes the "Know Your Risk" commercial where the heart guy gets kidnapped and beat up by thugs. Scary.

Oh, and she thinks the robot committing suicide (in his dream) is "cute." Wonder why I'm as weird as I am? Wonder no more.

4:46
It's a fumble! It's another fumble! These two teams are their respective division champs?

4:55
First half MVP: the Colts O line. After each snap, Manning has time to take calls from his ad agent before deigning to throw.

Viniateri misses, his first of the postseason. 16-14.

Prince, anyone?

5:28
When Prince is playing the Foo Fighters, you can pretty much write off the halftime show, which, let's face it, will take a while to return to its pre-Justin Timberlake glory.

5:40
Tony Dungy, seeing double in the gauzy rain, burns a timeout contesting the number of Bears on the turf. Field goal. 19-14 Colts.

5:57
Which failure will matter more: Rex Grossman's inability to hold on to the football, or Peyton Manning's touchdown deficit? At least for now the Colts are covering the spread. Grossman had better take a lesson from K-Fed: blow this one, flip burgers.

Jones. Give him the ball more. Jones, people.

6:07
After the Gould knuckleball makes it 22-17, the Bears defense looks a little more vigorous. Meanwhile, Tony Dungy makes one good challenge (after one bad one). No more challenges, but still two times out. (Timeouts?) Why aren't the Bear defenders jamming on third and short?

6:22
Rex throws up a gift. Colts 29, Bears 17. Grossman is no Tom Brady... or is he? 11:44 in football time left. Hours of agony for Chi-town.

6:31
Grossman again lofts the ball to the Colts. Game over. See you at the recap.

6:58
Game summary: Rex Grossman out-loses the Colts in an ugly, ugly contest.
Commercial summary: When everyone's trying to be funny, no one's funny.
Halftime summary: Prince: the world's most idiosyncratic cover artist.
Significance summary: They covered the spread. Bookies everywhere can breathe again.

Roger. Over and out.

the master of tacky ties

I have found my spiritual mentor.

Every ugly tie has a story, according to their owners.

And to those who love them, ugly ties make a statement that their tasteful counterparts just can't match.

"A plain brown or plain blue tie doesn't say anything. If you can find something with a splash of color on what is otherwise a very dreary day — that to me at least makes a little bit of a difference," said Gosseline.

They also serve another purpose — allowing the wearer to simultaneously attract attention and thumb a nose at convention.

"My general motto in life is to take nothing and nobody seriously, especially not yourself," he said.

My collection isn't quite at 200, but it's getting there.

HB 1307: one step forward

In the mad rush of events, I had almost forgotten about Brian Schraum's notes defending HB 1307, the bill that would make student journalists entirely responsible for their own content. Here are my thoughts in response, after reflection. I had originally argued that the First Amendment (at least, in my non-legal-scholarly estimation) doesn't protect your right to publish in someone else's medium.

After studying the issue in more depth, I've come to agree much more with Schraum's position than I initially had--that it is possible for students to "own" their work in a newspaper. I've looked over some of the cases where students have successfully received injunctive relief from "arbitrary and capricious" prohibitions or viewpoint discrimination. (The former language was used to allow a student to publish a yearbook photo of himself in chain mail. Nerd.) I hadn't really looked into the SPLC, and now I'm much more impressed with the constitutional protections of student speech.

However, I see Hazelwood as a reasonable position that has been unreasonably interpreted by overzealous--make that paranoid--administrators. The SPLC reports that calls to their hotlines have increased mightily in the years since Hazelwood, yet under that ruling, all a savvy newspaper teacher has to do is include express language in the publication to the effect that the newspaper is indeed a forum for the school, and not just an assignment or a function of a particular class. ("Underground," student-produced newspapers are fully protected, as are other routes of student expression.)

Schraum writes,

[In Hazelwood the] Court justified control of student newspapers simply because the public might falsely think the expression reflected that of the school. This is simply not the case; I don't think any reasonable person would look at a student newspaper and think that a principal was responsible for everything in it.

Maybe Schraum has never had to take angry parent phone calls--or maybe he automatically discounts such calls as "unreasonable"--but since administrators constantly have to justify school actions to the community, I'd like to see evidence that "reasonable people" don't (or shouldn't) confuse what's in the school newspaper with what the school condones or takes responsibility for--especially when the school is paying for it.

Schraum, though, also oversimplifies SCOTUS's claims in Hazelwood regarding the defining First Amendment case, Tinker vs. Des Moines.

We have nonetheless recognized that the First Amendment rights of students in the public schools "are not automatically coextensive with the rights of adults in other settings," Bethel School District No. 403 v. Fraser, 478 U.S. 675, 682 (1986), and must be "applied in light of the special characteristics of the school environment." Tinker, supra, at 506; cf. New Jersey v. T. L. O., 469 U.S. 325, 341-343 (1985). A school need not tolerate student speech that is inconsistent with its "basic educational mission," Fraser, supra, at 685, even though the government could not censor similar speech outside the school. Accordingly, we held in Fraser that a student could be disciplined for having delivered a speech that was "sexually explicit" but not legally obscene at an official school assembly, because the school was entitled to "disassociate itself" from the speech in a manner [484 U.S. 260, 267] that would demonstrate to others that such vulgarity is "wholly inconsistent with the 'fundamental values' of public school education." 478 U.S., at 685-686. We thus recognized that "[t]he determination of what manner of speech in the classroom or in school assembly is inappropriate properly rests with the school board," id., at 683, rather than with the federal courts

HB 1307 still allows administrators to intervene, as long as they have evidence of the potential for material disruption.

It all comes down to the ownership question. Journalism teachers and students who value free expression--and there aren't enough of either--should take the steps to declare their paper a public forum, ensuring full constitutional protection for writers. If these steps are taken, HB 1307 could be entirely superfluous.

Two uncertainties remain. If HB 1307 passes, will paranoid administrators eliminate journalism classes, using excuses like "we don't have the money" or "we need more classes for WASL prep?" Second, will students face an even greater "chilling effect" once they realize they are personally liable for their content?

HB 1307: one step forward

In the mad rush of events, I had almost forgotten about Brian Schraum's notes defending HB 1307, the bill that would make student journalists entirely responsible for their own content. Here are my thoughts in response, after reflection. I had originally argued that the First Amendment (at least, in my non-legal-scholarly estimation) doesn't protect your right to publish in someone else's medium.

After studying the issue in more depth, I've come to agree much more with Schraum's position than I initially had--that it is possible for students to "own" their work in a newspaper. I've looked over some of the cases where students have successfully received injunctive relief from "arbitrary and capricious" prohibitions or viewpoint discrimination. (The former language was used to allow a student to publish a yearbook photo of himself in chain mail. Nerd.) I hadn't really looked into the SPLC, and now I'm much more impressed with the constitutional protections of student speech.

However, I see Hazelwood as a reasonable position that has been unreasonably interpreted by overzealous--make that paranoid--administrators. The SPLC reports that calls to their hotlines have increased mightily in the years since Hazelwood, yet under that ruling, all a savvy newspaper teacher has to do is include express language in the publication to the effect that the newspaper is indeed a forum for the school, and not just an assignment or a function of a particular class. ("Underground," student-produced newspapers are fully protected, as are other routes of student expression.)

Schraum writes,

[In Hazelwood the] Court justified control of student newspapers simply because the public might falsely think the expression reflected that of the school. This is simply not the case; I don't think any reasonable person would look at a student newspaper and think that a principal was responsible for everything in it.

Maybe Schraum has never had to take angry parent phone calls--or maybe he automatically discounts such calls as "unreasonable"--but since administrators constantly have to justify school actions to the community, I'd like to see evidence that "reasonable people" don't (or shouldn't) confuse what's in the school newspaper with what the school condones or takes responsibility for--especially when the school is paying for it.

Schraum, though, also oversimplifies SCOTUS's claims in Hazelwood regarding the defining First Amendment case, Tinker vs. Des Moines.

We have nonetheless recognized that the First Amendment rights of students in the public schools "are not automatically coextensive with the rights of adults in other settings," Bethel School District No. 403 v. Fraser, 478 U.S. 675, 682 (1986), and must be "applied in light of the special characteristics of the school environment." Tinker, supra, at 506; cf. New Jersey v. T. L. O., 469 U.S. 325, 341-343 (1985). A school need not tolerate student speech that is inconsistent with its "basic educational mission," Fraser, supra, at 685, even though the government could not censor similar speech outside the school. Accordingly, we held in Fraser that a student could be disciplined for having delivered a speech that was "sexually explicit" but not legally obscene at an official school assembly, because the school was entitled to "disassociate itself" from the speech in a manner [484 U.S. 260, 267] that would demonstrate to others that such vulgarity is "wholly inconsistent with the 'fundamental values' of public school education." 478 U.S., at 685-686. We thus recognized that "[t]he determination of what manner of speech in the classroom or in school assembly is inappropriate properly rests with the school board," id., at 683, rather than with the federal courts

HB 1307 still allows administrators to intervene, as long as they have evidence of the potential for material disruption.

It all comes down to the ownership question. Journalism teachers and students who value free expression--and there aren't enough of either--should take the steps to declare their paper a public forum, ensuring full constitutional protection for writers. If these steps are taken, HB 1307 could be entirely superfluous.

Two uncertainties remain. If HB 1307 passes, will paranoid administrators eliminate journalism classes, using excuses like "we don't have the money" or "we need more classes for WASL prep?" Second, will students face an even greater "chilling effect" once they realize they are personally liable for their content?

pride goeth before destruction

Via PZ, in taking my annual quiz, I learn that...

You know the Bible 100%!

 

Wow! You are awesome! You are a true Biblical scholar, not just a hearer but a personal reader! The books, the characters, the events, the verses - you know it all! You are fantastic!

Ultimate Bible Quiz
Create MySpace Quizzes

Also, the pedant in me is angry that a question about Biblical poetry pits Ecclesiastes against the Psalms, but you can pick only one. (I went with the Psalms.) Both are poetry. Bad quiz.

Texas Republican orders HPV vaccine

Rick Perry, GOP governor of Texas, has written an executive order requiring HPV vaccination for middle school girls.

Beginning in September 2008, girls entering the sixth grade — meaning, generally, girls 11 and 12 — will have to receive Gardasil, Merck's new vaccine against strains of the human papillomavirus (HPV).

Perry also directed state health authorities to make the vaccine available free to girls 9 to 18 who are uninsured or whose insurance does not cover vaccines. In addition, he ordered that Medicaid offer Gardasil to women 19 to 21....

Perry, a conservative Christian who opposes abortion and embryonic stem-cell research, counts on the religious right for his political base. But he has said the cervical-cancer vaccine is no different from the one that protects children against polio.

"The HPV vaccine provides us with an incredible opportunity to effectively target and prevent cervical cancer," Perry said.

The shots will cost the state $50 million the first year.

A cynic might accuse Perry of sitting safely in the pocket of Merck, which stands to gain millions from the new policy--but then, why would Perry spend so much political capital by risking the anger of his supporters?

On the other side, conservative opponents sound pretty foolish:

Cathie Adams, who heads the Texas Eagle Forum, said she was "very sad" Perry issued the order and warned that state health officials and Merck are usurping the role traditionally played by parents.

"I am absolutely opposed that Merck and the state government are planning to inject young girls with a cancer-causing virus," Adams said.

Scientists, however, say the HPV vaccine uses particles that look like the virus on the outside but aren't infectious. The particles trick the body into thinking it has been infected, prompting the development of immunity to the virus.

Nothing like principled distortion of the facts.

Texas allows a faith-based or philosophical objection to vaccination. According to the CDC, approximately 80% of women over the age of 50 carry the virus.

Update: Be sure to read the comments for reader stickdog's skeptical questions. Also, check out Eugene Volokh's examination of mandatory HPV vaccination from a libertarian perspective.

Adam Morrison and J.J. Redick Watch: February 3

Morrison put up 14, but the shorthanded 'Cats got smoked by the Cavs.

Redick matched his rookie best with 13 points as the Magic spanked the Nets. Redick's recent bright spots (and overall woes) are discussed here. According to his coach, he just needs to pull the trigger on instinct, to be the shooting guard he was destined to be.

yes and no

The problem with string theory, says Lee Smolin, is that it's not falsifiable.

Smolin argues from the outset that viable hypotheses must lead to observable consequences by which they can be tested and judged. That is, they have to be falsifiable. Newton's theory of gravitation, for example, could later account for the orbit of Halley's Comet – not just those of the Moon and planets for which it was originally formulated. But string theory by its very nature does not allow for such probing, according to Smolin, and therefore it must be considered as an unprovable conjecture.

Or is it?

In 2006, string theorist Allan Adams of MIT in Cambridge, US, and others offered a more promising check. They showed that some particle collisions could reveal whether certain fundamental assumptions underlying string theory are wrong.

Now, another team has shown that the energies needed to reveal such effects are achievable at the LHC, which is being built in Geneva, Switzerland. The team was led by Jacques Distler of the University of Texas in Austin, US.

One of string theory's assumptions comes from Einstein's theory of relativity – that the speed of light is the same for all observers, a principle called Lorentz invariance.

This principle – and three others underlying string theory – determine how strongly particles called W bosons, which transmit the weak nuclear force, interact.

If these interactions are below the strength calculated by Distler's team, it would signal that one of the assumptions built into string theory is incorrect and that therefore string theory itself is wrong, the researchers say.

All we can do is wait and see.

go Cougs

CHS Cougars, that is. Missed yesterday because of all-day meetings, so I broke code and wore this polyester classic on Spirit Friday.

Cross-posted at that sanctum of spiritedness, Mr. A's world of tacky ties.

NEA Today notices

On page 33, "The Many Moods of Teacher Blogs." Thanks, NEA, for catching up to us.

I'd call this here blog "dyspeptic," or maybe "curmudgeonly." But certainly not "disheartened" or "paranoid."

does prison deter crime, or just delay it?

Joel Waldfogel takes on a new study.

In Florida during the years in question, Lee and McCrary found, the probability of being sentenced to prison for an offense jumped from 3 percent to 17 percent at exactly age 18. This tees up the answer to the economists' main question: How does the tendency to commit crimes vary around the 18th birthday, when the odds of a prison-sentence punishment jump? The answer is, hardly at all. While the probability of being arrested each week falls steadily from age 17 to age 19, there is no sizeable decrease in the arrest rate that corresponds to the bump up to an adult penalty in the weeks before and after people turn 18. To an economist, this is odd. At the grocery store, in weeks that Coke is on sale and Pepsi is not, consumers respond immediately. Coke sells out while Pepsi languishes on the shelf.

If the prospect of longer prison sentences does not deter young Floridians from committing crimes, prison still prevents some crime via the more mundane channel of locking them up—incapacitating rather than deterring them, in the lingo of criminal justice theory. Lee and McCrary see this in the re-arrest data they study. One-fifth of the people arrested the week before their 18th birthday were rearrested within a month. By contrast, only a tenth of the people arrested a week after their 18th birthday were rearrested within the same time period. The reason? The 18-year-old offenders spent more of the month behind bars (because they received longer sentences, on average) and therefore were not free to commit the crimes that would have gotten them re-arrested.

the dumbest thing the NFL has ever done

This is worse than a salary cap, NFL Europe, or Mick Jagger in tight leather pants, collecting Social Security while rockin' for the oldies at halftime.

The NFL doesn't want you to watch the Super Bowl home on the big screen, at church on the big screen, or even at church with a five-inch black-and-white TV with rabbit ears. And they sure as hell don't want you to use it to witness to confused secularites who came for the cheap nachos.

The NFL, apparently, hates every Super Bowl tradition worth having.

NFL spokesman Greg Aiello said the league's longstanding policy is to ban "mass out-of-home viewing" of the Super Bowl. A major exception to the rule is made, however, for sports bars and other businesses that show televised sports as a part of their everyday operations.

"We have contracts with our (TV) networks to provide free over-the-air television for people at home," Aiello said. "The network economics are based on television ratings and at-home viewing. Out-of-home viewing is not measured by Nielsen."

Well, guess what? Out-of-home viewing is about the only viewing going on Super Bowl Sunday, which happens to be the NFL's (if not television's) biggest day of the year. Why, when advertisers are paying more per second of screen time than Donald Trump pays for hairspray, why, why, why would they want to go and piss off their absurdly loyal viewers? Especially when even more people are going to watch those commercials just because their friends have dragged them there? Do that many people have Nielsen boxes in their homes?

The restriction on televisions larger than 55 inches is stupider still. This is America, dammit, and we like our televisions jumbo-sized. We also like to sit too close and hoot and holler and eat salt and fat by the bagfull and ignore the dog who really has to pee and is scratching at the door and whining but this is fourth and goal.

Screw you, NFL. I'm not going to boycott. Oh, no: I've already got plans to watch The Super Bowl with my dad and some neighbors and friends. We're gonna put it on a projector and blow it up to Jumbotron size. We're gonna play it on the side of the only two-story building in Elma, and invite everybody to come and enjoy the show. We're going to change the channel every time a commercial comes on and watch figure skating until the copyright police drag us away in handcuffs, just to prove a point. That point will be lost in the hubbub, and the cuffs will probably dig into our wrists, and it's no fun to stew in copyright prison, but it'll be worth it, NFL, just to know that we won't be bullied by your stupidity.


[link via Jeff Taylor]

frailty, thy name is internet

First I thought I was just having browser issues, but then I saw this: AdSense ads are having a heck of a time loading all over the place. Yesterday, Slate went down, and today I can't access Instapundit or Evangelical Outpost. Coincidence, malarkey, wormage, or what?

Update: Turns out someone cleverer beat me to the post title, but for an unrelated reason. I swear I didn't plagiarize.

Update 2/2 Instapundit had local issues unrelated to the Adsense troubles. No word on what kept EO down.

the United Nations' obligation to protect global human rights ought to be valued above its obligation to respect national sovereignty

"Resolved: The United Nations' obligation to protect global human rights ought to be valued above its obligation to respect national sovereignty."

So says the March-April resolution. Stay here for analysis, links, and quality discussions in the coming days and weeks.

The tempting Aff strategy will be to value Human Rights (which criterion? hmm...) while the Neg could turn the resolution, arguing that national sovereignty grounds rights. I predict a lot of talk about Iraq and Darfur and North Korea. More, much more, to come.

Update: The Aff might argue that, at least according to its own statement of principles, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the UN's core values are human dignity and human rights, "the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world." As Article 2 states,

Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status. Furthermore, no distinction shall be made on the basis of the political, jurisdictional or international status of the country or territory to which a person belongs, whether it be independent, trust, non-self-governing or under any other limitation of sovereignty.

National sovereignty is a mask for oppression, and national boundaries are illusory when it comes to rights. For that reason alone, rights take precedence. In fact, as Article 28 declares,

Everyone is entitled to a social and international order in which the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration can be fully realized.

Hence the UN's grounds for actions in violation of sovereignty.

Update 2/2: Some research terms, if you're looking for ideas in library catalogs:

Autonomy, Common heritage of mankind (International law), Decolonization, Government liability (International law), Immunities of foreign states, Jurisdiction (International law), Legitimacy of governments (or "governmental legitimacy"), Secession, Self-determination, National, Social contract, State rights

Suggest your own in the comments.

Update 2/4: Regarding what I wrote above, the Aff could argue that although the UN values rights, it also maintains strict neutrality because of its respect for sovereignty (and respects member nations' self-determination). This has led to the UN's ineffectiveness. To make the UN effective, give it more ability to violate sovereignty. (On the other hand, any arguments about whether the UN works are tangents, one could argue. It's what ought to be, not what is.)

Update 2/5: I discuss how Simon Caney's conception of "cosmopolitan justice" supports giving priority to human rights over national sovereignty in the context of international law.

Update 2/6: And then I give time to the alternate view by Margaret Moore.

Update 2/7: Some neighborhood bloggers are examining an issue that might serve as a test case for the resolution: whether we have a right to be free from religious defamation, a right some are pressing the UN to adopt as binding.

Update 2/9: Jerry Pubantz's "Constructing Reason: Human Rights and the Democratization of the United Nations" shows that the UN's mission to promote human rights isn't just a dream of western liberal elites.

Update 2/10: Stuart Elden's "Contingent Sovereignty, Territorial Integrity and the Sanctity of Borders" not only describes the UN's commitment to sovereignty, but offers four potentially interactive and different definitions of the term. A must-read.

Update 2/11: Ekaterina Kuznetsova's "Limit Sovereignty if the State Abuses It" offers justification for an Affirmative based on a value of Human Rights and a criterion of Humanitarian Law.

Also, William C. Gay explains why statism is "warist."

Update 2/15: I wonder how the Aff should define "global human rights," and point out potential Neg angles of attack.

Update 2/17: The SEP's articles on sovereignty and world government offer good background and potential Neg objections to violations of sovereignty, respectively. More on the latter soon. Also, Jürgen Habermas makes an appearance, talking about global values and imperialism.

Update 2/25: Is sovereignty obsolete? Does the World Court respect sovereignty? Does respecting sovereignty save lives?

Update 2/28: An article that may be of interest for those pursuing (or defending against) the balance neg.

Update 4/3: People are still debating it, so I'm still thinking about it. I discuss the Balance Neg.

(Looking for last month's resolution? Click here.)