your patriotic duty

It is your patriotic duty to turn in your penny jar to the police.

It is your patriotic duty to use only credit cards.

It is your patriotic duty to suspect Canadians.

SCOTUS hears the Davenport case

The Olympian notes that the WEA agency shop fees case has been argued before the Supreme Court. You can read the transcript here [pdf]. Highlights:

[PAUL D.] CLEMENT [for the state of Washington]: And I think it's instructive if you look in the joint appendix, I think it's at page joint appendix 45, you have the form that's available to union members to opt in to PAC contributions, and have payroll deductions made for the PAC contributions. The union certainly makes it much easier to opt in to PAC contributions than it makes it to opt out vis a vis the Hudson packet....

I could suggest where maybe the Washington Supreme Court went awry in its analysis, it focused almost exclusively on the three stated purposes that were included in the text of Initiative 134, which were all focused more on electoral integrity.

That's not surprising, because there were 36 sections in Initiative 134 that dealt with the whole manner of different campaign finance initiatives. Before this initiative was passed by the voters of Washington there weren't any campaign contribution limits in the State of Washington.

So this initiative is doing a lot more work, just besides Section 760. I think 760 isn't unrelated to those broader purposes because it does make sure that the contributions of the workers here are voluntary, and I think that is certainly something that's very similar to what Federal law accomplishes through the separate segregated fund requirements....


MR. WEST [for the WEA]: Thank you, Mr. Chief -- Mr. Chief Justice, and may it please the Court:

Our submission that Section 760 unconstitutionally burdens the union's First Amendment right to engage in political advocacy rests on three points. One, the statute before the Court is a campaign finance law that was enacted for the purpose of protecting the public's interest in the integrity of the electoral process. Two, it is a content-based restriction on speech, which cannot be justified by the State's authority to limit agency fees in the first place. Three, the statute does not serve a compelling State interest both because it is overbroad in restricting, restricting speech on ballot propositions and because it's underinclusive in regulating the campaign speech of unions but not of other comparably situated entities....



MR. MCKENNA [for the state of Washington]: Yes. Your Honor, the Chief Justice is correct, of course. What I thought the question was about was the question of whether or not all, all non-germane expenses must be opt-in, must be provided. That's all I meant. You're absolutely correct. Of course, in your decisions opt-out is satisfactory, and we're not saying that opt-out is not satisfactory here as far as the State's position is concerned. But what we are saying is that the State has the right to impose this additional requirement of affirmative authorization....


MR. MCKENNA: We don't believe it is content-based, Your Honor. As I said, we don't believe it is, because it's any election of any kind.
JUSTICE GINSBURG: Well, the content means a category of speech as opposed to what is the political position you're taking.
MR. MCKENNA: Yes, that is it's only in regard to influencing elections or operating a political committee, which is a second.
JUSTICE GINSBURG: But I thought that that was content. You could do it, say, in the press, but you couldn't do it over the air.
JUSTICE SCALIA: That's my understanding, too. I think you got to get out of it some other way. I mean, you've got to say it's content but it doesn't apply when it's the government contributing money or it doesn't apply when you're applying it to money that's being coerced by the government.
MR. MCKENNA: Yes, Your Honor.
JUSTICE BREYER: If that's yes, then the category here is election speech. If you're going to call a statute that treats election speech especially, then all of campaign finance regulation would fall in that category. And if you're going to use that distinction to say strict scrutiny applies, then strict scrutiny would apply to all campaign finance regulation. And courts never to my knowledge apply strict scrutiny to campaign finance regulation because there are speech interests on both sides of the equation.
MR. MCKENNA: Yes, Your Honor. Of course, we believe that -
JUSTICE BREYER: I'm glad you said yes to me because that implies a no to the last question.
(Laughter.)

I agree with the AP assessment that the Court sounds favorable to the state's position, but only on the issue of whether the WEA could make the Hudson process easier, and that the law might not be too burdensome. Nevertheless, they could rule that Washington's campaign finance law, if allowed to stand, as the WEA argues, represents an unfair form of discrimination against nonmembers who support the WEA's political efforts, and that "affirmative authorization" is satisfied by the Hudson opt-out process. (At one point, Justice Alito says "opt-in" before catching himself--the issue is linguistically confusing to everyone who confronts it.)

John West, advocating for the WEA, comes off as a bit flustered in some of his arguments.

I'll write more after I have time to fully digest the (68-page) hearing.

Update: Dahlia Lithwick's summary is well worth your time, if you want the quick rundown.

Update update: Although I will say I'm not terribly fond of the analogy to date rape.

bloody, brilliant

The first, via Joe Carter: Mary Poppins as Roman Polanski would have imagined her.

The second, via a commenter on the first: a Cravenesque Office Space.

Ah, sweet broadband. Why did I suffer so long without thee?

the Categorical Imperative and the corporation

Reader euan hypothesizes the consequences of applying the Categorical Imperative to corporations.

Well, the actions of corporations are so much more complex than the actions of individuals and are almost never based on a pure, or moral, motive. Corporations, in almost every situation, are based around profit (they are not ALL based around profit, as some are charity organizations.) Corporations don't exist to do what is "right," they don't exist to fulfill their moral duty. Human life, on the other hand, is centered around becoming MORE human, and we exist to find a deeper humanity. We do this by doing what is right, without question. Humans can be held to moral standards because we exist to become more moral, more human. Corporations exist for a different purpose than to be moral and/or more human, therefore their actions can't be held to those same moral standards that dictate the actions of individuals.

Hm . . . Humans strive to be more human. Corporations strive to make a profit. A corporation cannot take an action because the members of the corporation decide that the action is "right." The actions of corporations always take into account their shareholders, profit, budget, etc.. They are never and can never be pure. Therefore, the actions of a corporation can't be moral, so they ought not to be held to the same moral standard as the actions of individuals. Or something.

Any ideas?

First, I'm not sure that the greater complexity of corporations is a knock-down argument for their moral "differentness." Think about how complex a human being is, how complicated the decisions we make every day, all the obligations we place upon ourselves, or have placed upon us--legal, moral, familial, societal, to name a few--and you start to realize that, in euan's words, humans "are never and can never be pure." Does this mean their actions can't be moral? I think not. A moral standard is a goal for action, and a failure to reach a goal doesn't necessarily invalidate the goal. (The confusion between what humans--or corporations--do and ought to do is common in these arguments.)

Also, does Kant's morality derive from a notion of "purpose?" That claim requires justification. It seems to me to come more from a notion of "good will," which is good in and of itself, the will of an autonomous agent.

Kantian morality might apply to corporations thusly: they should act in a way that they can universally will for every other corporation to act. However, if it can be shown that corporations are not autonomous agents, but are rather inherently "heteronomous," then the Categorical Imperative doesn't apply, and their actions should be held to a different standard.

that flag it stands for snow day

Not exactly a masterpiece of photographism--it was cold, and I was in a hurry--but it at least shows why I'm home from school today. My wife, on the other hand, still had to trek over to Evergreen, where they don't cancel classes unless the power's out.

Just wait until tomorrow, when all this slushy mess freezes solid.

welcome to Winn-Dixie

It looks like the sort of tie you'd see a grocery manager sport as he greets you at the checkout. Oh, and the year is 1976.

Cross-posted at that one-stop shop of style, Mr. A's world of tacky ties.

you never know what that boulder might be thinking

Joe Carter thinks he's found the core bizarritude at the heart of materialism:

...we are unable to clearly determine whether our thoughts are being produced by our desk, our chair, our TV, or our brain. After all, they are all composed of matter and matter is one. It's weird but is it wrong?

This is a problem for materialism? Spiritual dualism posits the existence of disembodied psyches that can exist even after brain death. If the brain isn't a necessary component of the mind, then what's to stop a boulder from having memories, wishes, or desires? How does dualism exclude animists from the table, except by special pleading? Or, if dualists are able to refute animism, by what non-arbitrary standards?

Florida shellacks Ohio State; pundits baffled

Contradiction in terms: "conventional wisdom."

It wasn't even close. OSU looked strong for all of sixteen seconds. After that, all Gators, all the time. Heisman jinx? Too much rest? Angry football gods? Who knows? Jim Tressel calls "go for it" on fourth and one at his own 29, and the rest, as they say, is mystery.

are you learning, Dave?

Over on my educational blog, I note new computer technology that may give interactive learning software the power to spice things up when you're getting bored.

I'll say it again

A while back I took Bill Simmons' NFL prognostications to task. Now, it looks like Simmons has learned his lesson. After a wild year of upsets and the death of conventional wisdom, a chastened sportspundit laments,

My long-running NFL Playoff Manifesto (here's the 4.0 version) centered on the premise that it's a puzzle that can be pieced together with a proven set of gambling rules. This mantra worked nicely for a long time, peaking when I went 28-14-2 over a four-year playoff span from '01 to '04 (here and on my old Web site). When we entered the era of Perpetual Putridity, those rules became irrelevant and the Manifesto posted a .500 mark (11-11) over the past two playoffs. Now we're coming off a regular season in which underdogs finished an astonishing 39 games over .500. It's foolish to pretend that there's any rhyme or reason to this stuff from year to year. I give up.

Further on down, in the playoff picks, comes this gem:

You're telling me they can't get it together for three hours and beat a clearly inferior team?

"They" are the Cowboys. The "inferior team," the Seahawks. We know how that turned out.

Don't bet on sports.

Incidentally, for whatever reason, I'm calling tomorrow's NCAA football championship a close Gators victory. Everybody in the whole world, your grandmother included, thinks Ohio State is gonna walk all over Florida. Everybody is wrong.

Florida 31, OSU 27. You'll all hate me when I'm right.

are you ready for the revolution? tracking engagement with technology

I'd argue the primary concern most teachers have with technology-based learning is the removal of the human element. It's not that we fear losing our jobs--robots aren't that smart yet--but that learning isn't just about memorizing facts. You have to have an emotional investment in the content and the process. As it stands, a computer can't tell if a user is bored, and can't adapt to make her unbored.

That may soon change. Researchers are developing technology to monitor student engagement, and reflexively adjust programs to spark interest when a student gets frustrated or unattached.

The system keeps track of students' attention by measuring physical signs of emotion. It then varies the speed and content of a lesson based on an assessment of their level of interest. Ultimately, it could improve electronic tutoring programmes, say the researchers involved, thus helping developing countries deliver education to remote areas that lack educational institutions....

To use the new learning software, a student wears a ring fitted with sensors that monitor heart rate, blood pressure and changes in electrical resistance caused by perspiration. This data is then transmitted via Bluetooth to a computer that assesses the wearer's emotional state. It judges whether they are interested and keeping up or bored and struggling.

"We've built a prototype that can moderate the flow of educational information as a result," Callaghan told New Scientist. For example, it can slow down or change topic if a student seems disinterested, or appears to be falling behind. The software might also try a different mode of delivery, switching from text to video, for example.

The system is being tested in China and Great Britain, and is perhaps only a couple years from wider integration into the e-classroom.

I, for one, welcome our new robot pedagogues.

do corporations have only one goal?

Continuing the discussion of the current LD resolution, one of the arguments I repeatedly heard this past weekend was that corporations exist only to make a profit, or, in a broader generalization, that they have only one goal. The affs I watched either didn't bother to refute, or had weak responses to, either claim.

The first is rather easily defeated by pointing out the existence of not-for-profit corporations.

The second also strikes me as defeasible. Is the only--or primary--goal of McDonald's, for example, to earn a profit? Could it be argued that McDonald's profit-making is a means to a different end: political power, world domination, social transformation, or other goals I can't imagine? Do we take corporations at their word, and look at their mission statement for their goal(s), or do we apply a functionalist framework to all corporations regardless of their stated aims? Or, even further, do we treat corporate mission statements--and even the profit-seeking motive--as false consciousness?

In other words, do we take a descriptive stance--corporations actually act this way, so that's what their goals are--or a normative stance, claiming that corporations all act in the way Milton Friedman says?

According to a new LA Times article as distilled through the Seattle Times, corporate actions can belie their intentions, and even undermine other actions of that same corporation.

At the Gates Foundation, blind-eye investing has been enforced by a firewall it has erected between its grant-making side and its investing side. The goals of the former are not allowed to interfere with the investments of the latter. With the exception of tobacco companies, asset managers do not avoid investments in enterprises whose activities conflict with the foundation's mission to do good.

Is the goal of the Gates Foundation to save the world or to maximize its wealth?

Yes. Or no. Or "false either-or." What do you think?

Update: Jason Kuznicki responds.

all in favor

If you catch only three gems in one session, it must have been a good session.

in apprehension, how like a god!

David J. Chalmers and Alan Hájek prove that Shakespeare was right in a tidy little syllogism [pdf].

According to the Ramsey test, it follows that all instances of (1) and (2) are acceptable to a rational subject. But if one accepts all instances of (1), one should accept that one is omniscient. And if one accepts all instances of (2), one should accept that one is infallible. So the Ramsey test and Moorean reasoning entail that rational subjects should accept that they have the epistemic powers of a god.

Go ahead. Read it. Then try to prove them wrong.


[Link via Jonathan Ichikawa's great site, Online Papers in Philosophy.]

friendship and democracy: a tense coexistence

In another "file it away for the next Lincoln-Douglas resolution about democracy" department, consider this essay by Mark Vernon on the tense relationship between democracy and friendship, and how each relates to justice.

Gary Davenport, living proof that WEA efforts aren't in vain

The Olympian reminds us that the anti-WEA lawsuit over agency shop fees heads to the Supreme Court for oral argument this week. Profiling Gary Davenport--who comes off as a nice, thoughtful guy, if a bit strained, calling the union "bullies"--the article notes something just a little ironic:

The former high school social studies teacher said he left teaching because his growing family needed more money than he earned as a teacher.

I seem to recall a particular union spending nearly all its political capital to change that.

Seattle Seahawks' Emerald City Miracle

As my brother notes, they were "good enough to win." They certainly weren't any better, beating a sinking Dallas squad by the sort of miracle one only sees in a Dallas-Seattle contest. (And no, no one's mentioned that it was Jordan Babineaux who saved the game both times.)

I didn't see any of it. When the UPS tournament reps turned off the televisions in the student center, telling us it was time for awards, there was near mutiny. Even debate nerds love their football. The last thing I saw, Seattle stopped Dallas on third a goal, setting up the Gramatica field goal that never was. I didn't see Romo bungle the hold, or the game-saving tackle by "Big Play Babs," or the Seattle punt that sailed out with two seconds left, or the failed Hail Mary by Romo that our last-second acquisition knocked down. I heard about it when some high school student threw down his cell phone and shrieked, "We won!"

And now we face either Chicago (never mind what they did to us last time, they're fallible) or New Orleans (they are going to crush us). More injuries, too. Oh well. At least we didn't exit in the first round.

Update: Now that the Eagles beat the Giants, we're gonna face Chicago. I am provisionally optimistic.

when courts try to define religion, all hell breaks loose

My brother (rightly) worries about a court's overly-broad definition of "evangelical."

Elswhere, the "Church of Cognizance" can't get its Weed Cult the official status of government-recognized religion. Make that Religion. Jacob Sullum explains.

Okay, back to the UPS debate tournament I go.

in the morning paper

Two Olympia School District board members hosted a seminar about the funding lawsuit here in WA. (No mention in the article that the OSD voted not to join the lawsuit--and that Lehman, one of the two, first floated the idea, only to have it shot down.)

Meanwhile, a new revelation in the Foss shooting: the suspect may have had a history of bringing guns to school, but district officials claim they never heard about it. If true, it would go down as an utterly tragic miscommunication between the court system and the school.

just a moment

Yesterday's tacky tie is a "slice of history." Find out why at that nexus of nostalgia, Mr. A's world of tacky ties.