The General Cabbage Report

How To Pick Presidents

Richard — Fri, 07 Mar 2008 19:35:00 +0000

In her victory speech after winning the Ohio primary Hillary Clinton said:

"You know, they call Ohio a bellwether state. It’s a battleground state. It’s a state that knows how to pick a president."

She is correct that Ohio plays a significant role in picking presidents. Ohio picked Bush in 2000 and in 2004 by narrow margins—in both instances Ohio’s Electoral College votes determined the election. Ohio remains a large and diverse state that can go either direction in presidential elections. Our Congressional delegation is a mix of republicans and democrats. Ohio is not as representative of the country as it once was (most significantly because the economic downturn has hit Ohio worse than any other state save Michigan). Nevertheless, any presidential candidate for either party will find it difficult to win the White House without winning Ohio.

The problem with Clinton’s statement is that Ohio chose poorly in the last two presidential elections. In tragic lapses of judgment Ohio chose George W. Bush in both 2000 and 2004. We never would have had to think about hanging chads or thrown the election to the Supreme Court in 2000 if merely 89,000 Ohio voters had chosen differently that year. It is pointless to speculate about how a President Gore would’ve performed as the 43rd President. But given the stunningly poor performance of the current President it is unlikely that Gore would’ve been comparably disastrous. Regardless of how she feels about Gore, it is shocking that Clinton believes Ohio knows how to pick a President.

I think it is proper to view the Clinton primary victory as consistent with Ohio’s recent presidential judgment. If Bush was strike one and two, I think the Hillary vote was a foul ball straight back over home plate. Let us hope that Ohio doesn’t swing and miss with McCain in November.

An Honest Moment?

Richard — Thu, 21 Feb 2008 19:04:00 +0000

After touring a genocide memorial in Kigali, Rwanda this week, President Bush said,

"A clear lesson I learned in the museum was that outside forces that tend to divide people up inside their country are unbelievably counterproductive."

Take a moment is snigger at his awkward turn of phrase, but then take a closer look at the substance of his statement. He likely is just saying something he thinks people say after visiting a memorial to genocide. If only it were truly a moment of reflection brought on by an authentic engagement with awfulness of the suffering in Rwanda (and elsewhere). Although Bush boasts about not be reflective or introspective, there were moments in his Africa visit this week when he seemed genuinely moved by the conditions of those in desperate need. So let us hope that his accidental moment marks the first steps toward acknowledging some culpability for the ongoing suffering of Iraqis. But even if President Bush is unable to recognize how "unbelievably counterproductive" his foreign policy is, we can hope that Americans will take Bush's insight to heart in future foreign policy adventures from Iraq and Iran to Cuba and Columbia.

Big Love

Richard — Fri, 15 Feb 2008 20:10:00 +0000

Mitt Romney gave John McCain a Valentine's Day endorsement giving the Arizona Senator almost enough delegates to secure the republican nomination. Just a few weeks ago Romney called McCain "wrong" and "dishonest" and said that McCain is "virtually indistinguishable" from Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton. He frequently ridiculed McCain as unknowledge about the economy. So what calculations caused Romney to change his mind?

Romney continued his fearmongering about the global war on jihad and McCain is likely to follow this same tactic of scaring voters into supporting the republican nominee. (McCain even went so far this week as to pander to the pro-waterboarding folks in his party, almost reversing his principled opposition to torture.)

But the cause for Romney's change is that he is running for president in 2012. He still might get a VP nod from McCain which would bolster his 2012 run. Or he is simply trying to score points with the GOP establishment by coming in line with presumptive nominee. Romney does not want to violate Reagan's 11th commandment and if he stands in the way of McCain he might as well be supporting the global jihad. But he, like many self-described conservatives, expect and secretly hope that McCain will lose. They believe that an Obama Administration will pave the way for Romney in 2012 in the same way that Jimmy Carter paved the way for Reagan in 1980. So it was easy for Romney to reverse his previous assessment of McCain and kick-off his 2012 campaign.

Contemptible

Richard — Fri, 15 Feb 2008 13:16:00 +0000

The House of Representatives voted yesterday to hold two high level Bush advisors in contempt for failing to cooperate with a Congressional inquiry into the purge of federal prosecutors in 2006-2007. White House chief of staff Josh Bolten is charged with failing to testify and former White House counsel Harriet Miers is charged with refusing to turn over documents related to the political motivations of the firings.

Republicans staged a walkout because they said the contempt orders were politically motivated. Of course the contempt orders carried a political subtext as did the walkout. But to assert that Congress is political is not an argument. The political posturing is what it is; it should obfuscate an analysis of the substance of the matter.

The republican walkout, however, is designed to avoid the substance of the matter. The democrats are trying to make as much hay as possible, but that is not a reason to ignore the seriousness of Executive branch staffers refusing to cooperate with the Constitutionally mandated oversight responsibility of Congress. The Congress represents We The People and must be vigilant in checking the power of executive branch officials. It is imperative to our judicial system that federal prosecutors serve the law. If the White House puts partisanship over the law it does serious damage to the rule of law. Republicans are failing Congress, the Judiciary, and the country. If Bolten, Meirs, and the White House did nothing unseemly then the move will backfire on the democrats. Open government, the rule of law, and Congressional oversight are far more important than the partisan concerns of the Bush Administration.

Sticky Rice

Richard — Thu, 14 Feb 2008 22:20:00 +0000

Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice appeared before Senate and House committees yesterday to answer questions about the Administration’s intentions in Iraq. After questions about the future of Iraq (and contradictory White House statements relating to Iraq), some Members of Congress brought up the recent study by the Center on Public Integrity that found Rice made at least 56 false statements about the national security threat posed by Iraq in the two years following September 11, 2001. The report asserts that Rice’s false statements were part of an orchestrated PR campaign designed to sway public opinion in favor of the invasion. The success of the PR campaign was essential to leading the nation to war. Rice, Cheney, Bush might’ve convinced themselves they were telling a Noble Lie in service of neoconservative dreams, but the fact is, Rice et al led the republic into an unnecessary war under decidedly false pretenses.

When confronted with findings of the report, Rice grew indignant and responded, “I did not at any time make a statement that I knew to be false or that I thought to be false.”

This is a shockingly low standard. The U.S. went to war because Rice wasn’t certain that WMD claims were false?! When a republic is considering war, its leaders should make every effort to find out what is wise and true. Presidential advisors should have higher standards than repeating information they “do not know to be false.” And it is downright despicable to knowingly deploy a glitzy marketing campaign on such dubious pretenses. This Administration has repeatedly dragged out the (incorrect) trope that because there is some doubt (about global warming, biology, smoking causing cancer), we should not act. To go to war with lower evidentiary standards than is required for public health policy verges on evil.

And why didn’t Rice say that her statements were true? Or, that she believed them to be true? Her clever and vigorous protestations are acknowledgments that she now knows her statements were untrue; that she should’ve known they were false at the time.

But she should be truthful, not merely avoid saying things she knows are false. She knows now, and she knew then, that she was not being truthful. “Know to be false”? She knew it wasn’t true, but she couldn’t prove it false. Rice is playing clever with her words. She is defensive because she knows she failed to do the right thing. Maybe she didn’t know it was false. It is logically impossible for Saddam Hussein to prove that he does not have WMD; therefore it is impossible for Rice to know with certainty that she was saying falsehoods. She merely misled and misrepresented. She avoided speaking truthfully and now gets indignant when she is held a little accountable.

Secretary Rice’s doth protest too much, methinks.

P.S., He's black.

Richard — Mon, 11 Feb 2008 21:57:00 +0000

The whisper campaign by Hillary Clinton and her proxies has grown nearly silent since the South Carolina primary when the tactic seemed to backfire. But it was a good test because almost certainly Barack Obama will face similar nasty politicking in the general election. It is heartening that democratic primary/caucus voters have not fallen for those who would appeal to America's lesser tendencies. Nevertheless, the Rove-inspired machine that gave us Swiftboating and McCain's bastard children is certainly going to remind voters that Barack is black. Primaries are good practice for the pressures of the campaign and the office. A significant portion of Obama’s appeal is his comfort in his multiracial skin. In polite company people will ask, ‘is the country ready for a black president?' This is code for, ‘some people are not ready for a black man as president', which is code for a lingering fear of a black planet. Welcome to the terrordome will be the subtext of fear in the republican campaign against Obama. For a taste of what good people will have to endure this fall, we can look to a recent demagogic racial appeal by Governor Huckabee:

You don't like people from outside the state coming in and telling you what to do with your flag. In fact, if somebody came to Arkansas and told us what to do with our flag, we'd tell 'em what to do with the pole; that's what we'd do.

The language is coded, but it is an authentic old-school racist appeal. The Confederate Battle flag was first flown over the state capitol in 1962 in defiance of the civil rights movement. When Huckabee channels the spirit of the Stars & Bars or Clinton reminds us that he’s black, they are purposefully provoking and exploiting a racialized ugliness that probably will win some votes. We can expect plenty more of that this fall. Let us hope that candidate Obama can move us collectively closer to the better angels of our nature.

Joe McCarthy would be proud

Richard — Fri, 08 Feb 2008 18:46:00 +0000

After spending a small fortune, Mitt Romney yesterday bowed out of the GOP presidential nomination contest. It is particularly ironic that the republicans rejected a religiously faithful, enormously successful businessman, with a good suit and beautiful family. In many ways he is the embodiment of what republicans stand for. Unfortunately for Mitt, he came off as smug and pandering. He should have run from his strengths instead of acting like a rabid social conservative. But he felt that GOPers wouldn't trust a Massachusetts governor no matter hope competent at business. So instead of emphasizing his business acumen he acted like an ideologue. So it goes.
As if to emphasize his rejection of pragmatism, he offered up a screed for the Conservative Political Action Committee:

If I fight on in my campaign, all the way to the convention, I would forestall the launch of a national campaign and make it more likely that Senator Clinton or Obama would win. . . And in this time of war, I simply cannot let my campaign be a part of aiding a surrender to terror.

Joe McCarthy would be proud. This is probably a signal of the republican campaign to come. Fearmongering over terrorism worked well in 2004 and the republicans seem to be banking on that tactic again. Nevermind that Clinton, Obama, and the democratic Congress are not interested in a quick withdraw from Iraq, it is electorally rewarding to foment fear. So Romney goes out in an embarrassing redux of Red Scare hysteria. We once feared communists in out midst now we are being baited into fearing those who would surrender to terrorism. I am deeply embarrassed for Romney if he actually believes this nonsense.

Language analysis of State of the Union--Bush's fave words

Richard — Wed, 30 Jan 2008 00:04:00 +0000

Natural-language expert Kevin Dooley ran each of Bush's State of the Union addresses (counting the first one, which was technically an address to the joint Congress) through algorithms to determine which words Bush wanted to emphasize. The result is a sort of cloud view of Bush's buzzwords from each address.

read more | digg story

Obama v. McCain

Richard — Wed, 23 Jan 2008 19:59:00 +0000

It'll be Obama v. McCain for President of the United States. Huckabee will put up a fight but republicans are going to settle for McCain. Obama will get the momentum necessary to win even Ohio and Pennsylvania. So there you; my predictions. :-)

Declaration of Misinformation

Richard — Thu, 10 Jan 2008 16:48:00 +0000

During a rousing moment in the final New Hampshire debate, Mike Huckabee misquoted the Declaration of Independence. This in itself may be excused, except that the nature of his misquote betrays his misunderstanding of the Declaration. It may also reveal a more insidious intention to purposefully misread the Declaration and promote destructive ignorance. It may be a good electoral tactic, but it is truly unfortunate. Huckabee declared that,

“the primary purpose of a government, is to recognize that those rights did not come from government, they came from God. They are to be protected, and then defined, as the right to a life, the right to liberty, our freedom to live our lives like we wanna live them without government telling us how to do it.”

He is simply wrong—substantively and conceptually. Whether misinformed, ignorant, or deceptive, we cannot afford a president who either misunderstands the founding principles of our government and civil society or is trying to undermine those principles.

No one (other than some law & order conservatives or pro-torture hardliners) believes that rights come from government. He sets up this straw man in order to make is argument that rights came from God. This is simply a distortion (at best) of the intentions and ideas of the Framers. The Declaration actually says that,

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.”

The framers believed that the liberty of acting according to our own will is grounded in the possession of reason. John Locke said it is reason that makes us free and equal. Reason allows us to recognize the humanistic principle “that all being equal and independent, no one ought to harm another in his life, health, liberty or possessions.”

Because all have access to the Law of Reason, we the people are able to institute government in order to protect and preserve those rights we naturally possess. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. The “Creator” is not important to this principle. We have Rights because we are human and we extend Rights to others because we can recognize our shared humanity. Government is charged with the administrative task of guaranteeing our Rights. In no way is it the “primary purpose of a government . . . to recognize that those rights . . . came from God” as Huckabee imagines.

Furthermore, Huckabee’s idea of “God” has little in common with the deistic “Creator” of the Declaration. The founders where actually quite careful to exclude “God” from our charter documents and they certainly did not believe in a theistic God like Huckabee’s. But this is probably the real coded message of misinformation that Huckabee intends. If Huckabee wants to turn these United States into a theocracy, he should say so. There are those among his supporters who would like to create a Christian Nation. If this is Huckabee intent he should say as much. To distort Locke, Jefferson, Madison, et al is a betrayal of ideas and people who established the government that Huckabee wants to lead. The Constitution offers significant protection against politicians that would undermine its principles or who try to tear down the wall separating church and state, but we must be vigilant in listening to the coded words our would-be presidents speak.

Lobbying for regulation changes

Richard — Sun, 02 Dec 2007 17:09:00 +0000

Here is an interesting article on efforts to change government regulations during the current political season.

So it goes

Richard — Thu, 12 Apr 2007 10:58:00 +0000

Kurt Vonnegut is dead.

more bong hits

Richard — Mon, 19 Mar 2007 12:20:00 +0000

The Bong Hits for Jesus is an example of performative politics. That is, the substance of the slogan, that one should get tight on Jesus' behalf is absurd. The school Principle how sees a "message that encourages drug use" is either tragically earnest or misguided. Probably both. The political statement is about free speech, not about religion or drugs.

Bong Hits 4 Jesus

Richard — Mon, 19 Mar 2007 11:49:00 +0000

The Supreme Court today hears arguments in a case about a teenager's right to annoy his principal by displaying a banner saying: "Bong Hits 4 Jesus." The youth was suspended, thus starting a five-year free-speech battle. The dispute between Joseph Frederick, who in 2002 was a high school senior, and principal Deborah Morse has become an important test of the limits on the free speech rights of students.

The Court famously ruled 40 years ago that students do not leave their First Amendment Right behind when they enter school. Schools do, however, have a legitimate interest in maintaining an educational environment and they are allowed to define the educational purposes of the school.

The Bush administration, backing Morse, wants the court to adopt a broad rule that could essentially give public schools the right to clamp down on any speech with which it disagrees. Principal Morse suffers from having no sense of humor, but are there limits to free speech in the public schools? For instance, should schools be allowed to limit religious proselytizing for the sake of the educational environment? Would this case be different if a student held up a sign reading "Jesus Died 4 U"? What are the dangers of too much free expression in schools?

pardon me

Richard — Sun, 11 Mar 2007 18:40:00 +0000

In his column in today's paper, Frank Rich essentially agrees with my position that Scooter Libby will certainly be pardoned sometime after election day 2008. There is no reason to think that President Bush will err on the side of the Rule of Law thereby allowing Libby to serve his debt to society. But the Rule of Law is the citizenry's protection against the capriciousness of rulers. Far too often President Bush has used Fear itself to coerce the result he desires instead of allowing the processes of the democracy. The Republic is ill served when leaders the law into their own hands--a pardon is nothing if not vigilantism. Although Libby's crime was against the Institution of the Judiciary, the subtext is deeply political. The President will give Libby a get-out-jail card because political calculations are more important to him than upholding the principles of due process and the rule of law. That the President will wait until December 2008 to pardon merely Libby betrays the White House lack of principle.

Jean Baudrillard dies

Richard — Thu, 08 Mar 2007 19:05:00 +0000

The French critic and provocateur Jean Baudrillard, whose theories about consumer culture and the manufactured nature of reality were intensely discussed both in rarefied philosophical circles and in blockbuster movies like “The Matrix,” died yesterday in Paris. He was 77.

New York Times article

An Inconvenient Truth

Richard — Thu, 01 Mar 2007 18:48:00 +0000

When asked whether he would watch "An Inconvenient Truth" President Bush said he had no intention to do so because there was a "fundamental debate" about whether global warming was "manmade or natural." It was a willfully ignorant statement in contradiction of scientific consensus. Now the White says, "President Bush has consistently acknowledged climate change is occurring and humans are contributing to the problem." The White House revisionism is a reaction to a report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change which said that there is a 90 percent certainty that greenhouse gases are heating up the planet.

We should have started years ago working to stabilize carbon-dioxide in the atmosphere, but it is certainly progress to have the Administration's head out of the sand. The difficulty is now with climate-change legislation. Only toothless bills have much of a chance getting past a republican filibuster in the Senate. The best bill right now is sponsored by McCain, Lieberman, and Obama. It has no chance of passing, but Congress should embrace truly meaningful action and force a White House to veto or a Senate filibuster as a way to raise public awareness for 2008 elections.

Apology and Crito

Richard — Tue, 27 Feb 2007 20:15:00 +0000

To many across the history of western thought, Socrates represents a lifelong commitment to the search for truth and an uncompromising critical stance toward societal conventions and beliefs. The trial and execution of Socrates, for impiety and corrupting the youth, immortalizes him as the consummate reflective individual who refuses to compromise his search for truth even in the face of his own death. There is no doubt about the central place Plato’s romanticized character of Socrates occupies in the narrative of the reasoned search for Truth that has occupied Western thought since those heady days in Athens at the turn of the 4th century BC.
In an imaginary future a bold high school biology teacher in Ohio will defiantly teach evolutionary theory to her students in violation of the dictates of the state Board of Education. The teacher will be instructed that she must stop corrupting the youth and offending god (if she wants to keep her job). The teacher will escalate the conflict, by defiantly continuing to teach the truth. She will purposely offend the religious beliefs and traditions of her community even as she insures the death of her career. She will have unpardonably offended the sensibilities of the parents of the children she has been charged to instruct. Her noble and unwavering insistence on the truth of science and the virtue of learning—in the face of a misguided and persecuting public—will draw glowing (and irresistible) comparisons to Plato’s account of the trial and death of Socrates.
The powerful story of Socrates’ choosing death instead of intellectual compromise occupies a special place in the public imagination. Socrates serves as an assurance that an individual can triumph and live a virtuous life. Socrates is evidence that it is possible to remain true (to thine own self). The famous dictum that “an unexamined life is not worth living” is indeed a powerful call to intellectual inquiry, but I am not entirely clear that Plato’s Apology should be read simply as a defense of philosophy against the state. The political role that Socrates sees himself fulfilling through philosophy may be at odds with the political consequences of his tactics. That is, the Apology can be read both as a defense of philosophy against the state and as a defense of the state against the philosopher.
The early works of Plato, including the Apology, are frequently characterized as “Socratic” because Socrates is explicitly central to the texts. For the purposes of this essay it is not important to resolve whether Plato’s works represent an accurate picture of Socrates the real person and his ideas, or whether the figure of Socrates is merely a role model or a central character around whom Plato can develop his own ideas. Whether or not the Apology generally represents a faithful picture of the behavior of the historical Socrates at his trial, the text can still be read as both an earnest truth-telling speech and as an ironic parody. Plato intends to immortalize his mentor and construct a myth consistent with his own objectives and ideas in the Apology. The historicity of the Apology notwithstanding, there is still a fundamental question of whether “Socrates” is offering a serious and sincere defense against the charges or whether the text is primarily a parody of a response to absurd charges. This essay focuses on the actions of Socrates and tries to explore whether Socrates is earnest, strategic, or merely joking. Even if Plato is ironically (re)creating the trial of Socrates, the character “Socrates” earnestly advocates obedience to laws and legal institutions and defiantly surrenders his life instead of compromising his commitments. Socrates therefore does nothing to mislead the jurors even to his own advantage or to save the life of a philosopher. Though Plato may be ironic in his presentation, Socrates cannot be ironic about anything substantial precisely because it would betray the cause to which he is earnestly committed. Socrates, of course, is at times earnest, strategic, and sarcastic. Understanding whether the Apology is a defense of philosophy against the state or vice versa comes down to examining the words Socrates speaks in his defense (regardless of the historic accuracy or Plato’s motives).
Socrates apologia is not simply a justification for certain actions, but it is a defense of an entire way of life and a whole way of living. He believes that his way of life, his constant pursuit of wisdom and truth, his forsaking riches and false wisdom, is dedicated to the service of his city. Socrates is an heroic figure living an exemplary life that should be a model of all citizens strivings and aspirations. Socrates is presented as an exemplar of self-denial, obedience to ideals that serve the welfare of the community. He tells the truth without considering the consequences to himself. It is not merely a defense of his life, but it is his life’s purpose. This moment is the crescendo to which Socrates life-work has been building. He is resolved to death and sees in it the possibility to give his most powerful lesson. If he were not old, I do not think he would have taken the tact of provoking death. But even if his courtroom tactics are merely strategic, it does not diminish the argument he is trying to make. In fact, Socrates last public lesson to the citizens of Athens may be more powerful because it is strategic. If he truly believes that his mission is to goad his fellow Athenians toward a more noble aspiration and to persuade them to fear wickedness more than they fear death, then his apologia must conform to that mission.
Socrates defense in the Apology frequently seems arrogant and sarcastic—an ill-advised posture for someone trying to persuade a jury. He seems to willingly invite his conviction and condemnation in his proud refusal to demean himself in order to save his life. Especially in his mockingly absurd proposal of a suitable punishment, Socrates seems to be provoking jurors—who he knows loath him—into a death sentence. He seems to want to spite the jurors in order to teach them a lesson about the wrongfulness of their judgment. However, life seems a quite high price to pay merely to spite his adversaries. If Socrates defense is a literal affirmation of his beliefs, he is an arrogant person who harbors great contempt for the jurors and the proceedings. This however, would contradict a conception of Socrates as an earnest seeker and speaker of truth and defender of the laws of Athens. That this tactic needlessly propels him toward death amplifies his point. So too, his self-deprecating remarks about his own abilities and his unabashed praise of his interlocutors are transparently insincere. He is clearly doing more than simply telling the truth in the trial. His irony does not mean he is being dishonest, but it does imply that he does not hold the arbiters of his fate in such high regard. I think he is both extolling literal truths and employing irony and sardonic wit to mock the small-minded jurors.
Socrates believes that each of the jurors is bound by the proceedings to set aside prejudices and judge his guilt or innocence on the charges before them. Socrates believes that the task of the jurors is a just one, but that not all of the jurors perform their duty correctly. Since his principles require him to honor the legal institution, Socrates task is to try to convince the jurors about the true nature of the activities of which he is accused. If he were to intentionally mislead the jurors he would be guilty of violating his own commitment to the laws of Athens and the philosopher’s rigorous pursuit of truth. If there is irony in his presentation is not intended obfuscate the truth. He is guilty, however, of great arrogance and a narrow commitment to procedural purity at the expense of justice. Since he willingly allows the jury to come to the wrong conclusion, Socrates commitment to the laws and procedures of Athens and the court seems either naïve or misguided. If we grant that Socrates is neither naïve or misguided, then he must be contented with allowing the laws to err in their application. If he understands that the laws do not always function to produce just, true and fair results, then his allegiance to those laws and procedures seems equal to his commitment to philosophy. Even when he knows the laws will kill the philosopher, he insists on not betraying philosophy or the laws. This unflinching respect for the laws that requires Socrates to do all he can to enable the jurors to carry out their duty ultimately brings about his own death. In the end Socrates betrays neither state nor philosophy, even as the state conquers the philosopher. Anything less would be a betrayal of Socrates doctrine of a full commitment to wisdom and truth.
Socrates absolves himself from culpability in the death of Athens greatest citizen by warning jurors not to be angered by truth and to decide the case according to the facts. Socrates is confidently assured of his own rightness, hence any jurors who come to the wrong conclusion have done so out of anger or prejudice (and therefore have committed the same impiety and injustice he is trying to avoid.) Socrates reckless disregard for the outcome of the trial is an arrogant insistence that he always pursue truth even when he knows that his activities will lead to the impiety of others. In this sense, Socrates is ultimately guilty of exactly the crimes for which he is accused. By employing a court-room tactic that ensures some jurors will act prejudicially, Socrates is feigning truthfulness while knowingly forcing others into positions of untruthfulness. Indeed, he arrogantly shows the pious perfection of his position. It is, however, at the expense of his life and a gross miscarriage of justice. His personal perfection is his greatest gift to Athens even though it reveals that the application of the laws of Athens as unjust.
On the other hand, Socrates’ remarks about the duty of the citizen to obey the law verge on an authoritarian conception of the state. The citizen who fails to successfully defend against a legal charge by the state must completely abandon autonomy to the state. Even though he believes the outcome unjust, Socrates forfeits his agency to disobey the judgment of the state. Socrates allows no justified civil disobedience even when the citizen knows the state’s edict is unjust or untrue. When faced with the dilemma of when to stop resisting and dissenting, Socrates (ig)nobly accepts the commission of a great injustice by the state. I do not think, however, that Socrates is able to fully remove himself from the commission of this injustice. He seems culpable in the death of a wrongly-convicted citizen because he places the Laws and their procedures above the actual guilt of embodied defendant. In essence, Socrates defense is that he is only following the orders of the state and therefore he cannot be responsible for the death of an innocent citizen who the State and the Laws have ordered to die. Socrates seems to be arguing that despite the obvious fallibility of the legal system, Athens cannot survive if there is no final decision-maker that can override the opinions of individual citizens—no matter how right the citizen-philosopher seems to be. The state possesses final authoritative power even when it is wrong. Even though the philosopher has a moral obligation to self and community to speak truth without regard to consequences, the philosopher is not above the laws of the state. Hence, Socrates is inclined to obey completely, to defend and protect the laws of Athens as if they were his parents and masters. This does not mean, however, that philosophers and citizens cannot ever dissent; they are compelled to do so up to a certain point. Similar to Gandhi’s idea of revolutionary subordination, a philosopher must rest in the assurance that the absurd behavior of the state will be exposed through the philosopher’s refusal to compromise. In the Crito Socrates best friend is philosophy because philosophy presents the highest obligation on Socrates. He is willing to go to his death even though his friend Athens betrays him in its injustice toward him. Socrates cannot respond by betraying his best friend philosophy even after the betrayal by his friend Athens. This means that the philosopher’s unwavering commitment to philosophy has the consequence of vesting final authority in the state.
My imagined high school biology teacher will make a similar calculation to Socrates. If the teacher is nearing retirement, this could be a glorious way to go out with one final powerful lesson for her pupils. If the biology teacher is younger and steadfastly wants to continue a career in teaching in Ohio, she will likely opt for a more subversive resistance to the proclamations of the state Board of Education. (She could choose to teach evolutionary biology without drawing the attention of concerned parents.) So too Socrates’ calculation that he had to speak the truth in such a rigid and arrogant way during his trial should be seen in its best light as merely one of several options open to him. His behavior is more accurately characterized as vainglorious of precisely the same variety that he loudly condemns. Ergo, he is not a simple and noble defender of truth, but a calculating old man who choose a particular way of expressing his beliefs. It may be laudable that he did not fear death, but that alone is not evidence that he remained true—only that his tactics were successful. His death secured his immortality after all. So too, the consequences of resistance are different for differently situated people.
This, however, does not fully answer whether the Apology should be read as a defense of the philosopher or the state. My position is that it can and should be read as both. Plato was undoubtedly offering warnings against the excesses of the Athenian democracy and believed that resistance was possible in the fully examined life of the philosopher. The careful and eloquent prose of the story purposely creates an image of a wise and true philosopher resisting the state—even unto death. This compelling read must be balanced against the authoritarian power granted the state and the limited space for dissent and civil disobedience. Plato’s Apology, like Socrates, emboldens both the authoritarian state and the power of the philosopher to resist.

Record Trade Deficit

Richard — Mon, 12 Feb 2007 17:50:00 +0000

The week the Census Bureau reports that for the fifth consecutive year the United States ran a record trade deficit. The 2006 trade deficit reached a new high last year of $763,300,000,000 which is a 6.5% increase from 2005. Although the deficit is increasing, so too are exports. The Bush Administration argues that because exports are (also) increasing, the trade deficit is acceptable. Democrats in Congress are calling for opening more international markets for U.S. goods while protecting markets in the United States. French Prime Minister Chirac has called on the U.S. to stop subsidizing cotton growers so that African cotton growers can compete with U.S. companies. What do you think is the correct balance of trade protections and open international markets? What are the implications for the U.S. economy? Security? Industry and job?

SOTU answers Iraq questions

Richard — Thu, 25 Jan 2007 01:46:00 +0000

President Bush waited more than thirty minutes into the SOTU to mention in the elephant in the room—Iraq. Probably a good oratory strategy since the “surge” and the President’s larger Iraq plan needed further explanation and I with anxious anticipation to hear a clear and honest account of the administration’s plan for Iraq. It was not worth the wait. President Bush added nothing to the discourse on Iraq. In fact, he only further muddled the situation.

Bush seems intent on viewing the world in black and white—he shows little interest in nuance even when the situation in Iraq obviously demands a sophisticated response. He seems not to understand the mess in Iraq and continues to insist that it is simply a battle between Good and Evil. In the SOTU Bush says "[t]he Shia and Sunni extremists are different faces of the same totalitarian threat.” "Whatever slogans they chant ... they have the same wicked purpose. They want to kill Americans, kill democracy in the Middle East and gain the weapons to kill on an even more horrific scale." The escalating violence in Iraq is more complicated than the armies of Freedom battling the forces of Tyranny. Does Bush really believe that the Shiites and Sunnis are the same? And that totalitarian best describes their sameness? Does he distinguish the small minority of al-Qaida in Iraq from Shiites and Sunnis?

I must conclude that the President does not fully comprehend the situation in Iraq and that he is unwilling to honestly examine the dire complexities of the war.

Teaching Evolution

Richard — Tue, 16 Jan 2007 00:55:00 +0000

Hypothetical: The state passes a law requiring high school teachers to teach creationism in biology classes. You are a science teacher trained in the best scientific knowledge, you are committed to teaching truthfully to your students, and you understand creationism to be unscientific. After refusing to teach creationism because of your commitment to truth and your dedication to teaching, your principal threatens to fire you if you do not teach creationism as the state law requires. What do you do?

Swearing

Richard — Thu, 11 Jan 2007 18:47:00 +0000

In his eulogy for Gerald Ford, President Bush said, "when he put his hand on his family Bible to take the presidential oath of office, he brought grace to a moment of great doubt." This comment was of course intended to draw attention to Representative the recent use of a Koran in a swearing in ceremony to the House of Representatives. This coded provocative language is unfortunate in a eulogy for a US president by a sitting president. The only explanation for the lack of diplomacy is that that Bush is trying to score points with those who would erode the wall of separation between church and state. Sad.

Day of Silence for housing

Richard — Wed, 10 Jan 2007 17:31:00 +0000

A “Day of Silence” is being held today, Wednesday, Jan. 10, 2007, to protest federal funding cuts that will cripple public housing authorities across the U.S. Due to the ballooning federal deficit, federal funding for low-income housing has been cut drastically this year. While a permanent budget still has not been passed, there is no indication that any of those cuts will be rescinded. As a result, public housing authorities are being forced to make deep budget cuts, reduce staff and cut back on services. The long-term consequences are a reduction in the availability of housing for those who can least afford it, cuts in services that can help low-income families achieve self-sufficiency, and an increase in urban blight as existing properties are unable to be properly maintained and repaired.

The danger ahead for our nation’s poorest seniors and families is real. Housing authorities are considering a host of options to continue to finance housing operations. These include selling housing units, raising rents, eliminating social services and laying off thousands of people who provide those services to seniors and families. Today housing agencies are making ends meet with only 76.4 cents of every dollar appropriated with no relief in sight this budget cycle and dim prospects for the near future. Ultimately fewer poor families and senior citizens will be able to live in federally subsidized housing.

Today public policy and social action come together, as public housing authorities throughout the nation participate in a national "Day of Silence" in order to raise awareness of this funding crisis. For one day only, many housing authorities will not be answering phones or returning calls (except for emergencies). Instead, callers will get a voice mail message, telling them that public housing agencies around the nation are observing a national day of silence today in order to focus attention on the critical funding cuts proposed for the nation's public housing program. Such cuts will impact the ability of housing authorities to respond to calls for service. Callers will then be asked to contact members of Congress to ask them to support full funding for public housing and given the number for the US House of Representatives.