Survived the first week of a new semester and now I need to unwind...
Friday, January 27, 2012
More Miami Vice
Hey, I don't know why, just feeling nostalgic the last few days for the TV of my youth.
Thursday, January 26, 2012
To Boycott APSA or Not to Boycott APSA 2012?
The annual APSA conference is in New Orleans, LA this year. LA is one of over 15 states in the U.S. to pass a law that defines marriage as between one man and one woman, denying politically determined rights to same sex union/marriages/partnerships. A direct appeal has been sent to political scientists all over the country (and apparently all over the globe as it has been received by colleagues in Canada and Europe) to boycott the meeting--arguing that such a law as passed in LA is representative of bigotry and hatred.
My mentor Steve Saideman has blogged about the question of boycotting the meeting. You can read his blog here. I started to simply reply on his blog but decided instead to blog on this topic here on my own blogspot. Unfortunately this blog may be rather long, bear with me if you will. And as always, it is just my two cents.
Bigotry is marked by being obstinately intolerant of others whose own opinions and prejudices are not the same as those you hold. Is then a law that defines marriage bigotry? Possibly if one argues that tolerance of everything is required of everyone. The LA law does not say to do harm to people because they are different, the LA law defines and protects the belief of a majority of the citizens of LA. So, the law is not bigotry, the law is support for the position of a majority of the population (and this is still the majority opinion of the population of the U.S.) believing that marriage is defined as between one man and one woman. Bigotry would be shown by how individuals act toward people who in the case of homosexuality have chosen to be different (the science on arguments that homosexuality is not by choice but genetic is disputable). The law does not act, the law defines...people act. Does the law encourage bigotry--that may be an unintended consequence worth examining at some point.
The denial of legal rights is predicated upon definitions and placement of people into legal categories. Placement of people into categories for the provision of legal rights has been upheld by courts in the U.S. for over a few decades now. So, rights are not denied by law, they are given by law. This previous statement represents the fundamental difference between right and liberty. Liberty is yours regardless of statement of governing authority. Rights are determined by and granted by legal authority. Arguing that legal rights have been denied is not possible unless a person is in the category as defined by law and has been denied the right in question. Since same sex union/marriage/partnership is not classified by law in LA, there are no rights to be denied to people who chose to classify themselves in this position in LA.
Ok, so I am done addressing legal issues. The next is moral. Appealing to Jesus as the ultimate in telling us to not be bigots is old and cliche and generally based on poor biblical understanding or scholarship. First, we can get out our Bible and find that God commands not tolerance but obedience to His teaching. God's teaching is that homosexuality is sin. God also says to love sinners but not sin. So, morally we should not be bigoted toward those who are sinning. Again, however, I fail to equate legal definition of marriage as immoral given God's own defining of it in His word. I do, however, equate mistreatment of homosexuals as immoral, also based on God's word. So, from a moral perspective I am not caught up in a quandry about the LA law and its intentions or purposes. I am, however, disturbed by potential unintended consequences of the law and whether or not people should intentionally legislate religiously biased morality.
Finally, should an organization boycott a state because of the political beliefs of some of the organizations members. Are these members the majority? If they are, they can control or should be able to control something as trivial as location of meetings. Will I boycott a meeting because of its location? No, heck I went to Montreal in winter to go to a meeting, and I much prefer New Orleans anytime of year to some other locations.
Do you make a statement of moral judgment by deciding to attend a conference? If I go to NY for a conference does this mean I agree with the draconian anti-gun laws of NY? If I attend conference in Washington, DC does this mean I agree with all the laws passed by the U.S. federal government? I do not find this to be a reasonable question or assumption on anyone's part. So, will I boycott--no. I'm going to New Orleans, learn something about what colleagues are researching, present a little of my own work, and enjoy the best coffee in the U.S. as well as a good variety of jazz and seafood in the company of good friends and colleagues (some of whom are homosexuals, by the way).
My mentor Steve Saideman has blogged about the question of boycotting the meeting. You can read his blog here. I started to simply reply on his blog but decided instead to blog on this topic here on my own blogspot. Unfortunately this blog may be rather long, bear with me if you will. And as always, it is just my two cents.
Bigotry is marked by being obstinately intolerant of others whose own opinions and prejudices are not the same as those you hold. Is then a law that defines marriage bigotry? Possibly if one argues that tolerance of everything is required of everyone. The LA law does not say to do harm to people because they are different, the LA law defines and protects the belief of a majority of the citizens of LA. So, the law is not bigotry, the law is support for the position of a majority of the population (and this is still the majority opinion of the population of the U.S.) believing that marriage is defined as between one man and one woman. Bigotry would be shown by how individuals act toward people who in the case of homosexuality have chosen to be different (the science on arguments that homosexuality is not by choice but genetic is disputable). The law does not act, the law defines...people act. Does the law encourage bigotry--that may be an unintended consequence worth examining at some point.
The denial of legal rights is predicated upon definitions and placement of people into legal categories. Placement of people into categories for the provision of legal rights has been upheld by courts in the U.S. for over a few decades now. So, rights are not denied by law, they are given by law. This previous statement represents the fundamental difference between right and liberty. Liberty is yours regardless of statement of governing authority. Rights are determined by and granted by legal authority. Arguing that legal rights have been denied is not possible unless a person is in the category as defined by law and has been denied the right in question. Since same sex union/marriage/partnership is not classified by law in LA, there are no rights to be denied to people who chose to classify themselves in this position in LA.
Ok, so I am done addressing legal issues. The next is moral. Appealing to Jesus as the ultimate in telling us to not be bigots is old and cliche and generally based on poor biblical understanding or scholarship. First, we can get out our Bible and find that God commands not tolerance but obedience to His teaching. God's teaching is that homosexuality is sin. God also says to love sinners but not sin. So, morally we should not be bigoted toward those who are sinning. Again, however, I fail to equate legal definition of marriage as immoral given God's own defining of it in His word. I do, however, equate mistreatment of homosexuals as immoral, also based on God's word. So, from a moral perspective I am not caught up in a quandry about the LA law and its intentions or purposes. I am, however, disturbed by potential unintended consequences of the law and whether or not people should intentionally legislate religiously biased morality.
Finally, should an organization boycott a state because of the political beliefs of some of the organizations members. Are these members the majority? If they are, they can control or should be able to control something as trivial as location of meetings. Will I boycott a meeting because of its location? No, heck I went to Montreal in winter to go to a meeting, and I much prefer New Orleans anytime of year to some other locations.
Do you make a statement of moral judgment by deciding to attend a conference? If I go to NY for a conference does this mean I agree with the draconian anti-gun laws of NY? If I attend conference in Washington, DC does this mean I agree with all the laws passed by the U.S. federal government? I do not find this to be a reasonable question or assumption on anyone's part. So, will I boycott--no. I'm going to New Orleans, learn something about what colleagues are researching, present a little of my own work, and enjoy the best coffee in the U.S. as well as a good variety of jazz and seafood in the company of good friends and colleagues (some of whom are homosexuals, by the way).
Wednesday, January 25, 2012
Just Thinking About Wholesome 1980s TV
Yeah, you all know that you were wanting to wear pastels and bright colored shirts with your Raybans. Of course, it did not hurt to have the car either--until of course, you did not have the car.
Some Thoughts on A Gridlocked Congress
Below is an excerpt from a story in Reuters today. While no big fan of paying more taxes, particularly not fond of the marriage penalty, at the end of the day is this so terrible? Consider the fact that during the most productive years of growth in the U.S. the 1960-80s, the tax rates were much higher than what we will face if Congress does nothing before the end of 2012. I have said it before and will say it again, my children did not build the deficit faced in U.S. government spending. My parents did, I did, most of my readers have contributed (I hold us all responsible for the government we have regardless of whether you say I never voted for the bum). So, maybe we should pay a little extra to take care of the problem. Of course, this would beg the question of whether or not we are willing to quit spending money, or there is no real savings to be earned or payment of the debt to be found in paying an increased tax bill. And as always, this is just my two cents.
Unless both houses act by the end of the year, all of the Bush-era tax cuts and interim lower rates on estate taxes will automatically expire. Here's what might happen if Congress is deadlocked:
* On January 1, 2013, the top marginal federal income tax rate will rise more than 13 percent - from 35 percent to 39.6 percent.
* The top tax rate on long-term capital gains will go from 15 percent to 20 percent - a 33 percent increase.
* The maximum tax rate on dividend income, now capped at 15 percent, will rise to 39.6 percent - a 164 percent hike. That means dividends will be taxed like ordinary income.
* The marriage penalty would return in 2013. The standard deduction for married taxpayers would no longer be calculated as 200 percent of the amount for unmarried filers; it would return to about 167 percent of the unmarried rate.
* The estate-tax exemption is scheduled to fall from $5 million back to $1 million, while the maximum estate-tax rate is scheduled to rise to 55 percent.
---John Wasik | Reuters (1/25/12)
On Second Thought
I have decided after thinking about it for a little while, that I would like one of these for my collection, despite anything I might earlier have said regarding bullpups.
 | |
| Tavor TAR-21 |
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)