Judicial Jabber

During the last election for Wisconsin Supreme Court Justice, Wisconsin voters were shielded from hearing specific legal opinions either candidate may have on pending cases. You may recall the same shield was in place during the Senate’s confirmation hearings of John Roberts and Sam Alito.

The Wisconsin State Journal has an op-ed today, praising a decision this week by US District Court Judge John Shabaz, when he said “that judicial candidates can indeed express their opinions, as long as they refrain from committing to a particular ruling in the future.”

This, according to the State Journal, is in concert with US Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy, who also recently wrote an opinion stating that “it is OK for a state to try to preserve the impartiality of its judges. But a state cannot censor the information voters need to decide which candidate would make the best judge.”

What information does a voter need to decide which candidate would make the best judge? Nothing more than legal approach, previous opinions, deference to precedent, ethical concerns, etc. Asking a prospective judge to disclose his/her opinions before hearing a case is akin to electing a legislator for the bench; it’s not at all unfair to ask your state representative how they’ll vote on H.R. 12345, but then again, they make no promise of impartiality to future litigants. Judges do. When a voter demands to know a prospective judge’s opinion on property rights, gun control, abortion, and imminent domain, the litigants in future cases aren’t afforded an unbiased, open ear.

Some folks really do want legislators on the bench!

The fact is, courts are the final protection against injustice, and therefore litigants’ rights to a fair hearing trump the voting public’s ‘right to know.’ (By the way, I’m by no means a legal scholar, but I can’t find a right to know in the Constitution’s text. It’s obviously not an implied precedent without need for literal text, so if there are any lawyers reading this, can you help me out?)

This issue is a non-issue where judges and justices are not democratically elected. That may be nails on the chalkboard for democracy’s fans, but the Founding Fathers weren’t all that crazy about voting for the public, either (see also: the Electoral College, the original Senate, Supreme Court appointments, etc). Two wolves and a lamb does not create a harmonious end; protections for the lamb are important. Insulating judges from that sort of madness in public opinion serves the judicial wing well.

Completely random: Why is a US District Judge ruling on state election proceedings?

When Kennedy said that a state cannot censor a judge, he didn’t say that a state could force a judge’s mouth, either. Hopefully, future candidates for State Supreme Court won’t cave in to public pressure, and present themselves as worthy candidates for the judiciary, not the state assembly.

GOP Power Ranks

Fred Thompson may be running for president.

As the article mentions, this answers a GOP need for someone both from the South and without ties to Washington.

It would help if he were a governor, but former Law & Order cast member should do.

Now that we’re on GOP Presidential nominees, I should fill out the rest of my power rankings:

Hosting a Parade
Ron Paul

{Big Step}

“We Think We Get It, And Maybe We’re Close, But We Just Don’t” Land
Brownback
Huckabee
Gilmore

“We Don’t Get It, And We’re Not Close to Getting It” Land
T. Thompson
HunterTancredo
F. Thompson
Romney
McCain

Vomiting Daily
Giuliani

Laissez-Fairre Livers

A Dutch Television Network intends to broadcast a reality television show whereby contestants will vie for the organs of a terminally ill woman.

This is ultra tacky, but it got me thinking.

In college, I was involved in a group project examining the economics of organ donation. Centering organ transplants around a donation-only system is the economic equivalent of a price ceiling; it just so happens that the price being ceilinged is zero.

A great example of a price ceiling is rent controls. Common in some urban areas, a rent control stipulates the maximum price that an owner can charge for a given apartment. The advantage of a price ceiling is, of course, a low price, theoretically affordable for a larger number of people. The huge disadvantage is a gap between the number of willing consumers at market price and the number of willing suppliers at market price – a shortage.

So, what do we have in the organ donation ‘market?’ A huge shortage of ‘suppliers’ (donors) relative to the demanders (those in need of organs).

Let me be clear, organ donation is really awesome. I’ve signed the back of my license, I hope you have too. But there is really very little doubt that the number of people whose lives could be saved by organ transplants is larger if it weren’t limited to donation.

I’m proposing a market for the transaction of organs.

The chief argument against free-market organs will be the inevitable inequality between organ sellers and organ buyers. Undoubtedly, buyers would predominantly come from a wealthier background, while sellers may only be doing so out of financial desperation due to being lower on the ladder.

I doubt that long-term the gap would be any more predominant than public education, which has been sold to me as equal (it’s not). But even if it weren’t, consider the options we have before us…

A.) Potentially saving the lives of x people, who happen to be directly slanted upward toward the higher end of the socioeconomic ladder.

B.) The status quo, saving the lives of a fraction of x people, who happen to be randomly sorted along the same ladder.

I can understand the pursuit of equal access to housing, education, and healthcare. But if we’re talking about actual lives, do we not have an obligation to create an environment in which the most possible can be saved?

Thinking Presidentially

Q.) Can you name the only two candidates for president that have done each of the following?

* Failed to support/Voted against the Patriot Act
*Failed to support/Voted against authorizing the Iraq invasion
* Failed to support/Voted against all funding for the Iraq invasion (including yesterday)
*Never received special interest money
*Never lobbied or received federal pork for his respective district/state (that I’m aware of)

While you're thinking about that, dig this...

I thought it’d be neat to create a power ranking of who I’d most like to see win each party’s respective presidential nomination, then adjust it accordingly.

Like right now, my bottom five for the GOP:

I could tolerate:
Hunter
Tancredo
What a worm:
Romney
McCain
Renouncing my citizenship:
Giuliani

I’ll come back later for the top of the list.

In the interim, here’s just a straight-up rank for the Dems, as there are only 8 of them:
Kucinich
Biden
Obama
Richardson
Dodd
Gravel
Edwards
Hillary

A.) *Dennis Kucinich and Ron Paul.

We Need Higher Prices

Watch this trend continue...

Gas station owners shut down fuel sales

Iraq Spending

(<-- Chuck Knoblauch threw a ball at his mother once.)






Great piece by Keith Olbermann on MSNBC.com today, blasting the Democrats for being spineless on war funding.

My favorite...

"Few men or women elected in our history...have been sent into office with a mandate more obvious, nor instructions more clear:

Get us out of Iraq.

Yet after six months of preparation and execution—half a year gathering the strands of public support; translating into action, the collective will of the nearly 70 percent of Americans who reject this War of Lies, the Democrats have managed only this:

*The Democratic leadership has surrendered to a president...that the Democrats “give the troops their money”;
*The Democratic leadership has agreed to finance the deaths of Americans in a war that has only reduced the security of Americans;
*The Democratic leadership has given Mr. Bush all that he wanted, with the only caveat being, not merely meaningless symbolism about benchmarks for the Iraqi government, but optional meaningless symbolism about benchmarks for the Iraqi government.

MLB Thoughts

Some thoughts on this MLB season…

*Pleasant surprises: the entire NL West, the entire NL East save Washington, Atlanta (especially Hudson), Orange County, Milwaukee.

*Didn’t see that coming: Toronto’s DL, Houston and St. Louis treading water, the Mariners at .500, Yankee hitting taking a rest, Magglio.

*I’m not sold on: Tim Hudson, Brad Penny, Jason Marquis, Noah Lowry.

*I’m now convinced on: Josh Beckett, James Shields.

*I still think the NL Central isn’t over. Smart Brewer fans don’t either.

The Godsend of Checks & Balances

Does anybody get fired in Washington?

Really Cool Idea

Madison Hours

Call this one more reason why I’d love to live in Madison’s Marquette neighborhood. You know that you’re living in a unique community when they create their own freaking currency. This is so genius beyond words, it’s sick.

Suburbs, The Ultimate Sign of Choochiness

I’ve spent parts of the last three consecutive weekends in and around the suburbs of Chicago. Even after growing up there, I have absolutely no idea how six million people do it.

Imagine you live in a rural area. You have plenty of land around you, and a great community. It takes a long time to get anywhere you might need to go, but that’s the price of a certain privacy that your family enjoys.

Now let’s turn the tide. Imagine you live in a heavily urbanized area. You still have a great community, and you can share a large local public park. You don’t enjoy all that much privacy from those around you, but anything you might need is within a ten minute walk.

Now, let’s imagine a place that has ALL of the following…
*No community
*Long travel, nothing within walking distance, somehow combined with
*No privacy

And, as a bonus, we’ll throw in…
*An artificial energy demand
*Few options for public transportation
*Zero county- or state-wide urban planning commission

What do you get? The suburbs!

In suburbia, it takes 30 minutes to get anywhere, and you drive through a lot of nothing to get there – much like a rural area – except that after you arrive you realize you only drove six miles.

Transportation in an area of extreme suburbia is kind of like a junior high science fair at a wealthy private academy. It’s a really really big deal to the participants, no one works together, no one would dare ask for help, they all demand that the faculty and staff bend over backwards to make their pursuit easier, and in the end we have nothing that will do much to help the scientific community.

Silly Conservatism

Do you know the difference between cruncy conservatism and mainstream conservatism?

Peep India.

Citing cultural sensitivities, six Indian states have banned sex-ed in their schools.

I grant you that:
1.) Public education should not replace any education, sexual or otherwise, that parents ought to provide,
2.) Culture is the most important thing that a society has going for it, and
3.) No one wants to encourage sexual promiscuity among young people.

But come on.

A culture of life is one where sex is not taboo, thank you John Paul II. And, apparently, a culture of life can now be shown superior to old-school Indian culture.

More on Rules Worship

This is an excerpt from Bill James’s Historical Baseball Abstract. It is the best way I can think of to illustrate the idiocy of rules-worship that I have blogged about before.

[In 1940, American League rules] required that a pitcher pitch ten complete games in order to qualify for the league ERA title. Bob Feller, clearly the league’s best pitcher, went 27-11 with a 2.61 ERA. But another rookie, Tiny Bonham, was called up in early August, made twelve starts between August 5 and the end of the season – and completed ten of them, with a 1.90 ERA.

Bonham…was technically qualified for the league title, but the American League did [what they had done in years prior]: they ignored the rule, and did what common sense told them was right. They recognized Bob Feller as the league ERA leader…

If this happened now, of course, the league would say, “Well, it may not seem right, but that’s the rule, we have to do what the rule says.”…

This change is reflective of a change in our culture, a change which has been called the death of common sense….Up until 1930, the attitude of lawmen toward the law can be summarized as:

1.) The purpose of the law is to deliver justice.
2.) The law must accommodate the effort to deliver justice.
3.) If you miss a step of the dance, that’s not important so long as the system delivers justice.

In baseball, there’s been a shift from:

1.) The purpose of the rules is to recognize the best players.
2.) The recognition should go to the best players.
3.) Recognize the best players, whether this accommodates the rules or not.

To this:

1.) The rules must be written to identify the best players, but
2.) You have to follow the rules, regardless of whether they work or whether they don’t.

(The New Historical Bill James Historical Baseball Abstract, pp 154-5)

The point? We have completely forgotten the purpose of rules, that they are our servants and never the other way around.

I bring this up because last week, Amare Stoudemire of the Phoenix Suns was banned for one game in the Suns’ playoff series. Stoudemire left Phoenix’s bench during an on-the-court fight, though he remained uninvolved in the fight. According to the letter of the law, he is guilty and he owes a one game punishment. Here’s the problem, though:

1.) It’s a stupid rule.
2.) Even if it weren’t a stupid rule, rules still need to have smart enough people to avoid enforcing stupid rules.
3.) The NBA is not run by people smart enough to understand that rule-enforcement is measured by effectiveness of achieving a harmonious end, and NOT adherence to historical precedent.

“This is a very unfortunate circumstance,” [David Stern’s enforcement guy] said during a conference call. “No one here at the league office wants to suspend players any game, much less a pivotal game in the second round of a playoff series.”

Ok, so don’t.

He continues, “but the rule, however, is the rule, and we intend to apply it consistently.”

Unbelievable.

Read more here.

Random Observation

It's more difficult to write than think.

Battle Royale: Work v Home

Have you ever stopped to think about how much of our lives are dominated by our work?

Is it more common to move for work, rather than demand work come to one’s neighborhood? I think it is. (Bedroom communities). Of course, this has always happened and always will, and it’s not entirely evil in all cases. But doesn’t that send a subtle message that we’ll do anything for the almighty dollar, when done in the aggregate?

I can’t help but feel that we depend on our jobs to give order to our lives. Work is good, it builds community, demands we apply ourselves, provides for an economy, etc. It ought not, however, order a life. That role belongs solely to the institution of the family, which, by and large, pays the price of our role in the economy being promoted. Work ought to be subservient in all cases and without exception to the family.

Yes, families will sacrifice a bit for work reasons. Sometimes a king will forgive a tax from a peasant too; both are (ideally) atypical, and both never forget their role relative to the other.

Americans receive (or demand) the lowest average amount of time off from their workplace each year among comparable world economies. We also leave the most time off on the table as a percentage of what we’re given. We have the longest commuting time of any comparable economy.

Could it just maybe be the case that our family life is a bit more weakened than that of these comparable nations’ families, by virtue of the fact that they aren’t owned by work?

TV: Overrated and Overused

I've found that, if one is looking to enter into a bit more crunchiness in their lives, limiting or eliminating TV can be a great start.

I recognize that there’s quite a bit of sports, movies, and entertaining that can happen on TV. I further recognize that many Americans’ lives revolve around what programming the networks hand them. My favorite TV show, Baseball Tonight, has been unavailable to me since that college-era billing error.

Still, most of my extended family has cable, and most of the time I flip through their channels I’m boggled as to how many channels are a complete waste. You’re generally not allowed to pay by the channel, so 80% of your $50 monthly fee is literally trashed.

For Lent, my wife and I moved our TV to the basement. It’s still on, you can still watch it. I didn’t miss any of the NCAA tournament, and I could have finished this season of ‘24’ if we hadn’t had a baby. Still, though, there’s a symbolic leaving of the upstairs that needs to happen if you want to watch TV in our house; it’s a subtle reminder that you’re leaving the family to do your own thing. In balanced amounts, that’s perfectly fine – I fully intend to leave the family for any Bears’ game televised in Madison this fall. But do I really need to watch Simpsons everyday? And the Newshour with Jim Lehrer? And 24? And Seinfeld? And ten sticks of other crap?

If we had cable, would I really need to watch Baseball Tonight every day? Entertaining though it is, television serves more to keep families from interacting with one another than it does to provide enjoyment, by and large. Meanwhile, I’ve read five books this year, and I have more time to help my wife with housework. Yes, I miss catching all the news, scores, and highlights from the day’s action in Major League Baseball, but I can’t say I’m not a better person for it.

Mostly a waste of money, mostly a waste of time. Turn off your TV for one month, or at least reposition your TV so as to make it a bit less convenient to watch. You’ll be a better person for it, too.

Getting There?

The Associated Press reports that the US Divorce Rate is at its lowest level since 1970.

There are a lot of factors that could permit one to discount this finding, namely an increase in breakups from cohabitation which do not technically count as a divorce.

While that's no doubt a factor, I'm not inclined to suspect that accounts for a large portion of the decrease. The divorce rate for American Christians -- for whom we would suspect a lower rate of cohabitation -- is statistically identical to non-Christians.

I have no choice but to interpret this news as a great step in the right direction. Your thoughts welcome?

A More Proper Offensive Thinking

Pet Peeve: Measuring a team’s offense by batting average. As in “the Cubs, with a team BA of .273, have the 3rd best offense in the National League.”

You know something? The purpose of an offense is to score runs, not maximize hits per at bat. The Cubs are 9th in the National League in runs scored: that means they’re a C- offense, not a good one. They’re merely average, despite a good BA, because they’re merely average at two far more critical elements of offense: on-base percentage and slugging.

This is the downside to signing Soriano…they still don’t have a legit leadoff hitter, in the classic set-the-table, get on base sort of way. For whatever reason, Soriano struggles batting lower in a lineup, so the Cubs’ hands are tied. This is nothing new, though, their offensive battleplan hasn’t included a legit leadoff hitter since, oh, I don’t know, Stan Hack? (Should –be hall of famer, by the way).

Happy Birth-in-Christ-Day, To Me!

25 years ago today, I got my baptism on.

(<-- This wasn't me.)

Marriage is Good

In case the legal profession needed one more black mark, read this billboard purchased by a Chicago-based divorce attorney.

I don’t knock folks for being single; singlehood is a gift and ought to be valued as such. My fear, though, is that while marriage remains valued as an institution and carries with it various societal perks and recognitions, there grows a heightened sense of marriage as slavery at worst, and regrettable at best.

That marriage is hard work I will not contend. It often is quite hard. That’s because love is hard. When we perceive love to be something that happens to us, or strictly emotive, or at worst self-centered, of course that perception will fail – it’s not true!

How about a new billboard: “Life Is Short, Work to Keep Your Marriage Strong.”

Economics: A Team Effort

I was having a discussion this morning with a friend on the weaknesses of Madison’s public transportation system. There are several, some manmade, some geographical, all are serious. That’s for a separate blog entry.

Public transportation, it seems, is a great real life example of Nash Equilibrium (or, Cournot-Nash). If you’ve studied economic history, or at least seen A Beautiful Mind, this will be a review. Basically, John Nash discovered that when groups of people collectively self-sacrifice, everyone can profit; when each individual sacrifices the interests of the group for their own selfish gain, everyone loses. Before Nash, we could only prove that this could work with groups of two.

By the way, that’s a very Catholic mode of thinking. But I digress…

It made me recall a couple of years ago when Houston residents had to flee the gulf region to avoid Hurricane Rita. The highways were so crowded that traffic was stuck for days, cars ran out of gas, etc; more importantly, though, public safety was at risk, as people couldn’t effectively leave Houston.

What would a Nash plan say?

1.) Nobody take a car.
2.) Everybody meet at any of certain predetermined convenient large spaces to exit the city.
3.) From there, board a bus.
4.) The bus will escort you to a hotel/shelter/alternate site.

The gain:
· No one will run out of gas.
· No one will be stuck in traffic.
· Most importantly: We will all leave Houston and all of us will be safe.

The cost:
· You don’t get the “convenience” of your own car.

Economics is the study of how to maximize the effectiveness of minimized resources. That ours is not a culture of public transportation will bite us before long. My fear is that our societal makeup has crumbled beyond this being feasible.

Ron Paul

This shouldn't be construed as a Lyons Den Endorsement (yet), but a long time political hero is running for president.

A friend emailed me the link to his blog, which you can read here.

Clemens

In case you hadn't heard, Roger Clemens signed with the Yankees this weekend.

For three straight years now, Roger Clemens has signed with a team after May 1.

For whatever reason, Clemens has long escaped steroid suspicion. I wonder if he's truly uncertain about three consecutive retirement decisions, or if we have a case of steroid-testing-avoidance.

I Have a Problem

When you're using Yahoo game channel to watch the at-bat of the Kansas City Royals' #9 hitter, desperate for him to bring in Ross Gload in scoring position, so that the Royals' starter Gil Meche -- who's starting for my fantasy team -- might be eligible for a win instead of a no-decision, and you pause long enough to realize that you're rooting for Tony Pena Jr. and Ross Gload, you realize that you're borderline obsessed.

St. Gianna Film

If you’ve never heard of St. Gianna Molla, you need to. First, she had the boring life of sick virtue and and holiness. Additionally, though, her fourth pregnancy resulted in a condition where a legitimate physical health condition forced a consideration of an abortion. She elected to sacrifice her own life to save the child.

She died six days after the birth.

A friend loaned us this film last night. If you have 30 minutes to kill, rent/watch it. You’ll cry several times.

Workplace Discrimination: The Real Issue

The Wisconsin State Journal wrote an op-ed today suggesting federal passage of the federal Employment non-Discrimination Act. The bill, sponsored by Madison’s very own Tammy Baldwin, would ban discrimination based on sexual preference.

Some thoughts…

*The elephant in the room is the usage of the word ‘sexual preference’ v. ‘sexual orientation.’ If someone has been pre-oriented toward a particular choice or lifestyle, it’s completely unfair for you or me to discriminate against said choice. Words are powerful things, and the homosexual community knows that.

Personally, I feel that preference is necessarily broad, given what we know with certitude about homosexual relations, and therefore the appropriate word to use.

*It is, though, an important discussion to have, because in time it may be considered inappropriate at best, or even hateful at worst, to use the term “sexual preference.” Verbal offense is a two-way street – speaker’s intent and hearer’s perception – but the former has to trump the latter.

*I don’t believe that homosexual acts are a choice, per se. When someone eats an entire Hershey bar, it wasn’t exactly a choice, either. Nature has indicated to us that neither are particularly good for our health, particularly beyond moderation. (Hence, we can argue that both defy natural law). That the act is not often done so via conscious choice does not prove orientation or determinism or some other biological element, necessarily.

*I’m not surprised that 90% of employers maintain anti-discrimination practices at present. I would argue that 90% would qualify as a solid market penetration, thus making the law important only on paper.

*While I have certain reservations and questions, I really want to love all kinds of lovers, gay straight bi whatever.
*If I were a company boss/decision-maker, I would absolutely enact my own anti-discrimination package that would include a homosexual provision. While I probably wouldn’t coordinate an investigation into my suppliers and other companies for whom mine would be a customer, I would seek alternatives if it were found that said companies didn’t have a similar practice.

Public Smoking Ban in Illinois

Illinois lawmakers have voted to ban smoking in most public places. Some thoughts...

*Beyond the occasional toke, chain smoking is probably the most disgusting habit I can name.
*This ban will only affect businesses that have thusfar been too dumb to not ride the fence. When a bar permits smoking, their only patrons are regular smokers. When a bar doesn't permit it, only non-smokers regular patronize the business. For businesses that have attempted to be all for all, this ban will hurt them.
*I couldn't care less. They should have known being one or the other was the way to go five years ago.
*Says Illinois State Rep. Karen Yarbrough, D-Chicago, "[Vote for the ban] for the people who work in these places." Um, I dig the ban, but folks who work in bars and restaurants are big boys and girls; they can either take it or quit. Or...
*If this were 50 years ago, they can talk to their union rep. For whatever reason, unions in private, non-trade sectors have taken a dip...
*Madison recently enacted a similar city-wide ban. The Wisconsin Restaurant Association recently voted, almost unanimously, to favor a statewide ban. Many bar and restaurant owners would prefer to allow the free market to dictate where folks can smoke, but when an establishment is on the outskirts of a municipality that has enacted a ban, they can't compete. That's why a statewide resolution is key.