Letter to Obama - Indefinite Detention

President Obama,

I supported your election. But I do not support any attempt by your administration, or any other administration, to create a system of indefinite detention without trial.

I understand the difficulties of doing the right thing. I understand that there is frequently a big difference between what the government knows, or thinks it knows, and what the government can prove in court. I know that some of the people you want to detain are dangerous and want to kill Americans. I know that the Bush administration botched things up royally by torturing these people.

I also know that you face ruthless political enemies that will describe your adherence to the constitution as "giving in to the terrorists." I know that if anyone released from American detention for a lack of admissible evidence ever participated in a terrorist attack, you would be viciously attacked and blamed.

However, knowing all that, I also know that creating a system of indefinite detention would fundamentally alter the nature of our democracy. It would be an admission to the world that we do not believe in due process and are willing to dispense with it whenever people threaten or scare us.

It would be a statement that we are willing to give our executive tyrannical powers whenever we are scared.

Isn't that what the terrorists are trying to do? Scare us into destroying our nation?

As much as I agree with you about other policies, if your administration attempts to create, or creates, a program of indefinite detention without trial, you will lose my support forever. I will do everything within my power to see you defeated in the next election.

Sincerely,

Joe Huster

Torturing a Teenager and Covering it Up

Who the FUCK are we?

Joe H.

In Defense of Mark Sanford

We do live in a strange society. Strange, and exceedingly shallow. This piece on Governor Mark Sanford's "love" affair - we drop the adjective "love" in the description - demonstrates this with unusual clarity.

Joe H.

Checking our Thoughts? What is a Careful Thinker?

In a discussion on another blog, a friend offered the following reflection:

“These days, it’s pretty rare that I hear a point of view that makes me want to rethink something I’ve believed (when it happens, it’s usually because I’ve gotten my facts wrong), because I’ve been examining my own thoughts pretty rigorously for a long time now.”

I suspect this comment is an accidental moment of "Simpson's" writing. The Simpsons show is terribly funny because its characters say things that are obviously true, but which no one would ever actually say. Recall Marge Simpson's explanation to Lisa as to why she couldn't make up with Homer - "Lisa, marriage is a wonderful thing, but its also a constant struggle for moral superiority!" Or, recall Ned Flander's Christmas delivery of aid to the skid roe homeless shelter - "Here comes sand witches, Here comes sand witches, right down boozy bum lane. Brother Ned's got cheese on bread and a, SIDE ORDER OF SHAME." Or recall Homer's attempt to purchase a firearm - "Five day waiting period? BUT I'M MAD NOW!"

What I mean is, my friend's comment describes how most people think of themselves and their opinions. But few people would ever say as much. So, now that my friend has outed himself as a self-perceived careful thinker, I hearby out myself. I am a self-perceived "careful thinker."

Of course, the million dollar question is, am I genuinely entitled to think of myself as a careful thinker? What's required?

At bare minimum, the first question to ask is, "to what extent are my beliefs grounded in argument?" An "argument," by the way, is a collection of two or more propositions, one of which is the conclusion, or what the argument is supposed to prove or demonstrate, and the other proposition(s) are the argument's premises - the reasons for accepting the conclusion. The premises of an argument are connected to one another, and to the conclusion, by what logicians call "inference." "Inference" is the process of deriving new propositions from a previously accepted premise or set of premises, based on valid logical rules. The structure of an argument - the way the various propositions "hang together" to yield the conclusion - is called the "inferential structure" of the argument.

Okay. Enough already with the logic lecture. Suffice it to say that the more one's beliefs are grounded in argument, the more one entitled is to say that he or she is a careful thinker. If you don't require reasons for your beliefs, you can't claim to be a careful thinker.

But there's an obvious problem with this initial formulation. Many beliefs are grounded in bad arguments - arguments that do not really justify the beliefs supposedly grounded by them. A person who is a careful thinker must guard against bad arguments.

But How?

Well, there are only two ways an argument can go wrong. The first concerns the premises. If one or more of the premises is false, or doubtful, or questionable, or in dispute, then the argument will not be sound - or its soundness will be in doubt or dispute. The second concerns the inferences. If the inferences are logically invalid, or unreasonable, or tenuous, then the argument will not be sound.

So, bad arguments can be avoided if we pay attention to the premises we're relying on and to the inferences we're drawing therefrom.

In my experience, non-ideologically driven people are fairly good at evaluating the validity of their inferences. Whether they've studied logic or not, most people recognize an invalid or unreasonable inference within an argument - provided that they are paying attention. Not everyone, but most of us. Good for us.

Where things get hairy are the premises people rely on. Particularly in political discourse, I've noticed that opponents often occupy starkly different factual universes. "Torture works." "No it doesn't." And many (if not most) times, the different factual universes are the product of what one or both sides wants to believe - irrespective of any actual evidence. Or forget political discourse and consider family relationships. My wife and I can be "discussing things" - usually my shortcomings - and we'll disagree about what the other person said a mere 15 seconds prior.

Fortunately, it is usually possible, by diligent effort, to get one's facts straight. If someone really wants to verify his factual premises, it can usually be done. And any person who refuses to allow his factual suppositions to be challenged and/or checked, is simply not entitled to call himself a careful thinker.

However, people frequently rely on premises that they are not consciously aware of. Logicians call these premises "enthymemes" or "silent premises," but they are generally thought of as background assumptions or background beliefs. Arguments frequently rest on faulty or questionable assumptions that the believer isn't even aware of.

Here's an example. Libertarians argue that it is wrong for the state to forcibly tax one person and give the revenue to another person, because people have a property right to what they earn. However, most libertarians would concede that people do not have a property right to what they earn within an unjust economic system.

So, what are libertarians assuming? They're assuming that the economic system in which people earn their income is just. They're also relying upon some implicit conception of what it means to have a "right," and of how rights can be affected by the presense or absense of justice - but let's keep it simple for the point of illustration.

Is our economic system just? Maybe. Maybe not. Depends, among other things, on how we conceive of "justice." But before one can even think about these issues, one has to notice that specific assumptions inform the rather simple sounding arguments we make. And to notice these assumptions, one has to knuckle down and think carefully about what one's argument assumes. This is something people are notoriously (1) bad at; and (2) reluctant to do. Its too much work. And its terrifying! It is why people often hate philosophy courses - all philosophers do is identify latent assumptions and demolish them. Don't believe me. Pick up David Hume.

Underlying assumptions not only inform our arguments, they effect the way we interpret events. A person who assumes people are naturally sinful thinks a self-centered child requires no further explanation. A person who believes that people are inherently good, on the other hand, has, in the words of Rickey Riccardo, "some splaining to do."

At any rate, you can't be a careful thinker unless identifying and scrutinizing your tacit assumptions are things that you regularly do.

One more thing. Human beings have a natural tendency to accept, without scrutiny, arguments in support of propositions that we already accept. We have a corresponding tendency to rigorously scrutinize arguments in support of propositions that we reject. The later tendency is fine, but the former renders us terribly vulnerable to bad arguments. So, a careful thinker makes a special disciplined effort to scrutinize arguments for propositions that she agrees with.

In sum, a careful thinker: (1) requires reasons for her beliefs; (2)checks - and allows others to challenge and check - her inferences; (3) makes sure she gets her facts straight; and (4) regularly identifies and scrutinizes the assumptions underlying her arguments and interpretation of events; and (5) pays special attention to arguments offered in support of propositions that she already accepts.

I do these things. I am a careful thinker. Of course, I never enjoy anything, irritate my son, and freak certain people out. But I am a careful thinker. Good for me.

What about you?

Joe H.

Some Additional Thoughts on Conservatives and Sex.

This is a pretty good follow up on which party is more decadent.

Let me be clear. I have no reason to believe that conservatives are more sexually decadent than liberals. However, as the author of the article pointed out, miscreant liberals didn't build their political portfolios on holier than thou moral rectitude. Conservatives did.

Ride a high horse and you better stay in the saddle.

Joe H.

BTW, what do you guys think of the "ride a high horse" moralism. I like it, but I tend to overestimate my wit. Commentary would be appreciated.

:)

Which Political Party is Decadent?

What's a Republican Values Voter to do? Appartently, its more important to evangelicals that their political leaders agree with them on moral issues (or at least express fealty to those moral causes) than to actually live up to their professed values.

Another interesting point is that sexual peccedellos end Democratic political careers (John Edwards, Elliot Spitzer), but not Republican careers. Why is that?

The third interesting thing is the extent to which all three men, Ensign, Vitter and Sanford were and are associated with far right religeous conservative organizations. What's that all about?

I do feel for my conservative friends. I was embarrased by Clinton, but Sanford's actions were really over the top.

Joe

The Impulse to Silence

This article by law professor Alice Ristroff provides an interesting analysis of president Obama's schizophrenic policy on the release of troubling images.

When the issue is a violent crackdown by the Iranian government, video of a young women who was shot and bled to death on camera are "heartbreaking" and "moving." Such images inform the public about what is at stake in Iran.

But when the images are photographs of Americans torturing helpless detainees, Obama dismisses those values. Sometimes pictures convey messages that cannot be put into words. Regarding Iranian violence, Obama thinks the images are helpful. Regarding American torture? Obama thinks words (torture memos) are good enough.

I agree with those who say that Americans should not be allowed to avert our gaze from the torture that was done in our name. I know that most of us do not want to think about it, and certainly do not want to confront pictures of it. But if we ignore it, it will fester and become a cancer to our democracy.

If you doubt that, look at what its doing to Obama's character.

Joe H.

The Sanctity of Marriage?

Rush Limbaugh, Newt Gingrich, Larry Craig, Mark Folley, David Vitter, John Ensign, and Mark Sanford . . .. What do all these national leaders have in common? They are all (1) family values conservatives; (2) vocal opponents of same sex marriage; and (3) have all (in various ways) desecrated the sanctity of their own marriages on multiple occasions.

I know, I know . . . we libruls are not without our scumbags. Bill Clinton, Elliot Spitzer and John Edwards come to mind on my first sweep of the landscape.

And yes, human life is complicated - although I can say forthright that I have never even thought about cheating on my wife. And I taught undergraduate coeds for 14 years!

Still, to the credit of the latter group, and to the discredit of the former, no one in the second group is lecturing the country about the sanctity of marriage.

Maybe chutzpa counter-balances hypocrisy?

Actually no, it doesn't. Chutzpa magnifies hypocrisy.

Joe H.

When Doctrine Banishes Reality

Andrew Sullivan uttered the following two sentences with regards to Iraian society:

"When every piece of data requires a reassertion of doctrine in order to banish reality from people's minds, government becomes impossible. All that is possible is brute force and terror."

The first sentence is a summary of the fundamentalist ideolgue's strategy for mental health. And it is remarkable how successful people can be at keeping conflicting beliefs, and information that undermines one's beliefs, mentally compartmentalized.

My second thought is that I'd modify the first sentence to read, "good government becomes impossible. We just endured eight years of an administration who goverend by the very strategy described in the first sentence. It wasn't good government, but it was government.

I guess its all a matter of degree.

Joe H.

The New Left

This was what I was talking about when I noted that the political discourse had changed so much during and after the Bush years. Advocating positions like the rule of law, accountability for government officials who break the law, limitations on executive power, civil liberties, protecting people from government spying and indefinite detention without due process, opposition to senseless wars, and opposition to government lying and corruption - these used to be considered neutral positions, not liberal or conservative.

What happened during the Bush years was simple. Supporters of President Bush stopped caring about these things - because President Bush was their guy. Turn the Justice Department into a political weapon filled with ideologues. . . whatever. Lie the country into a disastrous war . . . we still love you.

So naturally, the people who opposed these things all became "leftists," or even "far leftists."



Atrios is correct. We live in crazy times.

Joe H.

Frank Ricci - Reverse Discrimination and Justice Scalia

Those of you who are interested in the Sotomayor nomination, the Frank Ricci (Fire fighter/reverse discrimination) case, and the present state of anti discrimination law will find this piece by Richard Thompson Ford interesting. Its an accurate statement of the law and a good explanation of why Mr. Ricci is likely to lose (hint - Justice Scalia has written the relevant case law).

Joe H.

List of Anti-Transparency Actions by The Obama Administration.

Today, Glen Greenwald posted a list of Obama Administration actions that directly contradict his repeated campaign promises to run a transparent government. Worse, Obama's refusal to investigate Bush's and Cheney's torture program is manifestly illegal pursuant to the Convention on Torture ("COT"). The United States Senate ratified the COT in 1994 and we are legally obligated - by our own constitution - to comply with its mandatory requirements to investigate and prosecute torture. Moreover, Obama's cover-up of other Bush administration criminality is equally inexcusable and unlawful. It would be one thing simply to ignore his obligations to prosecute crime. But to actively use his constitutional powers to conceal it from judicial review is obscene.

And what does it say about the state of our mainstream media that reporters have yet to confront Obama on the illegality of his refusal to investigate admitted and well documented acts of torture? Are we living in a genuine democracy or a corporate oligarchy?

What I find so troubling is that the political discourse in this country is no longer about what kind of America to have (conservative or liberal). It is instead about whether we should have an America at all? There is no America without the rule of law. There is no America without a limited executive. Obama can have all the good intentions he wants, but if he ignores our law with impunity and uses his powers to hide Bush administration criminality, and we let him get away with it, then we do not live in the same America that patriots have been willing to fight and die for. Its that simple.

It staggers the mind to survey the damage the Bush administration did to the nation. But the greatest damage his administration did was to the very idea of what America is. It staggers the mind even more to acknowledge that most Americans don't see the damage. Yes, they voted the Republicans out of office, so they knew something was wrong. But there has yet to be significant pressure brought to bear on Obama to act in accordance with American values and law. If that doesn't emerge, then Bush will have changed "America" beyond recognition.

By the way, I don't have the time or energy to do the kind of archiving work that Greenwald (or his assistant) has done. But it is very useful to have it available.

One of the reasons I blog is that I think being online and sharing information is the best way for ordinary citizens to pressure public officials to fulfill their legal and constitutional obligations. I know this blog isn't widely read, but I hope the information readers find here spreads out to others and has the multiplier effect that can only be achieved (by an ordinary citizen) online.

Joe H.

Hoping for a Bit More Audacity

I just watched this clip of Bill Maher (who I think is outrageously funny) and found his critiques of President Obama to be dead on.

First off, I like President Obama in a way I could never have liked President Bush. Bush turned me off for all of the reasons listed in Jonathan Chait's article "I hate President George W. Bush" - which I would have linked to, but there is something wrong with TNR's archive search function. Note, by the way, I did not say that I hated George W. Bush - just that he turned me off in every conceivable way from the first few times I ever observed him, and virtually everything he did in office deepened my visceral dislike of him.

Obama, on the other hand, is very likeable. Good for him.

However, I once remarked to a friend during the Bush years that, for all the bad ideas and constant lying, Bush did have one quality I admired - force of will. He got what he wanted time after time. There's simply no denying that. The trouble of course, is that nearly everything Bush wanted was bad for the country.

But be that as it may, Bush did what he had to do to, no matter how dishonorable, to keep the country from realizing this until he was reelected. And even after becoming extremely unpopular, he still achieved legislative victories like getting rid of Habeus Corpus for detainees (which the Supremes revived by a 5-4 vote) and bestowing retroactive immunity for allowing illegal government spying on the telecoms.

I was always amazed at this. For a long time I thought of Bush as the Michael Jordon of legislative politics - he simply wouldn't let himself lose. True, the country payed a terrible price for letting Bush win for so long - our only comfort being that Bush's determination, combined with the "drink the cool-aid" herd mentality within the Republican party, allowed him to illustrate precisely how wrongheaded his ideas were. But still, judged simply in terms of implementing his chosen policies, President Bush may have been the most effective president we've ever had.

It turns out that Bill Maher noticed the same thing.

Now Obama has done a number of things related to suppressing evidence of Bush administration criminality that I think are deplorable. I can understand his motives, but I think his actions on these matters are unpatriotic, unlawful, and unwise. Previous entries on this blog will confirm this. However, on most of his domestic agenda, I am in complete agreement.

And Like Bill Maher, I have been wondering why, with all Obama's personal popularity and huge congressional majorities, Obama and some of the other Democrats are watering down their domestic proposals - for example, like wavering on a public option for health insurance, or on passing employee card check? It makes no sense politically or policy wise.

Come on Obama. Grow a pair! Your ideas are good. Ram them though! Be more like president Bush. Show some inflexible certitude and ruthlessness.

As Bill Maher aptly put it, I'm not interested in the audacity of hope. I'm hoping for a bit more audacity.

Joe H.

Conservative Hate Speech

I highly recommend this article discussing American hate speech and the coarsening of our discourse. The left has its haters, but few people listen to them. To the contrary, hate speech on the right is well funded, well covered in the media, and is creating ticking time bombs.

Of particular interest was this excerpt from the essay:

"The difference between John McCain and Sarah Palin became clearest to me in the middle of the campaign last summer.

At a town hall meeting, McCain was confronted by an elderly woman who told McCain that she was a supporter of his because Obama was "an Arab." McCain was clearly uncomfortable, and it was patently obvious why. It had nothing to do with McCain's feelings about Arabs. It had to do with an old-school Republican accidentally moving the rock, and coming face to face with what actually lived beneath it. He recognized that the woman was making an unambiguously racist statement about his opponent, and he was mortified to be asked to answer it. Even though McCain famously and horribly bungled his answer ("No ma'am, he isn't. He's a decent family man.") I knew what [sic] he meant. He was addressing the intended racial slur and disavowing it, however badly.

In that moment, I felt deeply for my Republican friends who, on some level, must also be experiencing the embarrassment and discontent of recognizing that their party had been hijacked by racists and religious fanatics who derided education and achievement as 'elitist.'

Sarah "Screw the Political Correctness" Palin, on the other hand, seemed right at home. She marched into those same crowds grinning and winking, and "Yoo betcha-ing" like she was onstage at the Miss Alaska pageant. While her supporters waved watermelon slices and stuffed monkeys, Palin talked about who the "real Americans" were, and who was "palling around with terrorists." She refused to address the blatant racism of her fans, or address the obvious exploitation of Obama's middle name, Hussein, and the implication she herself was making with her "terrorist" comments."

I have a lot of Christian friends who fall into the "embarrassed Republican" camp. Let me just tell you that "I feel your pain." I know what its like to have a moral embarrasment of a man leading your party.

Oh, wait. You do too!

Joe H.

Let Me Get This Straight

Let me get this straight. The Obama administration's position (along with senators Joe Lieberman and Lindsey Graham and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton) is that the conduct of our military and CIA personnel towards our detainees was so horrific that, were photographs of that conduct released to the public, it would inflame Muslim sentiment to the point that previously peaceful Muslims would seek to kill our soldiers and diplomats . . .

And yet there is no need to investigate and prosecute this conduct?

Where the hell am I?

Joe H.

Hey New York Times - Can You Help Out a War Criminal?

Bush administration officials have, for some time now, hidden behind the argument that everything they did by way of "enhanced interrogations" was completely legal and had been vetted by a team of independent and experienced government lawyers in the U.S. Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel. They have implicitly denied bringing any political pressure to bear on justice department lawyers to distort the legal analysis or get the law they wanted.

I dare my readers to read these three recently leaked emails from the Office of Legtal Counsel(they are pretty short) and conclude, as the New York Times concluded, that all senior justice department lawyers agreed that the enhanced techniques were legal, or conclude that White House officials exerted no improper influence to get the opinions that it wanted.

In fact, once you've read the emails, read this article that appeared in the New York Times last Saturday. It depicts these emails as vindicating the Bush administration. Then read this ficticious hypothetical New York times article that might have been written about the email.

Is there any doubt that the New York Times has become complicit in hiding war crimes and excusing war criminals.

And if the person who leaked these memos did so to help Bush administration officials, then the political right has some genuinely clueless people in its ranks.

Joe H.

Ticking Time Bomb.

I guess all the defenders of "torture" to stop the "ticking time bomb" from exploding will get on board with the torture of Scott Roeder (the alleged Killer of Dr. Tiller? He's pretty clearly pointing to a ticking time bomb. We better fill up those water-buckets tout suit!

Non? Quel domage!

Joe H.

The Living Constitution: Connotation and Denotation

I posted this introduction to the topic of constitutional interpretation about six weeks ago - but instead linking to it and summarizing its content, before going on, I decided to reprint my thoughts, and then finish the argument in the next few posts.

Conservatives have long made fun of the idea that the United States has a "living constitution" in the sense that the document's "meaning changes over time." This will be the first post of a two or three post series defending the claim that we have just such a living constitution. In this post I will describe the ways in which the meaning of concepts, terms, statements, and even imperatives, both remain stable and change over time. In an upcoming post, I'll argue that the claim that we have a living constitution fits perfectly with the way language changes and remains stable over time. In the third post, I'll deal with loose ends and criticisms of my theory.

1. Concept Evolution: Connotation and Denotation

Logicians typically distinguish between the “connotation” and the “denotation” of a concept. By “connotation,” logicians mean the set of ideas that constitute the heart of a concept, or that capture its essence. By “denotation,” logicians mean the set of things constituting all the qualifying instances of a concept. Consider the following examples. The connotation of the concept “even number” is “a whole number divisible into two equal whole numbers.” The denotation of “even number” is the set “2, 4, 6, 8 . . .” The connotation of “odd number” is “a whole number not divisible into two equal whole numbers.” The denotation of “odd number” is “1, 3, 5, 7 . . .”

Because mathematics is a precise and relatively fixed language, a language unaffected by developments in human knowledge, achievement and culture, its terms and concepts are entirely stable. Neither the connotation nor the denotation of “even number” or “square root” will ever change. But this is not the case with non-mathematical concepts. The vast majority of non-mathematical concepts evolve in response to changes in human understanding and circumstance. Changes occur in both the connotations and denotations of concepts expressed via spoken language, even when the words expressing the concepts remain unaltered.

There are, for example, a variety of “open” concepts whose boundaries are inherently fluid. With these concepts, we see regular change both in their connotations and denotations. Concepts like “happiness,” “success,” and “acting morally,” evolve both in terms of their core meanings and regarding the sorts of dispositions or actions that people count as qualifying instances. At one point, or for some people, “being moral” will connote “obeying God.” But at a later point, or for different people, “being moral” will connote “respecting other people’s rights.” And even within a unified and stable connotation of “being moral,” denotation changes will occur when we change our minds about what God commands, or what rights other people actually have.

However, most concepts are more closed than the inherently fluid examples I just mentioned. By “closed” I mean that they are more stable and precisely defined. Because of this, we mainly encounter change in the denotations of concepts. Technological, intellectual, and social progress frequently forces us to alter our understanding of a concept’s denotation without requiring any corresponding change in its connotation.

Consider, for example, the concept identified by the term “skyscraper.” The connotation of “skyscraper” is something like “an unusually tall building.” That connotation has changed little, if any, since the term was first coined. But advances in human engineering have changed the denotation of “skyscraper” dramatically. Whereas an eight-story building qualified as a “skyscraper” once upon a time, the vastly taller buildings of modern cities have driven small buildings entirely out of the concept’s denotation. By this I mean that most people no longer consider eight-story buildings to be skyscrapers. Nor do eight-story buildings come to mind when they hear the term “skyscraper.”

There are numerous examples of such “denotation only” change as it occurs in concepts governing various areas of human life. Terms like “chic,” “reasonable,” “educated,” “masculine,” and “mid-life,” all identify concepts where changes in human circumstance alter a concept’s denotation, while leaving its connotation entirely in tack. Ordinarily, denotation change is a sub-conscious process that few notice as it occurs, and few object to after the fact. But even when denotation change is conscious and deliberate, we frequently welcome it because the updates allow us to more effectively realize our goals.

For example, when new information forces nutritionists to revise their recommendations for maintaining a “healthy diet,” we welcome the denotation adjustment. A “healthy diet” continues to connote “the regular intake of foods contributing to physical health and long life,” and this connotation stability keeps language usable for thought and communication. But the denotation shift provides us with a more accurate understanding of what a “healthy diet” involves, and this renders our application of the concept more effective. That is, it allows us to eat more healthily.

2. Connotation, Denotation, and Textual Interpretation.

The first thing to notice regarding concept evolution and textual interpretation is that connotation shifts are earth shaking in comparison to denotation shifts. It’s one thing to grasp that the concept “healthy diet” no longer denotes the consumption of a particular type or amount of food. It would be quite another thing to be told that “healthy diet” no longer referred to “the regular intake of foods contributing to physical health and long life,” but instead referred to an entirely new set of ideas. Denotation change usually affects only the outer boundaries of a concept. Connotation change, to the contrary, modifies a concept’s essence. This means that connotation change is a far more radical type of meaning change and, for this reason, usually provokes significant interpretive resistance.

The second thing to notice is that the question “What does that term, (or concept, or statement) mean?” requires additional clarification. This is because “mean” in the question “What does that term (or concept, or statement) mean?” can refer to a concept’s connotation only, its denotation only, or both.

Consider the biblical admonition to “love your neighbor as yourself.” A person asking “what does that passage mean?” may alternatively be expressing:

1. Uncertainty about the concept of “love,” in so far as love can be commanded (i.e., uncertainty regarding the connotation of love);

2. Uncertainty about what “love” requires in terms of their actual conduct towards others (i.e., uncertainty regarding the denotation of love);

3. Uncertainty about whether “neighbor” is to be understood relationally, or geographically, or more broadly so as to encompass community members in general (i.e., uncertainty regarding the connotation of "neighbor");

4. Uncertainty about whether a particular person counts as a “neighbor,” even when the criterion for “neighbor” is specified (i.e., uncertainty about the denotation of neighbor).

Such a person may also be confused about:

5. Any combination of these connotation and denotation issues.

Moreover, there are other possible uses of the term “mean” in “What does this term (or concept, or statement) mean?” For example, when a client posses this question regarding the terms of a contract they have entered, they are asking me about the effects of contract terms on their future business activities, e.g. "what does this mean in terms of what I have to do." “Payable on Demand” neither connotes nor denotes asset liquidation, but it may imply this in a particular circumstance. For this reason, this and other uses of the term “mean” must be included in any comprehensive account of textual interpretation. However, because the point of this series of posts is to argue for the legitimacy of a particular interpretive posture regarding constitutional language, I will leave these and other complexities out of the analysis.

Tomorrow (or soon) we'll apply this to our understanding of the constitution.

Joe H.

"Why not Just Kill Them? I Thought I Was Being Sarcastic!

When I wrote this blog entry, I thought I was being sarcastic. I thought, perhaps I can dramatize the importance of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment protections against the government depriving people of their liberty without due process (in an extra judicial program of indefinite detention for people that the government deems "dangerous") by pointing out that the same Amendments also protect people from governmental deprivations of life without due process.

I wasn't really advocating "shooting the bastards." I was trying to advance a reductio argument that took the premise of the indefinite detention proposal and pushed it to its logical (and unthinkable) conclusion.

Unthinkable conclusion? Silly me! It turns out that my "shoot the bastards" proposal is under active consideration by the Obama administration. We, as a nation, are considering allowing people (whom we cannot convict - because we tortured them) to plead guilty to capital crimes so that we can execute them! It is a win win solution. We get rid of the terrorists without obviously violating our constitution, and the people we tortured get to become martyrs.

Are we out of our minds? The only reason we would even consider this is to avoid accountability for our own criminal actions. For years and years we've force fed prisoners at the Guantanamo prison to prevent them from killing themselves as a form of protest over their detention. But we're now considering letting the same people use an extra judicial system of tribunals to kill themselves, so we don't have to face the consequences of our own abusive treatment of them.

For the love of God, what kind of people are we?

And notice what the New York Times called actions that we previously called "torture." "Intense Interrogations." For god's sake, euphemisms that disguise evil are evil.

I am deeply ashamed of us. We've lost our soul as a nation.

Joe H.

Killiing Abortion Providers

In light of the Tiller slaying yesterday, William Saletan makes the same argument here that I made here. The exact same argument is developed here and here.

If the pro-life camp is going to condemn Tiller's killer, they're going to have to rethink their stand on the moral equivalance premise.

Joe H.

This Is How An Open Society Is Destroyed

Decades ago, we passed the Freedom of Information Act. The ideas underlying the FOIA are accepted by almost everyone, at least in principle. Human beings are corruptible and love power. Government is a source of concentrated power. Secrecy facilitates governmental corruption and abuses of power. The best way to guard against corruption and abuses of power is to ensure that the actions of government officials are transparent - that government officials cannot hide their corruption and criminality behind an impenetrable veil of secrecy.

Hence, the Freedom of Information Act.

During the Bush Administration, our soldiers and CIA officials tortured prisoners. They did so systematically and at numerous detention facilities. There are pictures of these abuses. I have not seen many of these pictures. But given the ferocity of the efforts to keep them hidden, and given that senior officials have essentially admitted that some of the photos depict sexual abuse of prisoners by American soldiers, I am convinced that they are horrific.

The Bush Administration refused to disclose these pictures. It argued that to do so would "inflame anti-American sentiment and endanger our troops." Perish the thought that these officials might want to suppress evidence of their rampant criminality to avoid accountability. Perish the thought that these government officials actually ordered the abusive techniques and, in so doing, undermined well ingrained military norms against barbarism - norms enshrined in decades old military, national, and international law. Perish the thought that military and civilian authorities might actually want to protect themselves from embarrassment and/or prosecution. Non! non! non!

Ignore the obvious. Protect the Troops!

This was the Bush Administration's posture. When the ACLU sued under the Freedom of Information Act to get these photographs, the government resisted. The Government lost in court. It then appealed.

During the period when the case was pending, a politically gifted politician ran for president on a platform of change and government transparency. He repeated, as often as he could, that our government must be transparent. That secrecy was the great enemy of democracy, and that his administration would be the most transparent in history.

He Won the election!

But then, the appeal in the ACLU's suit was denied and the government lost - on Obama's watch. The Appeals Court affirmed the District Court's Order requiring the release of the Photos. But what is our current presidential champion of transparency's response? He wants to change the law retroactively to exempt the photographs of miltary barbarism from the Freedom of Information Act.

You think I'm kidding? Read this.

Three times in the last three years, Congress has moved to retroactively change laws that government officials decided (in secret) to violate. In 2006, Congress immunized military officials from prosecution for violations of our torture statute. In 2007, congress granted retroactive immunity to telecom companies that illegally allowed the government to spy on American citizens. And now President "yes we can" Obama wants to legally exempt pictures of military barbarism from the requirements of the FOIA - an act whose sole purpose is to expose governmental criminality when it occurs, and prevent it from occurring by presenting government officials with a constant threat of exposure.

And Obama is seeking this retroactive exemption to protect Bush administration officials. Not his officials. Bush administration officials!

We now regularly change our laws retroactively to protect our leaders when they decide to break the law in secret. If anything could destroy the rule of law, it is this practice. Additionally, we have the spectacle of a president who ran on a platform of the rule of law and governmental transparency, invoking this most dangerous of precedents (retroactive immunity for law breakers) to undermine one of the most important and fundamental laws protecting our form of government (the FOIA). And this President is doing this in response to a Court order upholding the FOIA request.

OBAMA is losing his soul. Bush administration corruption must be so bad that Obama believes its exposure would destroy the nation. But in trying to keep the Bush administration's criminality hidden, Obama's is furthering the project began by Bush administration officials. Obama's actions advance the precedent that government officials are not bound by any existing law, and that the government (not the people) is the final arbiter regarding what the people can know about the government's actions.

This is truly disheartening and disturbing. These are baby steps towards tryanny.

Joe H.